Technology News and IT Business Intelligence

Despite an erroneous headline crossing wire services early this morning, which led blogs and even news services to believe Google had already begun a pullout from China, a Google spokesperson has clarified for Betanews today that no announcement has yet been made about any such pullout.
Declining to speak further on the matter, the spokesperson reiterated an earlier statement, which the spokesperson says remains true as of this moment: “We are in active discussions with the Chinese government. We have also been clear that we will no longer self-censor in China.”

The confusion apparently stems from a statement that Google Deputy General Counsel Nicole Wong made to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, during a hearing on the subject of the alleged attacks on Google and other US online assets last January. Wong told the House, “Google is firm in its decision that it will stop censoring our search results for China. If the option is that we’ll shutter our [Google].cn operation and leave the country, we are prepared to do that.”
Although earlier statements from the Chinese government appeared to corroborate Google’s claims (as well as those made by US State Dept. officials) that it has been in negotiations with Chinese authorities about how to proceed, last week, a vice minister for information denied that talks between China and Google had even begun. In a statement issued through China Daily last Friday, the Information Ministry attempted to “clarify” the contradictory facts by literally stating they coexisted: Google has been, the MIIT now officially states, in direct talks with Chinese authorities, though in an indirect way. (Perhaps this means by e-mail.) No “headway” has been made through these indirect, direct talks, the Ministry added.
Minister Li Yizhong issued what some took to be a threat, until one reads on to the bottom where another self-contradictory clause was added: “If you don’t respect Chinese laws, you are unfriendly and irresponsible, and you will bear the consequences,” Li began. Then the small print: “If Google chooses to stay, that will be beneficial to China’s Internet market and we welcome that,” implying that it will be up to the search company whether it stays or goes.

As expected, Microsoft is opening the gates for the first (probably the only) Release Candidate for Silverlight version 4 today, for developers who have been playing with the beta in Visual Studio 2010 since last November. The message of the day for Monday from Microsoft is Silverlight 4 as the functionality platform for Windows Phone 7 Series. (The “other series,” for now, isn’t being mentioned — at least it wasn’t as of 10:20 Pacific Time this morning.)
(continue reading…)

Now that Microsoft has effectively restarted its mobile strategy afresh with Windows Phone 7 Series, third party developers need a way to dig into the platform. So today, Microsoft announced Windows Phone Developer Tools are now available as a free download at developer.windowsphone.com
(continue reading…)

At this moment, Microsoft is kicking off what is probably the most important MIX conference since 2006, with three make-or-break developments in key product categories taking the spotlight. Since January, the company has dished up a very cloudy picture of Windows Phone, and I don’t mean in the sense of “cloud computing.” That incomplete picture of the company’s newly bifurcated roadmap was perhaps intended to spark anticipation and excitement, but instead in some quarters, it’s sparked outright anger: What is the system that we now know to be Windows Mobile, supposed to become?

Windows Phone, and Windows Other Phone. At CES, we were told to expect the future of Windows Mobile. Correction, we were told later, it’s not Windows Mobile. That particular episode was reminiscent of a 1970s detergent commercial: No, Mrs. Clawson, you’re not using Tide, you’re using new improved Tide! So we had a cute little name change. Correction, no we didn’t, because New Improved and Classic will co-exist. But will they be compatible? Well, suppose Classic edition is called “Starter Series,” or something to that end. If you start at one end of the product line, that naturally implies you’re progressing to the other end, and that implies compatibility, right? Sure. Correction, not necessarily.
(continue reading…)

I risk being tagged a curmudgeon, but I’ll say it anyway: 3D television isn’t ready for prime time. It isn’t ready for your living room, either (or any living room, frankly).
Headlines claiming 3D TV to be the greatest thing since the creation of 2D TV, are sadly more than a little hyperbolic, and I wish the industry would ease back on the PR push to get us to replace our still-new LCD and plasma televisions with 3D versions.

I know this comes as a bit of a disappointment for vendors like Samsung and Panasonic, which last week started selling 3D TVs through US retailers. But anyone who ponies up a triple-digit price premium for the right to wear goofy, overpriced glasses to watch content that doesn’t exist yet and can’t be broadcast over conventional distribution channels is, to put it gently, gullible.
Someday isn’t here yet
Samsung, Panasonic, and other television vendors have been working themselves into a tizzy over 3D TV ever since this year’s Consumer Electronics Show, where 3D TV was the darling. Unfortunately, they’re all in for a very hard lesson. Despite the headlines, breathless press releases, and similarly breathless product reviews, 3D TV has no immediate future in the living room. That may very well change, someday, but it’ll take a whole lot of evolution — in technology, content and marketing — before 3D makes the mainstream leap from movie theaters to living rooms. Here’s why:

No content. While a growing percentage of top-grossing movies over the past couple of years have been 3D, the vast majority of movies and virtually all televised content remain conventional 2D. While Avatar has used breakthrough 3D cinematography to become the most successful movie of all time, it’s an exception to the rule. How many other movies really need the full-on 3D treatment?
No distribution. If you want to watch a 3D movie, you’re buying or renting a 3D Blu-ray disc. Current-generation cable or satellite-based distribution simply can’t support the bandwidth required by a 3D broadcast. Will this change someday? Certainly, and for DirecTV customers, who may have access to a grand total of three 3D channels by June, soon. But for the rest of us, the best you can hope for is a half-resolution 3D signal from your television provider. And don’t be surprised if you’re charged a premium even for that half-baked “solution.” Either way, if you do the math, your fancy new screen will be yesterday’s news by the time the majority of distributors get with the 3D program…assuming they ever do.
No affordability. Every new technology carries a significant premium, and 3D screens are no different. Samsung’s $2,899 package for a 46-inch screen, two sets of glasses, and a Blu-ray player seems rich in a world awash with sub-$1,000 sets. Want more glasses? They’re $250 a pop, a figure which will be inscribed into your brain the moment you discover your five-year-old has left them on the living room floor just as the dog sniffed around for something new to chew. Economies of scale will, as they always eventually do, bring prices down. But do you really want to wear special glasses every time you watch television? As technology advances and potentially (or hopefully) makes glasses unnecessary, will your expensive new acquisition even be compatible? Don’t count on it.
No relevance. 3D has been around in one form or another for decades. It’s had more just-about-finally-almost-here moments than any technology deserves to have. Despite the fact that it’s finally moving past its cheesy/campy movie past and becoming an accepted cinematographic tool, television is an entirely different ballgame. We don’t watch TV like we watch movies. The typical TV viewing session isn’t an event. Watching the local news, Stephen Colbert, or the mercifully last few episodes of Lost will never qualify as events, either. And I don’t want to see my local weather dude in 3D any more than I want to feel as if I can touch Mr. Colbert as he faux-grills his guests. Although 3D adds some value to some admittedly limited forms of entertainment (such as movies), it adds patently none to the vast majority of today’s televised content.
I understand the full-court press to move us all into 3D TV. Manufacturers are hurting. After spending most of the decade coaxing us out of our now all-but-gone CRT-based televisions and into bigger, flashier and, yes, more expensive LCD and plasma flat panels, they sat quietly by as we hunkered down though the recession. Now they want — nay, need — for us to have an entirely new reason to buy new stuff. There’s always got to be a reason to drive the consumer need to replace things before their time. And if this year’s reason doesn’t take off, watch for next year’s CES to carry an entirely different theme.
When my Betanews colleague Tim Conneally called it kids-stuff in an article last week, he was uncomfortably (for vendors) close to the truth. For all the novelty value of watching a 3D movie on a properly equipped home theatre, the realities of content and economics mean it’ll be a long time before any of this is as routinely workable as regular old 2D HDTV is today.
Dreams don’t always come true
In the ideal world, vendors announcing products based on radically new technologies would be greeted by thunderous applause and near-universal approval from rapturous consumers eager to spend whatever it takes to remain current. In the real world, however, announcements are rarely met with such unmitigated adulation. Buyers who have seen and heard it all before are growing tired of overly optimistic vendor claims, and are rightfully challenging them. In many cases, they’re simply ignoring them outright.
That seems to be happening in my immediate circle of friends and colleagues, where no one has any plans to replace their current equipment with 3D anytime soon. Their universal conclusion — which I share — is it’s too early, and too many additional pieces have to come into play before it becomes a reasonable and reasonably affordable choice for consumers. As hard as vendors have decided to push their 3D wares in 2010, they’re dreaming in three-dimensional Technicolor if they think this is the year the mass television market moves beyond two dimensions.

Now that buzz about Apple’s patent lawsuit against HTC has quieted a bit, I’m ready to pipe in with some contrarian analysis. I agree with other pundits suggesting that the lawsuit is competition by litigation, where Apple hopes to scare off mobile manufacturers from licensing Android. Surely some handset manufacturers will pull back, but they would be foolish to do so. For other existing and potential Android licensees, the lawsuit is a get out of jail free card. Apple’s patent case should embolden, not restrain them. There may never be a better time to license Android than now.
Apple claims infringement of 20 patents related to iPhone’s user interface. Engadget’s March 2nd patent breakdown is a must-read clinical analysis. But there’s more to competition by litigation than the actual patents. Lawsuits often aren’t so much about what’s right but what lawyers think they can prove; often the winner tells the more believable story, even in patent cases. Similarly, much strategy goes into lawsuits — how they’re presented, where they’re filed and when. Then, of course, there is whom. In this case, Apple took on HTC and not Google. Now why is that?

Apple’s initial goals have little to do with protecting intellectual property as much as scaring away competitors. I hone in on this because Apple chose not to sue Google, Android’s major developer, but instead the largest licensee of the mobile operating system. HTC’s Sense UI gives Apple a bit more range to single out the one manufacturer, but based on various analyses of the patents that’s more bark than bite.
Why HTC and not Google?
Why not sue Google? Eight primary reasons:
1) Apple potentially gains more by scaring off potential Android licensees than engaging in a protracted patent lawsuit. It’s easier and more effective to raise bluster (and loads of free press) by engaging HTC than Google. Meanwhile, Apple can drag out the lawsuit as a distraction for HTC and other (frightened) Android licensees — for years.
2) Apple doesn’t want to take on Google, which already has come to HTC’s defense. Google would fiercely fight Apple, understanding that mobile devices are the future of search and advertising.
3) Apple needs Google more than Google needs Apple. Unless Apple is willing to switch to Bing — not a good idea considering iPhone buyer demographics — Google search and maps are a necessary evil. If Google is willing to play tough with China, Apple is easy enough for Google to snuff off. Apple won’t take on Google from a weaker position.
4) HTC is somewhat disadvantaged, being a Taiwan-based company. Google has home-court advantage (like Apple), making it a much more formidable opponent than HTC.
5) Patent lawsuits take years to resolve, hence Apple’s separate complaint with the International Trade Commission. Again, Apple is using scare tactics to psychologically attack existing and potential Android licensees. So, this is quite similar to No. 1.
6) The patent claims are likely not as sure as they appear. Since most of the claims are really about Android, Google is the more sensible target of any lawsuit. If Apple lawyers were truly confident of winning against Google — and in reasonable timeframe, they would file lawsuit against the search giant.
7) Android’s open-source status creates all kinds of logistical and legal problems for Apple. The company really doesn’t want to be labeled with a big Scarlet Letter as an open-source opponent. Apple has benefitted from open-source community development. It’s a vocal group Apple doesn’t want to piss off. Then there are all the nasty legal issues and potentially damaging precedents should Apple make a frontal open-source assault.
The iPhone-Android phone market looks much like the Mac-Windows PC market did in the 1980s and 1990s. Apple unsuccessfully sued Microsoft for infringing on Macintosh user-interface intellectual property. The lawsuit dragged on for years, ending in settlement in 1997. But what if in the early days of the Windows PC, Apple had sued clone king Compaq instead? Compaq was more vulnerable to a UI copyright claim than Microsoft, and other DOS/Windows licensees would have received the message to back off. By attacking HTC, Apple hopes to prevent a repeat “us against everyone else” scenario.
What Apple Fears
Apple has good reasons to fear Android. In the three months from December to February, Android’s US smartphone subscriber share shot up from 2.8 percent to 7.1 percent. Worldwide, in 2009, Android smartphone market share — based on sales — rose from 0.5 percent to 3.9 percent, according to Gartner (The first Android phone, the T-Mobile G1, shipped in late 2008). Last month, Google CEO Eric Schmidt asserted that 60,000 Android handsets are shipping by the day.
All this circles back to my claim that the patent lawsuit is a bluff. My reasoning:
1) Apple chose HTC, not Google. There is no immediate risk to any patent claims against HTC. Since the real claims are against Google, Apple may find the court — or even the ITC — reluctant to rule against an Android licensee in good faith. There is perceived risk, but none in the short term, which is long enough for a united Android front to do market damage against iPhone — particularly in emerging markets.
2) Apple filed against HTC and not other licensees. Apple had its chance to take on Android licensees, choosing instead to go after one. HTC is enough:
If the claims are shaky.
If Apple is looking for one case to establish precedent.
If the more immediate objective is to scare off existing or would-be Android licensees.
HTC being enough for this lawsuit isn’t enough to legally or even logistically hurt other Android licensees.
3) Apple is unlikely to sue other Android licensees anytime soon. A good legal strategy — from cost and logistical perspectives — is to make a single case. Rather than being afraid, existing and would-be Android licensees should feel emboldened by the HTC lawsuit. Behind the bluster, Apple has really given the all clear — it’s safe to go ahead; that’s Apple’s tell. Apple’s bluff is meant to convince other licensees that they can’t win; so they lay down their Android hands. Yes, Apple could file against other Android licensees, but the only immediate benefit would be to create more fear — that licensees should fold their hands. Hardware manufacturers should look at Google’s backing HTC; there is a heavy-sitting ally at the table across from Apple.

So it’s been a few weeks since Google Buzz launched, and because I’m a good little geek-soldier who eats his own (figurative) dog food, I’ve invested lots of time to learn how it works and, more importantly, how it can work for me. Although I’m doing my best to be an optimist, I can’t seem to warm up to Buzz. Yes, folks, I think I’m falling out of like with Google’s new social media darling service.
Or, to be blunt, Google Buzz sucks.
(continue reading…)

One of Microsoft’s major justifications for the Yahoo search deal is scale. CEO Steve Ballmer has repeatedly asserted that greater scale would allow Microsoft to improve search accuracy. Just last week he told Search Marketing Expo West attendees: “The ability to put together Yahoo’s volumes and Microsoft’s volumes and use that in a way that improves the experience more, let’s call it all involved parties, we think is absolutely fantastic.”
(continue reading…)

Following up on last week’s beta release of Opera Mini 5 for Windows Mobile 5 and 6, Opera software today launched Opera Mini 5 for the Android platform.
With Mini 5, Opera Software has managed to make a cross-platform browser that provides an almost uniform experience across all the operating systems it runs on. Today’s release on Android feels almost identical to the version I tested last week.
However, with Android, we’re taking a different look at Opera and its comparisons to other browsers. It’s easy to say, “Oh, Opera is faster than IE Mobile, but not as comprehensive as Skyfire,” when comparing browsers on Windows Phones. Everybody does that.
Because there are four different versions of Google’s mobile operating system in circulation right now, there are at least three different native Android browsers to compare Opera Mini 5 to. Android versions 1.5 and 1.6 have an older version (v. 4.0) of the Android browser, while Android 2.0 and up have a browser with a new UI and new features. Android 2.1 has the same browser as 2.0, but it is endowed with multitouch gestures.
We tested Opera Mini 5 against the two main Android browsers.
Opera Mini 5 on Android 1.5 & 1.6
For devices that run upon the “Cupcake” and “Donut” builds of Android, Opera Mini 5 provides a number of different experiences from the stock browser. First, Opera provides an actionable address bar which can just be clicked upon to enter URLs. In Android Browser 4, the user has to tap Menu > Go to bring up the address bar. Secondly, Zooming in and out with the Android browser is done with the preview tool and magnifying glass buttons, but Mini 5’s is mostly pre-ordained. If you set it to “mobile view,” pages are formatted to fit your screen so you don’t have to do too much resizing. However, Mini 5 defaults with mobile view off and full screen mode off, so your pages are first going to load very quickly, but will require zooming (done by double-tapping the screen, a gesture that Android Browser version 4 actually lacks).
When considering Mini 5’s interface alone, it’s not a significant improvement over the stock browser. However there’s much more to love about Opera than its UI, so we’ll talk more about that later.
Next: Opera Mini 5 on Android 2.0+…
Devices running Android 2.0 and beyond are generally equipped with stronger processors, so browsing with the stock Android browser is a tough experience to compete with. Fortunately for Opera Mini 5, the experience it provides on these devices actually holds up quite well thanks to some of the features it adds that Android lacks across the board.
Principal among these is tabbed browsing. In all Android browsers, your browser tabs are a whole sub-screen which pulls you out of your current window and into a new one. In Opera Mini, browser tabs appear as an overlay in your main window with a rack of thumbnails that can be chosen from. This adds a lot to the feeling of continuity within Opera, and is an area where the Android browser suffers.
Another major complaint about the Android browser is that it does not sync your mobile bookmarks with anything. They’re currently something of a dead end. This has been a big argument in favor of the Dolphin browser, which offers that feature. Even better, however, is Opera Mini 5, which actually can sync to your desktop version of Opera with Opera Link. So if you’re a desktop Opera user, not only will your Speed Dial screen be automatically populated, but it also gives you instant access to your bookmark folders and RSS feeds.
The final issue to mention when talking about any of Opera’s products is the addition of server-side rendering. Pages in Opera Mini 5 are digested on an Opera server before they hit your device’s screen, so browsing is sped up considerably. Though browsing on a 3G connection is enjoyable on all Android devices, Opera Mini 5 can knock out pages appreciably faster.
So what’s the bottom line on this beta?
It’s a “Must Have” if:
You’re a desktop Opera user using Android 1.5 or 1.6.
It’s a “Must Try” if:
You’re in an area with poor 3G coverage using Android 1.5 or 1.6.
For everyone else, it will be worthwhile to play around with it and see if you like what Opera does. After all, it is the most popular mobile browser in the world.
Opera Mini 5 beta can be downloaded today in the Android Market.

The danger with waging a populist political war is in potentially boiling down one’s message to such a degree that it ends up insulting and patronizing the very people the message is targeting. The case in point could not be made clearer this afternoon in Washington, DC, as The Hill’s Kim Hart first discovered: A handful of otherwise unnoticeable protestors outside the headquarters of the National Association of Broadcasters erected an 18-foot inflatable pig, bearing the message, “Fair Pay for Musicians.”
The pig has become the mascot of the MusicFirst Coalition, the performers’ rights agency that collects and distributes royalties. For the last few years, MusicFirst has campaigned extensively against the decades-old exemption of terrestrial radio broadcasters (as opposed to Internet radio) from paying performers’ royalties. Stations continue to pay royalties to rights holders, which in the end, include many of the recording industry institutions also represented by MusicFirst.
(continue reading…)