* Posts by RegisterThis

164 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Jan 2010

Page:

How Nokia and Microsoft will carve up mobile services

RegisterThis
Thumb Up

Plus they are more operator friendly ...

"Microsoft's store will take advantage of the operator billing that Nokia has been able to put into place."

That is a key. The dumb-bit-pipe model is broken for operators. They have to share in the revenue model as in the traditional brick and mortar world of retailing or go out of business.

Nokia and Microsoft give them a far better chance than Apple (almost ZERO) and Google (following Apple without knowing why?). In Nokia they have somebody with a heritage and a deeper understanding of the operators challenges in their core business through their historic Nokia Networks business and their now (seemingly turning around?) JV of Nokia Siemens Networks.

Unliike Apple a portion of their business is selling to operators the very kit that helps operators deliver Apples, Googles - and now the Nokiasoft business model. Unlike Apple and Google, Nokia cannot afford to'sh1t where they eat'. For them, operators need to get their ROI on network rollout and this inevitably means that the value chain needs to start at the front and trickle down to the likes of MS, Apple and Google. If they don't, then their network business will suffer.

So I am not surprised to hear that operators 'welcome' the partnership as another 'competitor' - although i suspect they really mean a more sympathetic player. I suspect the large operator groups will make Nokiasoft very attractive with pricing options.

Apple iOS app hunger swells

RegisterThis

Nope ... Business development ...

Hour <> emailing, but also checking and referencing emails. 1 hour not really much ... only 60 minutes really?

PS - I think you missed my dripping sarcasm at that line you quoted about sms. Our friend FanMan had listed that as one of his other really useful Apps which just blew me away for the sheer sheepleness!

RegisterThis
Troll

@FanBoy (FanMan???)

So I assume that you are a "widely travelling 60 year old corporate type" who only uses email for 7 minutes per day then?

Personally I doubt that myself or any of my colleagues use our smartphones (Blackberry, Nokia and iPhone) anything less than an hour a day for email, so excuse my pontification from a position of ignorance. (i.e. out the office, checking and replying to email before/after work, during commutes, during meetings ... and even when it is just easier to look at the phone at the desk rather than switch from what you are currently doing to outlook).

Of course the iPhone users probably do use mail a little less as they are nursing the batteries of their "mobile (no)powerhouses" through the day ...

PS. I just spotted "Messages (SMS) can be used when data roaming switched off". WOW! Yeah, you should salute Jobs for that. Real Genius. I hope the other manufacturers copy that ...

RegisterThis
Troll

and clearly illustrates lack of Enterprise penetration by Apple?

84 minutes per day using your phone and only 7 using mail clearly indicates very low penetration of the iPhone in the corporate market!

But of course all any of this tells us is about the profile of person who signs up for Appsfire (rich college kids with too much time on their hands?)

Memo to Microsoft, RIM, Nokia: Quit copying Apple!

RegisterThis
Thumb Down

From a 'Coolness' perspective?

"It stinks to be number two in a market. Or worse, number three. But that's the position that most consumer technology companies find themselves in today, at least compared to Facebook, Google, and Apple."

Apple is NOT #1 in 'PC' shipments, phone shipments or OS shipments unless your measure is market capitalisation ... which it clearly isn't because you include facebook? Or your measure is the 'love-o-meter' of all things 'cool' or press column inches? But it would be very uncool to talk of Microsoft or Nokia (or even ZTE as a handset vendor ... gasp... yep more handsets made than Apple!) or Samsung who in much consumer tech have a hang of a lot more customers!

Sorry El Reg ... article lost me when it started on a premise based on popularity and not consistent measurable numbers!

Huawei moves to stop Nokia's Motorola grab

RegisterThis
WTF?

Pot ... kettle ... ?

Huawei were renowned for ripping off others technology for years and have had numerous lawsuits brought against it by the other NEVs over the years while happily hiding in China behind lax IP laws and doing most of its business in countries where they wouldn't give a ...

HTC Desire Z Android Qwerty smartphone

RegisterThis

@spegru

I know that debate of bigger screen vs. keyboard - something I am working through!

I used to think the physical keyboard was essential for typing, but it really seems as though swype makes a massive difference in the speed for typing on virtual keyboards closing the WPM gap on physical. Of course you still have to look down as obviously there is no touch typing ...

The bigger thing driving me towards the larger screen now is the fact that as I get older, I think my eyes are not quite as good as they used to be :-)

A 3rd element of my dilemma is battery ... big screen smartphones need to last 2 days with moderate to heavy use. I am coming from a Nokia E72 and the biggest gripe I always have from my iPhone toting colleagues is battery life ... to the point that they occasionally even borrow my phone to make calls when they are travelling to preserve the little battery they have left to receive calls.

It really is ridiculous and the makers need to put higher capacity batteries in these things ... even if it costs more! No point having the kit and having to nurse the very thing that should be helping you live an easier life ...

Apple seeks touchscreen display mouse patent

RegisterThis

Would love to know who downvoted you ...

Its like a downvote of common sense and intelligent thought!

Intel: Microsoft's ARM-on-Windows deal no threat

RegisterThis

Creation vs Consumption

'Create' is becoming the new 'consume' ???

Interesting thought that ... I thought consumer tech was swinging away from 'creation'? Certainly Apple's whole view of consumer tech is primarily on consumption and not creation and a lot of punters seem to buy into that? I am sure thing move in cycles so this could change, but currently I do not see the momentum swinging to 'create' or else the Apple iPad and legion of clones would have been based on their full OS and not the mobile iOS version with just about zero easy-to-use support for creation?

Content creation may be growng, but I suspect that the proportion of consumers purchasing devices for this purpose is smaller than those purchasing devices focussed on consumption? Plus creation today does not necessarily equal desktop PC requirements as higher MP counts become commonplace in phones with the functionality to perform light editing and upload directly to FB et al. And power IS important for these devices hence ARMs dominance.

The question is really what Microsoft thinks (or knows) it can do. My guess is an attempt to have a unified OS across desktop and mobile offerings even if certain features are disabled on platforms requiring more oomph. MS cannot be blind to the advances ARM have made and the future market for mobile / embedded computing is way larger than the current desktop market.

Ballmer says Windows on ARM isn't about ARM

RegisterThis

@Steven Bloomfield

My thoughts too ... maybe WP7 UI becomes a skin on top of W8? (Like the Android approach?)

Re: unified Windows OS, I would think this is M$'s only chance ... to exploit their desktop power in seamless interoperation with mobile devices. They tried in the past with Windows mobile and failed ... and now departed with WP7 ... but ultimately, the argument for having 100% seamless interoperability between desktop, laptop, slate and phone is pretty compelling! I would buy that becauze at least 8 hours a day of my working life is spent on M$ laptops/desktops and true seamless interoperability with my mobile devices would be make my life easier.

RegisterThis

@Steve Davies 3

I think you will be proven wrong ... the 'internet of things' is around the corner and ARM chips will be powering a lot of that. There will be a lot more microprocessors being soled for 'things' than PC's in the future, and M$ needs to play in that market. If they don't, then the mobile players will (remember M$ are nowhere here) and Google et al will soon be encroaching on M$ traditional PC and server market with their offerings. M$ cannot afford not to do this. What is most telling is just how much they played down the Intel relationship as becoming less important ... certainly the market did not miss the reality here and piled into ARM shares while Intel dropped. The issue here is not so much about M$, but that ARM is really the future and Intel isn't!

RegisterThis
Paris Hilton

@Hans 1 Re: Bloat on ARM?

"I am not going into the ui side of things, the Windows ui is not made for touch devices."

Last time I checked, I do most of my WORK on non-touch devices ... and I suspect most of the world does too? The point is ARM is moving into traditional Intel/AMD desktop PC territory!

Paris, cause she is an unbloated touch device with ARMs

Google 'open' nonsense brainwashes US gov

RegisterThis

Because Google is wrapping their interests as basic rights ...

The single biggest issue behind growing network congestion (currently ... and focussed on wireless here) is the growth of media streaming and in particular video which is about the worst gobbler of bandwidth. Youtube (i.e. Google) is clearly one of the biggest goblers of bandwidth when you profile network data usage, it is obvious that it uses a disproportionate amount of bandwidth and so is the target of a lot of throttling and managemenbt by the service providers. (Note that this is so that the majority of people NOT watching youtube get a decent experience ... ok semi-decent experience). Of course Google does not want its service being throttled becasue that affects its business. That they are affected most is coincidence ... and are not targeted specifically - although service providers around the world with blunt tools may choose to use a Youtube URL to do this which clearly would run foul of these regulations in the US as the target should be throttling all video in a congested cell and not just Googles. The deception is that Google wrap *its interests* (people getting their Youtube fix + Google goodness) as a general interest ... but hey who is going to complain fi you are getting your Mountainview giggles. The reality is that with the *current* capacity issues, *most people* are better off with casual video streaming being downgraded as traffic priority. Note - I use 'current* to indicate that the ideals are good, but unrealistic - and 'casual video streaming' to distinguish between Youtube and the guaranteed bandwidth needs of say IP TV subscriptions.

Feds please no one with first official net neut rules

RegisterThis
Thumb Up

Nail on the Head

"However, audio and visual media suppliers and users are the ones with most to gain from the subsidy, hence the strength of lobbying on grounds of ostensible democracy, fairness, etc."

Yep - that is ultimately it ... the politics of this is about votes and not 'fairness' - nobody wants the internet or their entertainment to cost more so the media lobby has the loudest voice and the government is determined to 'let the people eat cake'

RegisterThis
Thumb Up

@Michael C 'You got what you wanted...'

I guess so ... in spirit I actually agree with the ideals behind it, but there is too much lobbying (new media) behind this (the Obama/Google relationship is well documented) at a time when the market is not mature enough for it IMHO. More transparency is welcome and the surprise to Jo Public will probably be how little granularity for prioritisation a lot of network operators actually have and how blunt their tools are. The other shock is that no service provider I have spoken to about policy control (traffic management) has ever been devoid of concern for customer experience in all of this wanting to try and make usage as fair as possible. Nice post.

RegisterThis

I do get it ...

"Sorry to piss on your party, but *I* pay for my internet connection and as such expect to use it for what a damn well like. I don't want my ISP, who might well be in an oligopolistic position, to dictate what I can access freely or not."

> Then you are going to have to pay more and surely that is the prerogative of the company offering the service ... except the government (and you) want to say no? As I said, the operators are not shaping traffic because they want to ... it costs them (I sell traffic management solutions) ... but they have to for (i) economic reasons (cost of supplying additional capacity is not paid for by the additional usage) and (ii) YOUR own experience (10% of the subscribers typically use 90% of the capacity ... that means that Joe average has to share 10% with 90% of the other users)

"At the end of the day, I pay my ISP to be a "dumb pipe" whether they like it or not"

> The 'dumb pipe' model does not work except in the mind of those who wish it to. You unfortunately WILL have to change your mindset as fundamentally the cost of supplying additional usable consumer capacity exceeds the additional revenue received from it. The 'dumb-bit-pipe' mindset says low value so operators cannot raise the price. Basically, they will go out of business if something does not change ... either the 'dumb' bit-price price goes up (you don't want to pay it) OR apple, yahoo, google et. al. participate in the value chain so the 'bits' reflect the value received better (not all quite so 'dumb' and these should be priced higher) ... or the governments will have to start funding the rollout. In a sesne the last one is ironic as the view is increasingly as a utility ... the difference is that historic utilities were rolled out by governments ... this may end up working the other way around.

"and I expect them to sell what they can deliver."

> Then I assume you are happy to pay for a certain guaranteed Quality of Service i.e. pay extra for traffic shaping :-)

RegisterThis

Typical bland regulation which fails to understand the issues ...

"I would have preferred a general ban to discourage broadband providers from engaging in 'pay for priority' —prioritizing the traffic of those with deep pockets while consigning the rest of us to a slower, second-class Internet," he wrote. He also wanted complete parity for wireline and wireless.

After all, the Internet is the Internet, no matter how you access it, and the millions of citizens going mobile nowadays for their Internet and the entrepreneurs creating innovative wireless content, applications and services should have the same freedoms and protections as those in the wired context,"

- The operators don't prioritise traffic just because they feel like it ... they have to ... and it costs them to actually do it ... in money, complexity, aggravation!

- Who has largely paid for internet now ... before homes had it, rollout was funded almost entirely by commercial and academic use

- Paying for priority is typically paying over the odds because you have deep pockets i.e. it funds the quality received on the "second-class internet" too?

- Wireline and wirless face very different technological challenges you know - so need to be treated differently

- Since when was access to a resource for entrepreneurial gain a right? Maybe desirable, but hey, there are plenty of people who would love to start businesses that cannot because of high barriers to entry in other sectors ... what makes this so different? The only thing is a mindset that says the internet is that plug in the wall and a freetard mindset. Come on ... it is a resource somebody else has created, paid for ... pay to operate ... and just like any other sector, you have to pay to use it! Either that or nationalise the damn thing and then the government can fund it.

Nokia sues Apple in European courts

RegisterThis

Agree re: this, but part of a bigger game started by Apple ...

I agree that some of this stuff is lame (most software stuff is!), but the original patents regarding some of the radio stuff is not. I suspect this is part of the game for Nokai to get paid their dues there.

As Nokia pointed out at the time they first filed:

- They spent billions on R&D for the radios and protocal stacks. That is not just a patent for a 'software method to do X,Y,Z by checking A, B and C and correlating with input Y in software' ... but stuff that took labs, expensive equipment and highly trained experts from multiple disciplines and real world tests to develop that has real impact i.e. you can or you cannot connect (... something Apple doesn't actually care about!)

- This was spent over 20 years. These radio and protocol patents are not just software algorithms that somebody designed for a touch UI and a few spotty nerds build a prototype for in a few days. It is stuff involving interaction with many bits of other equipment and costing a lot in terms of building and refining.

- Regarding the radio stuff they were suing for, they are being paid royalties for by most of the other manufacturers ... if the other manufacturers recognise that there mobile handset is based on other peoples long and costly R&D, why can't Apple? Freeloading is the word that comes to mind!

Angry Birds find new way to take your money

RegisterThis

and Apple's challenge ...!

Apple set itself up in competition to the operator: 'You will just be a dumb bitpipe and we will own the customers ... you will get less and we will get more even if your service is ESSENTIAL to us actually being able to deliver our Apps or media'. So far the operators have 'tolerated' it because being able to sell the iPhone has meant the operator has been able to attract the high value contract customers where they got exclusivity. With the rise of Android and increasingly desirable and credible alternatives to the iPhone, this point of leverage gets less, and dealing with a Nokia/Ovi becomes more tolerable because it places the operator back in the value chain. Note I say 'value chain', because they were part of the supply chain, but totally divorced from the value of the service.

Of course, what value there is in Angry Birds is debateable, but fools are soon parted with their money and the operators (key component in making it happen) want their slice.

Apple iPhone 4 vs... the rest

RegisterThis

iPhone 75%? Did I see right?

Mmmm ... I am not an iPhone fan, and even I would have given it more ... but then again, I guess it is more a case of *losing points* with antennagate and the stupid slippery 'bar-of-soap' glass design etc.

The bottom line is there are hang of a lot of good smartphones around catering for different tastes, the Suit (Blackberry), the Playboy Exec (iPhone), the Trendite (iPhone), the Mobile Junkie (Androids), the Techie (Androids) ... the Teen Texter (Blackberry?) ...

EU telecoms to Apple, Google: 'Pay up!"

RegisterThis

@Tom35

Q: "Why would you expect Apple to pay you so you can fix up your store, it's not their problem if you want to sell at a loss."

A: I assume you mean the mall owner (telco)? It is Apple's (for example) problem if the malls are so overcrowded that nobody can buy from them? Furthermore, this highlights the problem between online and B&M world vendors. In the 'real world', the store owner pays his rental to the developer for the shop size, and even indirectly for the access to his shop through the rates etc. that the mall owner pays and are included in his rent. You the consumer pay the store owner and he pays a portion to the mall owner, govt etc. for the facilities. This is totally destroyed in the online world as the value for the ACCESS is decoupled from the value you get from receiving the goods. Instead you pay for the access direct to the mall owner, govt etc. and of course access by itself is of little value? (How much would you pay to just walk around a mall vs. how much would you pay if you were charged access to collect a DVD you had ordered ... clearly you would pay more for the priovilege of getting the DVD than browsing. The problem is that as long as Google etc. have the direct relationship with the customer, the mall owner slowly goes bancrupt. The business model has to change and Google et al of course don't want it to as it means the overall cost of their 'electronic products' become less attractive compared to bricks and mortar.

"The telecoms are like UPS or the post office. They get paid for shipping packets."

That was the shift in the perception of Telcos a few years ago following the dot com crash hat they are just 'utilities'. The current business model based on that clearly indicates they are not even though it tries to make them out to be that. UPS or Post Office is NOT a good analogy - you only use them when you have something you want ordered or shipped, and I bet downloading an album costs less than shipping a CD. This has to change, and as I pointed out, you don't want to pay for the low value consumption of browsing or 'trying', but the telco cannot distinguish this beahviour from the high value behaviour of dowbnloading an album. Rather the online vendor has to charge you and pass on the true delivery cost commensurate with the value you place on downloading that album (as in the decision you would make to pay for postage to have the CD delivered). This means their prices have to go up.

RegisterThis
Grenade

Sorry you were voted down for telling the truth ...

Seems like this article invoked some kind of Daily Mail Rage against the network operators where all sense stopped and nobody is even interested that most networks are about to break?

Even down to the one response to you about us being the customers and not Google et al. Laughable! Must be some Google or Apple evangelist writing that! And the result is that we have everybody queuing volunteering for us to pay more instead of the content providers at the end of the value chain? Has nobody worked out that we are the onyl ones NOT making money out of this? Let the content providers pay their shop rentals and delivery costs they have avoided for so many years!

RegisterThis

@fisherman

Your cable illustration is a perfect example of what should be happning, but isn't! The problem is that it should be a value chain just as in any other business (Your buy from Supermarket, who pays the wholesaler, who pays the farmer etc.) and the end price to you reflects ALL the input costs. That happens with Cable as you point out - you do not pay the TV Channels individually directly! To continue your analogy here, you should be paying Vodafone for the App you download from the Apple App store and, as you correctly point out, Vodafone should be paying Apple its share. But that does not happen and you pay Apple directly. The unfortunate result is that this distorts the value chain: (1) because you pay the operator for MB usage which is pretty commoditised and in and of itself no measures of the value of what you may or may not be getting, the operators are stuck in terms of putting up prices, and (2) Apple et al can sell at a vastly reduced price because they don't bare the delivery cost. The net effect is that the total of what you pay Apple+the operator is lower than the actual costs to deliver it. Operators would jump at a NORMAL value chain model (Like the Cable example), but Apple and Google are wanting to keep that direct relationship with the customer, meaning the operators are left selling commoditised and low value MB (at best if based on usage) and unable to make a profit.

RegisterThis

@RU

1. I did not say free - I said: 'the content sellers have had it really good delivering more and more with _little increase in cost_ to themselves'. Very little of their cost is based on usage - it is typically leased line and is not where the capacity issue lies.

2. "flawed business model" - you hit the nail on the head. The sellers in this equation delivering their services through the telcos need to pay more? You know very well that you can setup an online business (say selling eBooks) for a lot less cost than a traditional bricks and mortar comapny partly because of the low cost of 'rental' (your store front delivered via the telco) and 'delivery' (delivered via the telco). This business model IS changing and the Telcos are telling Google, Yahoo, Amazon etc. that they are gonna have to pay higher rent and delivery costs which is very fair? They are selling services ... they get to set the prices!

3. Your last paragraph analysis is flawed. At current price levels, they get zero return on increasing network capacity. If they raise their prices and lose customers, they get even less return. Most operators networks would come to a grinding halt in the developed world if they had a surge from their competitor who had just raised prices. You are right they have painted themselves into a corner, but they are not the ones propping up a flawed business model ... they are the ones trying to change it. The world is just about to discover that the costs of doing online business is not quite so cheap anymore. The Googles and Apples of this world are the ones with soaring profits and share prices ... I think you will see most telcos SPs are depressed and are struggling to remain profitable. It is in Google and Apple's interests to play along as they DEPEND on the operators to deliver their services and SOMEBODY has to pay. I vote it is the corporates and not the consumer?

RegisterThis
Thumb Up

@CheesyTheClown

Most balanced non Google-washed analysis so far. I cannot believe most consumers here want to pay for Google et al to make more money.

RegisterThis
WTF?

What?

If telcos cut Google off, Google goes out of business .... not the telcos? Since when does a roof survive after the walls have been removed? You HAVE been drinking too much Googleberry juice ...

RegisterThis

Good points re IMS ... but ...

The fundamental issue is that there is no such thing as a free lunch ... somebody has to pay for very expensive network/capacity upgrades. Whether 3GPP works or not, it was an attempt to address an unsustainable business model which does need to be addressed. If it was a crowded mall, who would pay for the renovations? The tenants or the customers coming? It seems here that we have been so Apple-washed and Google-smitten that we are suggesting we should pay and they should get richer?

RegisterThis

@Martijn Bakker

Its actually a little bit of both. Traditional business has a cost called 'delivery'. Typically when you order something, you pay the seller, and they pay for the delivery using a 'logistics company'. This has traditionally not happened for online electronically delivered (logistics=telco) content - the content sellers have had it really good delivering more and more with little increase in cost to themselves.

It seems wholly reasonable that this model should come in line with traditional business models? I don't really understand the outrage at the operators here? The alternative is that you buy* from the content providers AND YOU pay the extra required now for delivery? Its a double sided business model and is actually nothing new ... just that this industry was not employing this and using an unsustainable business model until now?

NB - by content and buy, I include click revenue etc that has been growing at cost to the 'logistics firms' and not the people who get revenue from them.

RegisterThis
Flame

Maybe El Reg Needs to do a Proper Piece on This?

Most of the rage against operators is totally unfounded here (misrepresentation and greed charges aside!). This is a serious issue for operators and one which threatens all the OTT (Over the top) services you 'need'.

Here are a bit of history and a few facts:

- Traditional revenue from operators comes from voice. This has been commoditised, but STILL represents the majority of their revenue

- When operators initially got screwed by governments around the world with the 3G auctions, the only way they could encourage service uptake, was through flat rate plans

- What eventually drove service uptake was actually the iPhone and other smartphones i.e. usable screen size adn apps

- Operators now face a situation where data traffic represents the majority of their traffic and is growing) - but the revenue is not!

- It costs operators (with many open questions - so no real solution yet) to implement pay-as-you-use tariffs for consumers

- Currently, most of the operqtors are making a loss on the data: Usage is growing faster than revenue and the costs of additional capacity exceeds the additional revenue they receive from upgrading this!

- The technology available to the operators to upgrade the technology is also far from set in stone in terms of standards or even provenness i.e. very risky currently to invest in.

For all those 'outraged' at operators making this suggestion, there is fundamentally NO ROI from operators to solve this problem themselves i.e. they will go out of business. May I suggest that from a consumer perspective, this is the best solution: the alternatives are operators going out of business (less competition, higher prices), consolidation (less competition, higher prices) ... or being bought and controlled by the content providers (less choice, competition and higher prices).

Either the free-loader content providers pay (not totally free-loader, but increasingly getting more revenue for themselves without their input costs increasing) ... or YOU do! Personally considering I only pay for internet usage and they earn revenue from it, they should pay more and not me ... its the cost of them doing business with me ... think of it as the cost of distribution going up ... at worst that should be shared ...at best for me the consumer, born by the provider.

Google sees printing in the cloud

RegisterThis

@muninsfire - Good points ...

Cloud has reached a stage of hype where every article desperately needs 'segmentation' by user and use-case to make sense of the 'general references'.

The problem is that the business case for cloud is driven largely by the corporate market i.e. 30% of corporates own data centre resources standing idle etc., economies of scale from sharing infrastructure etc. Typically these 'clouds' are not 'open', but 'closed' ... albeit globally to a multinationals offices (and their home workers/road warriors?). These promise a good ROI for investing in cloud for data storage, SAAS etc., so they pay good money and get good SLA's and guarantees against data loss etc.

Contrast this with the 'consumer cloud bandwagon' now, which is dominated by 'the internet is (almost) free' mindset (Dropbox, mozzie etc.), or subsidised by advertising (Google) or protecting revenue steams (Apple) etc. Cloud is a 'means to an end' for these guys and as a result we, as consumers get no SLA or guarantees of data security. It is entertainment, file sharing and syncing driven ... the ROI is relatively small for consumers paying for this service (largely unquantifiable as it is 'convenient') ... and despite the marketing, the lack of guarantees says any cloud service for consumers is essentially auxillary use cases ... which is very different from the corporate model which is the primary use case for computing in the future.

The funny thing, is that the corporate model is (largely) nothing more than outsourcing what many already have in-house under a new name ... so my guess would be that a 'cloud printer' operating in a 'private' corporate cloud is actually not really different (other than protocols?) than the current networked devices. For us punters ... beware ... it is like having a discoverable FAX machine waiting to be spammed!

Apple sells more mobile PCs than Dell

RegisterThis

Oh dear Michael C.

I think you missed a lot of the points I was trying to make in your rush to defend the iPad (for example, I did not make a keyboard a criteria!), but one in particular is very faulty and that is your reference to cloud.

Your idea that all that is required is 'the cloud' *is* the special use case. The idea of mobility inheriently means that it is fully functional anywhere. The requirement for a 3G connection to work is analogous to saying it needs to be plugged in to work (albeit over the air). 3G only covers about 30% of the worlds *urban* population currently. By default, the definition of mobile computing devices has never been applied to devices that can only be used in location A, B or C. (Ignoring special requirements like extreme temperatures or waterproof!) . For it to be mobile, the device needs to be fully functional everywhere, and for that a device needs removeable storage or open connectivity for backup, archiving (space is not limitless) and sharing.

PS - go read your cloud providers T&Cs in whom you trust. I think you will find that (1) they take no responsibility for any data loss and (2) can cut you off from your data if there is any suspicion of illegality etc. For your own sake, I suggest that you recognise cloud for what it is: AUXILARY storage i.e. backup and sharing ONLY.

RegisterThis

Better segmentation and definition needed ...

My two additional thoughts about what constitutes a mobile computing device is that it:

1. Needs to be designed for content creation and not just consumption otherwise you will be counting PSPs for Sony's portable computer market share soon too - or GPS (Garmin do about 2.4M units per quarter too?). How about mobile devices with visible screen size > % of display area during input? I would have liked to say that it should be restricted to devices with mechanical keyboards, but maybe I am being too stodgy, so, if I have a virtual keyboard on the screen, I want to be able to see a fair bit of my screen still and not just a few lines otherwise you have a consumption device used for 'data serving' only suited to occasional and inconsequential 'data processing'.

2. Needs to be able to operate independently without additional equipment i.e. not requiring a PC to configure (iPad and iTunes), have removeable storage capabilities (should not be dependent on network connectivity to input/output data) and not require proprietary connectors (e.g. iPad and Samsung Tab).

I cannot but help feel that these types of surveys are ultimately sliced and diced by vendors PR departments anyway ... let's see how Dell fairs in the next one ...

Google unloads Nexus S Gingerbread phone

RegisterThis

@Charles Manning

And what is the timeline for this 'future'? I see just this week of reports indicating that LTE is unlikely to be viable in the UK before 2015 ... and these phones have a lifespan of less than 2 years (at max!)? Globally, mobile data networks are already congested with only a tiny fraction of users using data services (and mostly streaming of non-personal cloud data i.e. from YouTube etc.). This is going to skyrocket if everybody adds their personal data to the cloud.

... this isn't just bleeding edge ... its a vision Nostrodamus would have been proud of at this stage!

Currently, viable cloud apps are largely restricted to office based use over high capacity fixed line connectivity as opposed to the highly variable and inconsistent mobile access?

As much as *some* stake-holders 'try' to push it, I do not see cloud storage replacing local storage, but acting as backup and sharing/syncing across devices (at least for private users - corporates with money for big SLAs may be different). These at least are the use-cases currently being practised and they all make YOU responsible for your data (Dropbox and Google checked) i.e. you should not treat the cloud as the PRIMARY store of your data? SO GIVE ME MY LOCAL BACKUP CAPABILITIES!

RegisterThis
WTF?

Agreed ... that sucks!

The web is awash with outrage and dismissal of this phone for not having that ... shows just what a brilliant marketing job Apple does to release a phone without this and have it almost totally overlooked - whereas the omission here is greeted as near failure!

Apple accused of iPhone ban on 'all single-station radio apps'

RegisterThis

Apple and Radio ...

Not surprised that Apple don't like Radio given their iTunes business!

Was surprised, however, to hear of Apple including an FM receiver/transmitter in the lastest edition iPhone? Really? Why? Would have thought this was a pretty logical no-no for Apple?

My guess is Apple are increasingly looking to exploit control over ALL media channels to market: to monetise themselves, protect own revenues and control flow of information in terms of Apple media shilling.

Apple files patent for iPad weight loss

RegisterThis

Now what will be said about build quality?

Personally, I am surprised that they care so much about the weight issue, as the solid body has alwasy been touted as USP for Apple and it seems strange they are dumping it becasue some consumers say it is too heavy.

Very few reviews of apple products go by without reference to the metallic bodies being superior to the 'plastic' competition? What will be said now that it will be plastic like most others (albeit carbon fiber reinforced)? (Refer to the numerous reviews of the Samsung Tab criticising it for being 'plasitcy' compared to the iPad)

Bet this patent filing is just the marketing department already starting the PR to be able to say that this is not just 'any' plastic, but 'special unique Apple plastic - carbon fiber reinforced to be precise'. Personally given that I have never experienced other 'plastic' mobile devices breaking (as say my kids plastic toys break), I would have thought 'special' and 'reinforced' plastics were the order of the day to start with ... but where would this leave the Apple retreat from superior aluminium constuction?

... maybe they will coat the back glass :-)

iAds to flood UK iPhones, iPads

RegisterThis

Spot on ...

My view of Apple's design for the iPad/iPhone has always been as their 'personal media delivery platform' to your pocket (or onto your lap) ... and Googles foray into Android as a platform for delivering their ads into your pocket (and now also lap).

Of the 2 evils, Ads has been the greatest for me as media at least has its benefits (even if constrained by a walled garden).

However, Apple now clearly leaps to the top of the evil pile with media AND ads. At least Android has still not erected a wall. (e.g. Bing being used as the deault search engine on some devices)

Would be nice if the communication device market was not dominated by companies building devices tailored to bringing them continuous revenue streams and focussed on devices for communication and not media/add consumption :-( (Unfortunately increasingly rare with symbian in retreat, Meego still only 'press-release-ware' and Bada ... well ...)

US may disable all in-car mobile phones

RegisterThis
Unhappy

You may disagree if ...

... you had just been rammed from behind at a red light and gotten out the car to see the (clearly totally unrepentant) driver getting out of his car still on the phone saying 'Got to go now ... just had an accident ...'!!!

Yeah there are other things that distract, but this is such an obvious one ... and with phone penetration at over 100%, it beats kids in cars, tuning radios, animals, smoking etc. in terms of scale.

HOWEVER ... what about coming legislation in the EU to have cars call emergency services automatically in the event of an accident? I assume that will be 'unscrambled'? The problem is real, but the solution may not be quite to simple.

Nokia slips out Designed By Community handset

RegisterThis
WTF?

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." TOSH!

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." — Henry Ford

... But he didn't, so we will never know ... this really wasn't fact you know ... just an ego-maniac trying to say how uniquely brilliant he was ...

There *IS* a place for both and a company that stops listening to the market place *WILL* fail eventually. In fact you can argue that this is the reason Nokia find themselves 'have-runs' currently! Apple didn't *force* the market paradigm shift in 2007 ... the consumers voted that the proposed shift was good and Nokia mis-read what was going to be important for consumers going forward!

You may also dare to argue that Apple will eventually get here as well if they continue in their apparent increasing arrogance!

Multi-network iPhone SIM rumours at Apple

RegisterThis
FAIL

"permit a user to swap at will between cellular networks"

Bullsh1t!!!

- The fact that this can already be done - its called number portability (and their are reasons it cannot be done at will)

- That this is not needed to allow you to roam on a local operator (They are the ones who are choosing to treat you like an inbound roamer or a local user - and some offer you the ability while roaming to actually buy a local prepaid balance to use while roaming already with yoour current SIM!)

- The above are defined by a standards body for network equipment interoperability and often national standards bodies (e.g. controlling number ranges and ported numbers)

- That increasingly operators are globally being held responsible to know who their subscribers (even prepaid) are (think equivalent to bank account address verification)

For this to happen will require:

- the standard bodies like 3GPP to change their specifications for registering and authorisation of a SIm into a network + roaming support

- the equipment vendors (including Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola, ZTE who all compete with Apple) to support these changes and be prepared to change their equipment

- the operators to pay for the changed equipment

- the operators to change their own processes for subscriber activation, number portability and roaming

- the operators (and software vendors) to pay for provisioning, inventory and number management systems to be changed

... and all for Apple? Yeah right!

It aint going to happen unless the industry wants it to ... it is going to cost operators and equipment vendors BIG bucks to do and it is not in their interests. Maybe (maybe) embed a SIM, but anytthign more is fantasy.

Skype throws off Nimbuzz in ad-revenue smackdown

RegisterThis

Twitter = IM?

Not sure I agree with that ... all Twitter has won is the micro 'email' spam war ...?

Facebook comes down hard on Faceporn

RegisterThis
Troll

or FacePad?

... for heavy verbal diarrhea days ...

Jobs savages 7-inch tablet competition

RegisterThis
Joke

A pair ...

used like chopsticks ...

pinch, twirl AND eat at the same time!

Blogger stokes iPhone 4 shatter fears

RegisterThis

Ah, but the N900 is not covered in glass!

Posers who buy glass phones should not throw tantrums.

(If ever there was evidence of form over function ... not only is glass brittle and prone to scratching, but by my friends accounts, his iPhone is as slippy as slippy as anything - cannot blame consumer for dropping them!)

Apple pays off pension fund

RegisterThis
Thumb Up

Looks like you just ticked a troll off!

... that's all.

Apple's iPad is the hotcake of the 21st century

RegisterThis
Thumb Up

Good comments ...

I was very cynical about the 'Pad' market, but there definitely seems to be a use case there ... seems the evolutions has sort of gone ...

PCs for business --> PCs for entertainment --> Specialised devices for traditional PC entertainment

I don't think that the laptop will die ... the iPad sucks for productive work (as in creation and not consumption) ... but I suspect laptops will retreat into being 'PC's for business' ... and geeks ...

But then again, I probably work 10 hours a day ... and I certainly could not replace my laptop with a 'Pad' for that ... so while I am about it, I still use the laptop for my 'PC based entertainment' ??? For me, it makes sense to have "ONE device to rulle them all" and the laptop it is!

I always question this, because by the same logic, it is saying that Jobs is cannabilising his own macbooks too ... although that could have been unforseen?

RegisterThis
Thumb Down

Passive shilling by the Reg?

I was interested and went to look at that article thinking that I will have to eat my hat with respect to the 'Pad' market ... but all I see is shilling by CNBC and Bernstein Research?

"the 350,000 units sold in the first year by the DVD player ... It took five years for the DVD to reach the unit sales pace that the iPad reached in just its first quarter"

--> A little research later and I find that the first US available commercial DVD player sold for 1,000 USD in 1997. That would be saying that the iPad, 500 USD, is outselling a device (that also requires another expensive device - a TV) that in todays money would go for 1,300 USD ... almost 3x the price!

OK, so the 'Research' was accompanied by little thought ... CNBC do try to tidy up having made the comparison REGARDLESS:

"To be fair to the DVD, they were a bulky, pricey change from video recorders that had become a staple of most American homes."

However, the following just gives the Shilling game away ...

"At this current rate, the iPad will pass gaming hardware and the cellular phone to become the 4th biggest consumer electronics CATEGORY"

--> So now whatever happened to the tablet sector of the market ... or anything Archos had ever built? Move over EXISTING tablet market ... you never existed, Apple just invented the 'iPad category' (Successfully RE-invented / invigorated it by the looks of it ...)

And the following just rubs home the 'deliberate' lack of research ...

"Bernstein’s McGranahan covers Best Buy [BBY 41.06 0.81 (+2.01%) ], the first major retailer to sell the iPad. His analysis found that not only are the iPads cannibalizing the netbook/notebook category in stores, but could also be hurting sales of TVs and digital cameras."

--> And here I was thinking that Best Buy (Their CEO) was already reported as having corrected being reported as saying this ... but hey ... never let the truth get in the way of serving your masters PR departments purposes.

Nothing to see here but "flat-earth" churnalism straight from Apple's PR machine ...

RIM opens its PlayBook – tablets clearly set for dominance

RegisterThis
FAIL

Heard of the 'Internet of Things'?

... that is the future! There are already consumer devices and appliances roadmapped with 4G and other chips in them ... so a pseudo communication tool should definitely have one NOW!

The lack of a radio should have been the 'Lite' version for those who wanted to cut costs, but I don't think for a second RIM should be associating themselves with producing devices with the lack of a radio as the 'standard' model.

Google shocks world with unthreaded Gmail

RegisterThis

Threading / conversations need to be better implemented ...

Currently, I am actually digging around various outlook plugins to address the whole threading/conversation issue.

Neither gmail nor outlook get this right ... the issue is with the superflous messaging with replies of replies of quoted replies etc.

Ideally, you want a single message that represents one 'conversation' of all emails in a conversation with the most recent one at the top. Otherwise, regardless of threading / conversations, you end up with superflous emails. Of course you want it to handle branching e.g. you get replies from different people to the same email - and you want attachments preserved - but you don't want the same stuff repeated over and over.

Extra points would go to have the ability to be able to click on a message in the conversation and get it presented as an individual email for reply or forwarding at that point of the conversation (with or without preceding history).

Threading / conversations are great ... but they don't really get rid of the issue of too many repeated (quoted) email messages.

RIM unveils The BlackPad BlackBerry PlayBook

RegisterThis

Not surprising ...

... as they both have more functionality e.g. cameras, removable storage etc. Question is when (not if!), Apple adds this for iPad v2, whether it will still be cheaper?

Page: