Archive

Posts Tagged ‘company’

Microsoft Launches Outlook Facebook Integration [Exclusive]

July 13th, 2010 No comments

Microsoft is announcing today that it has integrated Facebook (Facebook) and Windows Live Messenger (Windows Live Messenger) into Outlook, bringing the streams of millions of Facebook users into inboxes across the world.

Last year, Microsoft launched Outlook Social Connector, a plugin that syncs social networking feeds with your Outlook contacts, giving you immediate data on what they are doing and thinking. It started last year with LinkedIn (LinkedIn) integration, but soon the company announced MySpace and Facebook were coming.

Today, Outlook completes the cycle with not only Facebook integration, but support for Windows Live Messenger as well. Not only that, but the company is releasing the plugin for Outlook 2003 and 2007 users as well, bringing Facebook, MySpace (MySpace), LinkedIn, and Windows Live Messenger to millions of business and personal inboxes worldwide.

Last week, we got a sneak peek at the new Outlook at Microsoft’s headquarters in Redmond, Washington. Here’s what you can expect from the new Facebook integration, as well some features that you can expect in the near future:


Facebook + Outlook = Realtime Contact Data


Facebook and Microsoft worked together to get the launch of Facebook’s integration in Outlook Social Connector right. Facebook’s Strategic Partner Manager Rick Armbrust told us that they worked closely with the Office team to make the experience more social. One of the things he immediately highlighted was the pulling of Facebook profile pictures into Outlook.

The entire experience is a step above the Outlook-LinkedIn integration, which itself was pretty strong. Not only does it pull Facebook profile photos so that you can associate a name to a face, but it pulls the news feeds of your contacts into your inbox. When you’re looking at someone’s email, you’ll also get a glance at their status updates, picture uploads and wall posts, among other activities.

When you combine that with LinkedIn, MySpace, Windows Live Messenger, and Outlook data, you get a very detailed history of your interaction with your contacts, as well as an at-a-glance look at their activities and interests. Knowing that a potential client just returned from a trip to Hawaii can be all that you need to have the upper hand against your competition.

Microsoft Group Product Manager Paco Contreras told us that there’s another new feature to the Facebook integration: realtime updates. Thanks to a new update to the social connector platform, also being released today, updates from your contacts will automatically be pushed to your inbox. There’s no need to refresh anything: new Facebook status updates will pop up in realtime within Outlook.

The Facebook integration does have limitations, though: except for friend requests, Outlook can only pull data from Facebook. There is no “liking” posts or updating your status via Outlook, at least right now. Microsoft says that the next step is to provide a richer social experience by integrating the ability to push data to other social networks, improving the look and feel of Outlook Social Connector, and adding other social networks from other regions.


The Social Inbox


Microsoft has known for a while that social technologies are going to dominate the web. That was made evident by its $240 million stake in Facebook and its many partnerships and attempts at social media (some of which have bombed).

However, Outlook Social Connector has always felt like one of the company’s smarter social media plays. Facebook’s Rich Armbrust probably put it best:

“What’s unique is that it’s bringing social elements and context from Facebook form your colleagues and your friends into the Outlook experience, which is pretty unique given that there are so many that use Outlook as their primary communiction tool.”

Email isn’t inherently a “social” experience (it’s not a one-to-many platform), and attempts at integrating social into the inbox (think Google Buzz) have mostly fallen flat. However, social data can be incredibly useful in the business world, especially when you need to understand what your client or colleague is thinking or doing right now. While we’d still love to see Twitter (Twitter) integration in Outlook, Facebook is far larger and, in most cases, has far more useful information.

Microsoft’s also learned a few lessons from the privacy fiascos Facebook and Google (Google) have undergone in recent months. Outlook will only pull data from emails connected to Facebook accounts. If your business email isn’t linked to your Facebook, your data stream won’t appear in Outlook Social Connector. It gives users a choice, although most people do choose to add their work emails to Facebook in order to join their company’s Facebook network.

If you want to learn more about the announcement, Microsoft has also released a short video articulating Outlook’s new features:


Facebook Outlook Social Connector Announcement Video


, ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Read the original here:
Microsoft Launches Outlook Facebook Integration [Exclusive]

Share/Save/Bookmark

Watching the birth of Flickr co-founder’s gaming start-up

February 9th, 2010 No comments

Watching the birth of Flickr co-founder’s gaming start-up | Geek Gestalt – CNET News

Tiny Speck, a company started by Flickr co-founder Stewart Butterfield and three partners, is unveiling its new game, Glitch, on Tuesday. The company has been under the radar since it was founded last March, and no one has known what was being developed. But CNET’s Daniel Terdiman reports from behind the scenes.

SAN FRANCISCO–Stewart Butterfield and his business partner Cal Henderson stared at the MacBook Pro in front of them.

For nearly a year, they’d been struggling to figure out what to call the game their start-up was building. Any time a team member loaded a working version, they’d sit through a few seconds of a splash screen with nothing on it but a generic title featuring little more than the name and logo of their company.

But now, the group had finally given their baby an official moniker: Glitch. And this was one of the first times the two had sat through the splash screen since plunking down a low-five-figure sum to buy glitch.com.

Butterfield and Henderson, dressed casually, were hovering over the computer in the bright, east-facing front room in a beautiful Victorian vacation rental that they’d been using for a four-day company off-site in mid-January. Everyone else had already left. Energized from an intense four days of brainstorming (and maybe a coffee run to a local hot spot called the Mercury Cafe) they were running a demo of their game. Watching the bland screen load as they had countless times before, Henderson’s eyes lit up.

“I guess we could replace that with the title of the game now, couldn’t we,”

Share/Save/Bookmark

Intel Details Upcoming Mobile and Six-Core Processors

February 4th, 2010 No comments

Intel Details Upcoming Mobile and Six-Core Processors – HotHardware


With the International Solid-State Circuits Conference less than a week away, Intel has released additional details on its hexa-core desktop, next generation mobile and dual-core Westmere processors. Much of the dual-core data was revealed last month when the CPU manufacturer launched Clarkdale (our review is here if you want additional information on the CPU and its integrated graphics core). When Intel set its internal goals for what its calling Westmere 6C, the company aimed to boost both core and cache count by 50 percent without increasing the processor’s thermal envelope. Towards this end, the new Westmere chips will incorporate additional technologies to reduce the CPU’s power consumption at idle.

Westmere 6C (codename Gulftown) is a native six-core chip as shown above. Intel has crammed 1.17 billion transistors into a die that’s approximately 240mm sq. The new chip carries 12MB up L3 (up from Nehalem’s 8MB) and a TDP of 130W at 3.33GHz. In addition to the addition of hardware AES encryption instruction decode support, Intel has made a number of improvements to Gulftown’s power consumption. Up until now, Intel’s efforts to reduce CPU power consumption focused on what it calls the “Core” the “Uncore” hardware couldn’t be powered down or controlled to the same degree. Starting with Westmere, both sections of the CPU can be fine-tuned to minimize power consumption without adversely affecting processor performance. As part of its bid to increase CPU complexity and performance without driving up system-level power consumption, Westmere will also support low-voltage DDR3, which uses an operating voltage of 1.35v (down from 1.5v standard). According to Intel, using the lower voltage memory reduces memory power consumption by about 20 percent overall.

Mobile


The big mobile-specific tech that Intel has debuted with Arrandale (32nm Westmere 2C) is a Turbo Boost for graphics mode. While Intel’s standard Turbo mode is available as well, the chip can also cut CPU frequency and ramp the IGP higher to improve graphics performance. Intel refers to this as “HD Graphics with dynamic frequency.” How much of a boost this mode can deliver depends on which processor you’ve got. Intel’s spec sheets for the Core i3 processor list a 500MHz standard frequency with a 667MHz maximum dynamic frequency while the Core i5 mobile parts top out at 766MHz. That’s 1.33x and 1.53x above stock, respectively.


There are two ways to take Intel’s Dynamic Frequency technology. On the one hand, it’s true that Intel’s integrated GPUs have historically been terrible choices for gaming; what the parts have lacked in hardware functionality, they’ve made up for in terrible driver support. Arrandale’s integrated IGP is more advanced than any of its desktop predecessors, but the “new” features Intel baked into the on-die GPU, such as hierarchical Z support, are technologies ATI and NVIDIA launched nearly nine years ago. Trailing your competition is one thing, trailing your competition by a decade is something else entirely.

On the other hand, however, Intel’s new IGP is indisputably the fastest, most gaming-friendly part the company has ever built. A 33 percent (or 53 percent) higher clockspeed isn’t going to turn Arrandale’s IGP into a discrete part from ATI or NVIDIA, but it should provide noticable performance improvements provided that the processor speed tradeoff doesn’t obscure them. The ability to trade CPU cycles for GPU horsepower gives even a modest system additional flexibility; it’s easy to see how this sort of capability could end up integrated into Intel’s Atom product line in the not-too-distant future.

And Now For Something Completely Different

In addition to its x86 CPU briefings, Intel will present a number of paper’s at the ISSCC. Chief among these are the company’s ongoing research into so-called “digital intelligence,” high-speed point-to-point interconnects, and reconfigurable computing. Intel will also give more details on a 48-core single-chip processor it unveiled last December. One of the features the company will discuss is the chip’s use of so-called circuit switching rather than packet switching when passing messages. By mapping out the route from core to core before actually sending a message, Intel claims it can vastly accelerate the speed at which information is passed within the chip structure.
source >

Source:
Intel Details Upcoming Mobile and Six-Core Processors

Share/Save/Bookmark

Motorola DROID review

November 1st, 2009 No comments


It’s hard to look at the DROID without looking at the company which brought the device to life. Motorola: for years the name has been synonymous with… well, disappointment. While the industry-stalwart made cellphones sexy with the RAZR, the days which followed have not been especially fruitful or compelling. Over the past year or so, we’ve seen Motorola beating its way back into the mainstream through a series of smart plays: first embracing Android as a platform, then shucking off the weight of Windows Mobile and finally bringing some desirable (and high profile) devices to market.

With the DROID, the company has perhaps created its most attractive and intriguing piece of technology yet. Forging an alliance with both Verizon and Google, Motorola has come up with a second compelling reason to count the phonemaker down, but certainly not out, while the other two giants have finally found a seemingly worthy device to position against the iPhone. So we must pose these questions: is this the phone which will catapult Android into the mainstream? Is it the device that will pull Motorola back from the brink? And — most importantly — is it the lynchpin Google and Verizon have needed to challenge the leader in mindshare in the smartphone market? After putting the device through its paces, we think we can give you the answers you seek — so read on to find out!

Hardware


The DROID is an odd and beautiful device. Looking at the hardware from a purely philosophical standpoint, the ID of the phone seems staunchly defiant. Instead of taking its cues (and lines) from current contenders in the smartphone space, the DROID is all hard edges and angular slopes. The construction is a mix of plastic and metal, and the phone has a solid, expensive heft to it. Couple that weight with soft touch materials and gold highlights, and the effect is somewhere halfway between a Vertu device and the European version of the Hero — and it’s a good mix.

The basic structure of the phone is made up of two main pieces, the large, glass display up top, and the slightly longer keyboard / mainboard lower half. Above, the 3.7-inch screen dominates, almost filling the space edge-to-edge, though there are four capacitive buttons at the bottom of the display: back, menu, home, and search (which might be tricky for folks coming from other Android devices, since they’ve thrown the order of the buttons in the blender). The top section slides smoothly upwards to reveal the aforementioned QWERTY keyboard, though unlike other models of this ilk, it doesn’t snap automatically into place; rather, it requires a bit of force to move up, then clicks firmly once settled. The keyboard is a wide (though mostly flush) affair, with minimal amount of spacing between the keys. To the right of the four row QWERTY is a 5-way rocker — a bizarre deviation from the CLIQ’s left-sided controls — and the bottom piece has a strip which juts out from the device with a small mic hole (closed or open). It’s almost like Motorola’s version of the HTC chin… though tempered somewhat. Atop the phone is a 3.5mm headphone jack and a power / sleep button; along the right edge is a volume rocker, and camera button on opposite ends; the left side houses a MicroUSB port; around back the 5 megapixel camera (and flash) are revealed, along with a thin, gold, crosshatch strip that hides the DROID’s speaker.


The thickness of the DROID is striking, coming in at just a hair (13.7mm vs 12.33mm) thicker than the iPhone 3GS. The body itself is actually narrower than the iPhone. While thinness is important (though typically not a deal breaker for us), the fact that the phone packs a larger, higher resolution screen and a physical keyboard in such a small frame is notable.

In all, Motorola has pulled off what seemed unimaginable for them just 12 months ago; they’ve made a device which is truly lustworthy, even next to the best efforts of Apple, HTC, and Palm.

Internals

Inside the DROID beats an Arm Cortex A8 CPU (a 600MHz, OMAP3430 chip downclocked to 550MHz), 256MB of RAM, and 512MB of ROM. If that CPU sounds familiar, it should — it’s similar to the chip inside the iPhone 3GS and Palm Pre. If you’re wondering about performance, you can breathe a sigh of relief… kind of. Yes, there is a noticeable bump in speed when switching applications on the phone, scrolling through lists, and generally getting any basic tasks done. We did notice, however, that paging through homescreens on the DROID actually seemed somewhat stuttery; odd, considering this phone is certainly better equipped than most Android devices to handle pixel pushing. Pulling down the window shade notification area also seemed less than optimal. We don’t know if this was due to the screen resolution being jacked up, or just a software quirk, but it was mildly disheartening — especially considering that the rest of the phone’s performance seemed extra snappy to us. As an aside, in a totally unscientific test of playing a 3D game (Mystique, in case you’re wondering) the rendering seemed considerably smoother on the DROID than with other, older Android-based phones we’ve used.

Throughout our tests, we were consistently impressed with the tightness and speed of navigation on the phone. The DROID makes Android feel modern the way the iPhone 3GS and Palm Pre are — like machines designed for a pace of life that’s increasingly more Twitter and less USPS.

Display


As we mentioned, the screen on the DROID is a 3.7-inch capacitive touchscreen — a full glass display with a WVGA resolution clocking in at a handsome 480 x 854. We found the responsiveness on the DROID to be on par (if not better) than most of its Android contemporaries; gestures and flicks registered with little to no lag. Whether that can be attributed to Moto’s screen technology, Android 2.0 improvements, or just the speedy CPU inside the DROID is anyone’s guess, but we certainly won’t knock the phone for it. Another perk to having that big screen is seeing webpages how they’re meant to be viewed (or at least closer), and browsing on the DROID is a solid experience. Those additional pixels definitely come in handy when you’re looking at something graphically intensive or wordy… such as Engadget.

As you have probably heard (or guessed), there’s no multitouch on this device. That’s clearly an issue with Android 2.0 and choices that Google is making about user interface — we’re fairly certain there’s nothing technically holding back the DROID from utilizing multitouch input, and we wouldn’t be surprised to see some tweaked ROMs hit the information superhighway with the functionality onboard. Regardless, the resolution, materials, and clarity of the DROID display make it an absolute pleasure to keep your eyes on. Motorola gets a +1 for the bump in resolution, and we can only hope everyone else follows suit.

Note: Android 2.0 does support multitouch events, but the functionality isn’t implemented here.

Keyboard


A physical keyboard can be a blessing or a curse, depending on just how well (or poorly) it performs. In the case of Android devices, QWERTYs have definitely been hit or miss. We think the closest case for comparison with the DROID’s version would be the G1; both have shallow, clicky keys, and both force your right hand into a bit of an awkward position. On the G1, it’s due to the placement of the “chin,” and with the DROID, it’s all down to the five-way rocker living next to the ‘board itself. We’re happy to report, however, that after a short adjustment period, typing on the DROID is a reasonable experience. It’s not as slick or comfortable as a nice, portrait-oriented Tour or (better yet) Bold layout, though it bests the CLIQ, and holds its own against other landscape contenders like the Moment.

Visually, the keyboard is an easier read (and more aesthetically pleasing) than those other QWERTY phones too, though sometimes the keys can feel a bit cramped. Additionally, we had major issues with the auto-dimming on the DROID. If we left the screen in auto brightness mode, the constant on / off dimming of the keyboard was intolerable; eventually we had to just switch the auto dim off altogether. We also had issues with the keyboard not lighting up at all in some instances, requiring us to close and open the pad again. Not a huge deal, but annoying when you’re trying to quickly tap out a message. Admittedly, we missed the CLIQ’s two-stage keyboard backlighting that only enabled the second light when ALT was pressed, but it’s a luxury we can do without.

As you would expect, Android 2.0 includes the onscreen keyboard as well, but there don’t seem to be many improvements in this area. As a backup keyboard for quick SMSs and the like, it works, though we eventually had to replace it with the Better Keyboard application — which we think is more usable and snappier. In comparison to the iPhone keyboard (really the high bar for virtual keys) Android continues to feel like a distant second. Still, you won’t go to it that much — the DROID’s physical keyboard is solid, but it’s going to take some getting used to for most people.

Camera


Google has made some pretty major changes to the camera application in Android 2.0 (including more control over white balance, focal length, flash settings, and effects), and Motorola has smartly outfitted the DROID with a 5 megapixel camera coupled with an LED flash. It sounds like a match made in heaven, right? Well, not quite.

No, no, no. Yes! Our attempts to photograph a watch in broad daylight.

While the camera certainly seems capable of taking great looking photos, getting everything to play nice isn’t as easy as it should be. First off, the camera is painfully slow to focus and snap pictures — and when it does, the results can be unpredictable. Strangely, the lens seems to be able to take pretty sharp macro photos (it’s even a setting in the camera app), but it struggled with getting adjusted to close subjects, even in broad daylight. Sometimes we got lucky and cranked out a decent pic, but the process was frustrating. Furthermore, the new settings Google has added to 2.0 are contained in a hard to get to and counterintuitive menu which sits to the left of your viewing area. Trying to make changes on the fly was a hassle. If this is the best the engineers at Google can do, they need to outsource this work.

Video, on the other hand, was somewhat of a pleasant surprise. The DROID is capable of shooting at a 720 x 480 resolution, and in our tests, produced watchable — if not totally shake-free — video. The phone definitely fares better in this department than with stills, and we could easily see using the DROID as a stand-in for a flip cam. You can check out a little of the action in the video below (with a surprise cameo from !!!’s Nic Offer).

Speaker / earpiece

The sound on the DROID is second to none — really. In fact, this is simply one of the best sounding devices we’ve ever used. Whether it’s audio through the loud (but undistorted) earpiece, or a speakerphone call — even music — the sound which Motorola’s device outputs is crystal clear. Now, obviously Verizon’s reception has something to do with our in-call sound, but it’s likely Moto put some thought into the aural aspect of the phone. There’s not really much to say except that we were more than pleased with the audio fidelity of the DROID, and we can only hope that future phone makers (ahem, Apple) look to this device as a high water mark in this department.

Software


Besides the introduction of the phone itself, obviously 2.0 is a major update for Android. Based on the launch and hype surrounding Moto’s device, we’d say it’s fair to assume that Google wanted as many eyes on the achievement as possible. They definitely got it with the DROID — but was it worth all the fuss?

The first thing you should know is that Android 2.0 isn’t drastically different than 1.5 or 1.6, save for a few notable features and tweaks that have significant impact. True to form, Google hasn’t gone for visual flair or wild embellishments for the sake of a few dropped jaws; most of these changes are about functionality and usability.

One of the first major changes Google has made is support for multiple Gmail or Exchange accounts, and a new universal inbox which allows you to get a look at your electronic correspondences in a single view. For BlackBerry users, this concept is old hat, but for most people with multiple accounts, it should feel like manna from heaven. We would have been slightly more stoked about the feature if it allowed you to look at both Gmail and POP / IMAP / Exchange accounts in one field. Instead, you can view your Gmail accounts separately (not in a single stream, but in one place), and your other accounts can be blended in the “Combined Inbox” view. Not exactly a perfect implementation for those of us with both Exchange and Google accounts, but certainly a solution light years beyond what previous versions of Android were offering. Another minor niggle: deleting an email now takes you to the next email in your inbox rather than bumping you back out to the list of emails, as it did in 1.5 and 1.6. We preferred the old functionality, though we imagine some will prefer the new as well.

We loved being able to keep a few of our accounts in the phone, but we ran into a weird and annoying issue when attempting to remove one of them. We were using the DROID with two Gmail accounts active, but when we tried to remove the second one we’d added (note: not the account we used for our contacts or calendars) the device informed us that we would need to factory reset the phone because that account was “required” for certain applications. Try as we might, we couldn’t find a way around the problem, and we eventually did reset the device. The behavior was strange to say the least, especially since it was a barely-used, secondary account — not a daily use address which tied into services.

As you may have heard, Facebook account integration is now built into 2.0, and there should be more of that coming, as Google has created “sync adapters” which allow third parties to plug into the contact and calendars of your phone. Mercifully, Google has figure out that you might not want your Facebook contacts in your address book, and gives you the option to turn off contact syncing (as it does with Exchange and Gmail accounts). You’re also given the option to sync contacts, but keep certain sets from displaying in your contacts list; this variation is best demonstrated with Facebook integration, because it merges duplicate names and pulls the accompanying images, but doesn’t clutter up your Gmail contacts with additional names. Beyond that, the pairing doesn’t go tremendously deep, even though we’re told Facebook had a hand in this version of the OS as well. Really, you get a widget for your homescreen which auto-updates, and that contact integration if you really want it. This is obviously just the tip of the iceberg for this kind of… er, synergy, and we expect to see lots of people taking advantage of the feature (hello, Twitter). Regardless, it’s a forward thinking move that will clearly obviate the need for some of the functionality built into BLUR, and makes the DROID (and other 2.0 phones) competitive against the Pre and Pixi when it comes to social networking integration.

Speaking of contacts, Google has made some big and thoughtful changes to how contacts are handled (and used) in Android 2.0, most notably adding a “Quick Contact” menu to your contact list. The quick contact function allows you to tap on someone’s name and get a context menu with jumps to the various ways you can reach out; if you’re friends with someone on Facebook, you’ll be given an option to message them there, along with SMS, phone, and email choices. It’s a brilliant little touch that makes quickly pinging someone a cinch. Android 2.0 also improves the SMS and MMS experience by giving you the option to search your messages, and also allowing you to set a limit on how many SMSs to store before beginning to delete old threads. It’s not groundbreaking stuff, but nice choices to have (finally).


You’ll notice some major changes within the browser, most notably the fact that when you load up pages now, you’re presented with a fully zoomed-out “overview” (much like the iPhone and Pre). If you’ve been griping about that weird, half-zoom that Android has relied on for so long (as we have), this is a breath of fresh air. Coupled with the DROID’s massive display, it makes navigating pages roughly a million times more pleasant. The updated browser also now supports double-taps to zoom (as does Google Maps) — making navigation a bit more natural — though we noticed some weird column display issues on our site and others. As we mentioned before, there’s still no multitouch, but this does stand in quite well for pinch zooming. While the overall browser speed still isn’t as snappy as the iPhone 3GS (or even the Pre), it’s a step up from previous efforts, and when you factor in little touches like auto-prediction on URL entry, it’s eminently usable.

As we said, most of the alterations are under the hood — not stuff that immediately jumps out at you, though there are some notable visual tweaks which bear mentioning. Google has added some new fades and cross-application animations into 2.0 which makes Android seem a bit more contemporary. Of course, older iterations of Android contained animations, but 2.0 seems far more polished to our eyes. Additionally, icons and elements have been updated across the board to give the OS a more modern look, sadly there is much of this UI and its applications that remain unchanged — and not for the better.

A few of the obvious spots include the music player, which is quite frankly a mess; not only is the navigation poorly thought out, but the application is just straight-up ugly. It’s not easy on the eyes, and not much fun to use either. The same goes for the phone app — the remnants of a hastily thrown together interface are plain here, and the functionality of the phone itself gave us some issues. Often the screen was confused or unresponsive during calls, as if the hardware and software weren’t communicating with each other properly. It seems obvious to us that some portions of Android need a serious, ground-up reworking… but they don’t get them here. Another annoyance was the home screen — unlike with HTC’s tweaks (or even Motorola’s BLUR), you only get three screens for icons and widgets. Furthermore, the DROID doesn’t come equipped with even the most basic widgets you see in most new builds, like weather. The weird thing is that there is a weather app in the dock display, but no way to access the application in standard phone mode.

Additionally, some third-party (and even some first-party) software seems unable to deal with the DROID’s new resolution. There are bitmaps that look upscaled and jagged, such as the attachment icon in Gmail. The game Robo Defense seemed to play slower than it did on the Hero, which was a bit of a surprise, though it has been updated to support the new resolution. None of these problems are show stoppers, but it points to a disconnect between where Google is at versus its developers. There is catch-up to be played.

Also notable (and perhaps a selling point for some) is that the DROID is a Google Experience device, which should theoretically mean that it’s more likely to receive fast and frequent software updates than its skinned cousins like the CLIQ. The Google Experience is sort of the “gold standard” Android showcase for the company, so to speak, and it’s in Google’s best interest to keep it rock solid at all times — and since there’s no third-party skin to revalidate after every Android version is released, the update process should go a heck of a lot smoother.

One thing to keep in mind: when it comes to media syncing, you’re in the same boat you were for previous versions of Android — which means sideloading or additional desktop apps. doubleTwist has just introduced DROID compatibility, though the experience leaves much to be desired. In fact, after our tests, we’d say you’re better off just mounting that SD card and dragging your content over.
Gallery: Motorola DROID / Android 2.0 screenshots

*
*
*
*
*

Navigation

One of the biggest pieces of news (perhaps the biggest) to come out of the DROID launch was the introduction of dedicated, fully realized turn-by-turn navigation which integrates with Google Maps. The DROID makes further use of this functionality by switching into a nav mode when snapped into a dock (you can also enter the application normally, sans dock). Google has gone all out on this, providing a rich mixture of its satellite, map, traffic, and location info with text-to-speech directions. Of course, the big G takes it one step further and adds layers like parking info, ATM spots, restaurants, and gas station locations (amongst others) to the stew, making the navigation more robust than many dedicated PNDs — which would explain that nasty drop in Garmin and TomTom stock we saw yesterday.

In our tests, the nav worked excellently for the most part, though as you can see in the video above, we did run into some minor issues on our hunt for cannoli. It’s not uncommon for a GPS unit to send you the wrong way down a one way street, and maybe it was just unlucky coincidence that it happened on our first outing, but being told to turn left where you can’t — then being sent in a loop — doesn’t fill us with warm, fuzzy sensations. Still, the navigation is super intuitive and cleanly laid out, and even if there were major issues (which there really aren’t), it’s hard to knock a service that is completely free. We think a little more time and some longer trips will help put it in better perspective, but we like what we’ve seen so far.

Accessories


The DROID will get a few nifty extras when it launches, most notably a dock for setting your phone on a nightstand (or appropriate flat surface), and a car mount for using the device as a proper GPS unit. Both are notable because they use sensors to alter the DROID’s functionality. The dock turns the DROID into something that looks not entirely dissimilar from Verizon’s now defunct Hub, while the car mount just boots the phone into nav mode. Both are nice touches, and you’ll want the car mount if you plan on taking Google up on that offer of free satnav.

Battery life

We haven’t had a lot of time to put the DROID through its paces when it comes to battery life, but at a glance it seems to be holding its own against the current crop of 3G devices — impressive considering it’s only packing a 1400mAh battery behind that extremely sexy door. Paul Miller, who has been concurrently testing the phone, claims he had 24 hours of on and off usage before requiring a recharge (syncing, but no major phone calls or lots of screen time). In general, you won’t be blown away by the DROID’s staying power, but it doesn’t deviate in any wild ways which should make you take pause. It’s solid, not breathtaking, and it seems better than the CLIQ, which — despite using the same battery — typically manages to just barely eke through a day’s worth of typical use.

Wrap-up


It will be difficult for casual observers not to see the DROID as a kind of anti-iPhone in Verizon’s arsenal. Certainly the company has played up the comparison with its “DROID does” ad campaign, and it’s no secret that Verizon and Apple have previously had some friction — the V famously passed on the first-generation iPhone, after all. Of course, it’s easy to draw parallels between the two devices; as with most current smartphones, they share a tremendous number of similarities, though there is plenty that set the two apart as well. And that’s really kind of the point — it’s useless to look at devices like this in black and white, or to try and figure out if an Android device on Verizon is better than an Apple device on AT&T (or any other device on any other carrier, for that matter). What it ultimately comes down to when judging this kind of device is more complicated than a “yes” or “no” answer.

If you must compare the DROID to the iPhone, then know that the Android platform still has a ways to go before the experience of using the phone is as seamless as the one Apple has created — but also know that Apple has a long way to go before its messaging, email, and customization can match what Google is offering. Both products have very distinct strengths and weaknesses.

So, is the DROID a good smartphone? Yes, the DROID is an excellent smartphone with many (if not all) of the features that a modern user would expect, and if you’re a Verizon customer, there probably isn’t a more action packed device on the network. That’s not to say the device doesn’t have its faults; the camera was unpleasant to use, the application selection feels thin in both quantity and quality (despite the claim of 10,000 options), and the phone has bits of basic, non-intuitive functionality that might chafe on some users after a while. But even still, it’s hard not to recommend the DROID to potential buyers eager to do more with their devices. It’s easily the best Android phone to date, and when you couple the revamped OS, Verizon’s killer network, and an industrial design straight from a gadget enthusiast’s fever-dream, it makes for a powerful concoction. Ultimately, the DROID won’t usurp the iPhone from the public’s collective mindshare or convince casual users that they must switch to Android, but it will make a lot of serious geeks seriously happy — and that’s good enough for us.

source >>

Originally posted here:
Motorola DROID review

Share/Save/Bookmark

HTC Hero review

July 24th, 2009 No comments

HTC Hero review


The HTC Hero has been an object of lust for some time now for gadget enthusiasts. Even from the earliest days of leaked hardware shots and blurry demo videos of its UI, smartphone fans seemed to agree that the company had finally achieved what has been missing in the world of Android. Namely, a polished and attractive device — polished enough to go head-to-head with the iPhone — that kept its open source heart. So, here we are months later with an actual, bona fide Hero in our midst. Yes the reports were true, it is a beautiful device, both inside and out (though of course opinions differ on that chin). But does being a beautiful device mean Android is about to move to a bigger stage? Is HTC’s spit-shine enough to overcome some of the hurdles that have plagued the platform? That question — and more — is answered in the text below, so read on for the full review.

Hardware


Industrial design

In terms of overall design and layout, the Hero is very much a product of evolution. Like its forebears the G1 (or Dream) and MyTouch (or Magic / Ion), the general stats like screen size, technology, and resolution, button placement, unit size and weight, and basic aesthetic are pure HTC. Like those previous devices, the Hero contains a smattering of hardware buttons on the base (or chin as some call it) of the phone, including a home, menu, back, send, end, and dedicated search key. The device also sports a trackball in this area, which shouldn’t surprise any Android aficionados.

Where the Hero breaks from convention, however, is in the overall look and feel of the phone. If the Dream and Magic felt plasticky and cheap (they did), the Hero is quite the opposite — it’s like a solid brick in your hand. The casing is made of a soft-touch material (Teflon on the white version to prevent dirt), and the shape of the device takes a much more severe, almost rectangular slant. The buttons along the bottom are small, evenly spaced ovals (save for the search and back key — we’ll get to that), the earpiece is covered in a stylish mesh, and the volume rocker on the side is a smooth, single button. The screen also uses a new oleophobic treatment (similar to the iPhone 3GS), and thankfully HTC has added a 3.5mm headphone jack to the top of the phone.


Overall the appearance is sleek and modern — it’s like the Magic was beamed to the year 3000 for a redesign. Besides the chin (which some people will nitpick, though we don’t mind), the Hero is a home run when it comes to looks, though it’s not without issues. One of our main gripes with the phone is the layout of the hard buttons. The four across the top don’t bother us much, but the placement of the “back” key is a huge pain. It basically forces your hand into a cramp-inviting position — it’s an unnatural move for a key you’ve got to use a lot. If you’re left handed, it’ll seem fine (great even), but as a righty, we found it inconvenient and uncomfortable. It’s actually perplexing as to why the back button lives where it does on the Hero — the Magic’s placement is much more accessible and a lot more comfortable to use for righties or lefties.

Internals

The guts of the Hero should seem familiar to most gadget buffs — they’re essentially identical to HTC’s Magic (at least the Rogers version). What does that mean for you, end user? It means you’re stuck with the same Qualcomm 528MHz CPU, the same 288MB of RAM, and a paltry 512MB ROM. The onboard radios include WiFi, GPS, Bluetooth, and a quad-band HSPA cell chip. The model we tested is the European release of the phone, and as such is only able to access EDGE networks here in America. Luckily for us we don’t leave the house much, so most of the time we were on WiFi. So just to be clear, beyond the new screen coating, industrial design, and improved camera, this phone is the HTC Magic inside.

Screen


The display on the Hero is gorgeous, no doubt. Using a similar smudge resistant material as the iPhone 3GS, it certainly seems to repel oil, though you’ll still find yourself wiping it clean on a regular basis. The 3.2-inch, 480 x 320 capacitive touchscreen works well, but not notably better than its predecessors — in terms of color and clarity, however, the Hero’s LCD is on par with the competition. One nice added feature is a proper light sensor here, so automatic dimming works as it should, whereas neither the Dream nor the Magic can take advantage of the eye- and battery-saving functionality. There’s nothing particularly special about this screen, however we noted a bit less blurring while scrolling through long pages or detailed images, a problem which we’ve been bothered by with the Hero’s Android brothers. One problem that plagued the unit we were testing was screen freeze ups — it just simply wouldn’t accept any input. This seemed to happen mainly on the homescreen, which made us feel like it might be more of a software problem than a hardware issue (we’ll get to that momentarily).

Camera


The Hero’s 5 megapixel camera is pretty darn amazing, we must say. Coming off of most devices with their paltry 3-or-so megapixel entries, it’s a real treat to have an onboard cam which can actually stand in for a proper shooter. While the image quality isn’t up there with dedicated point-and-shoots, it’s certainly leaps and bounds better than the nearest competitor, with near-macro focus length. We take a little bit of issue with HTC’s UI design on the camera app — using the sometimes-slippery trackball for both zooming and snapping shots seems kind of ill-advised to us, though we didn’t have much trouble with it (a toggle to cancel zooming would be nice). As with most phone cameras, the colors weren’t quite as vivid as we would have liked — bright hues somehow came out murky with the Hero — but we weren’t expecting the world here. HTC seems to have tweaked shutter speeds and processing as well, as snapping photos was noticeably faster than on the earlier Android phones, though we still think the iPhone 3GS and Pre feel tighter (of course the Pre doesn’t have to worry about that pesky focusing stuff).

On the other hand, video recording on the Hero wasn’t quite as awesome an experience as still photos were; the maximum resolution is a pathetic 352 x 288, and even at that resolution we experienced noticeable hiccups and stalls in our videos. We’re not asking for much, but we’d at least like some smooth VGA here. If you plan on using this for any kind of decent video — think again.

Speaker

We’re big speakerphone users, so the external audio of a device is actually important to us (besides, how else can we entertain friends with the “Ras Trent” video while out and about?). The speaker on the Hero is definitely up to the task, producing loud and clear audio while on calls or listening to music. Of course, no one is really going to jam this way very much, but at the very least you can make our your tracks pretty clearly. For calls, the speaker and microphone seemed pretty outstanding to us (we were testing mostly with T-Mobile, mind you).

Battery life

We were impressed with the Hero’s staying power, though we’ll reserve our final judgments till we have a device running US 3G to look at. On EDGE / WiFi, we saw impressive, full day use with a single charge. Standby didn’t seem to pull much power, though it was obvious that many of the widget updates were just waiting till we woke the phone up, which made for maddening floods of syncing and updating (a real drain on speed). Overall, the Hero beats the pants off of our G1, and gives the Magic a run for its money. Battery life was favorable in comparison with the iPhone 3GS, and obviously puts the Pre in a world of hurt.

Software


HTC’s take on Android


As you should know, HTC has sunk a huge amount of time (and money, we assume) into giving Android a major makeover. If you’re familiar with the company’s work on Windows Mobile devices, then the look and feel of the new HTC-ified Google OS should make perfect sense to you. Sense is a good word, actually, since the company calls its new UI the “Sense Experience,” which is really another way of distancing itself from TouchFLO iterations of the past (though there is clearly a lineage here).

Essentially, almost every aspect of Android has been reskinned and tweaked on the Hero. From the windowshade notification area to the dialer, HTC has left its mark across the device — and it’s a pretty handsome mark. The general design is much more on par with contemporaries such as the Pre, iPhone, and recent versions of the BlackBerry OS. You probably know what that means: lots of alpha layers, dark, shiny blacks and grays, and the occasional brightly colored highlight hue. It’s all extremely slick — if you didn’t know Android well, you might assume it’s a completely different OS… and maybe that’s what HTC is hoping. We obviously like the reworked graphics, but it’s annoying to see how the fresh paint job bogs the phone down in places. In particular, the calendar app which is fairly nimble on standard builds of Android seems sluggish here, and we noticed the same kind of jittery behavior in other apps which function just fine on our Dreams and Magics.

Two other changes of note are somewhat major in the Hero build of Android. Firstly, as has been widely reported, the phone can access Exchange accounts — a feature not found on any Google-branded devices (though present in the Rogers variations of HTC’s other phones). Secondly, the device has an underlying social networking tie-in (a la webOS) which can pull in Facebook, Twitter, and Flickr data in various spots on the phone, and also allows you to move media and messages between the services.

HTC refinements

What is notable is the fact that the underlying guts here are really no different from Android 1.5, save for some HTC-specific tweaks such as the company’s onscreen keyboard (more on that in a moment), aforementioned dialer, and other nips and tucks, largely cosmetic. For instance, instead of providing a tab to pull up your applications, HTC provides a button reminiscent of the Pre’s home icon (which incidentally does the same thing). Still, there are quite a few functionality tweaks onboard as well, including the addition of multitouch in the Hero’s photo app and standard (but heavily skinned) Android browser. Sorry Google Maps fans — no love on that front.


Google’s touch keyboard has been completely dashed here in favor of HTC’s iteration, and that’s a good thing… to an extent. The keyboard is certainly usable — even good sometimes — but it’s hardly a competitor to Apple’s onscreen QWERTY, and not even in the same universe as a physical keyboard. We know a lot of readers have been on the edge of their seat about whether the Hero’s lack of keys would be a detracting factor, and despite a tremendous attempt by HTC here, it certainly is (of course we feel similarly about the Magic). We found ourselves regularly frustrated by the speed of typing (which can sometimes hang painfully, a la iPhone OS 2.0), and some of the auto-correction, which is typically good, but can be maddening when incorrect. Keep in mind, we really, really wanted to like this keyboard, but the more time we spent with it, the more frustrated we became by it. Trying to tap out an address in Google Maps while walking somewhere, for instance, was a truly unpleasant experience.

On the other hand, HTC has made marked improvements in the phone functionality on the Hero, making the dialer and contact management pages a joy to use. Getting to number quickly is a cinch since you’re able to use the numeric keypad to call up both strings of numbers and names, and the company has forgone tabbed entries on contacts for a combined recent / missed page coupled with your contact list. HTC has also improved the music player here (a badly needed upgrade), though like so many other applications on the phone, it feels sluggish when compared to its rivals’ experiences. We had the same feeling when using the browser — another spot where the software falls victim to the phone’s underpowered hardware — the web experience on the Hero was typically slow and frustrating.

Overall, the changes the company has made with Android do make the OS feel more complete and modern, but it seems to be at the expense of performance. We could almost feel the 528MHz processor struggling to keep us as we paged through seven homescreens of widgets — most accessing data in the background — and when we took at a look at the task list, it was clear that most of our memory was being sucked up with scores of little processes. It seems like HTC has made a software suite for their next generation of phones, but tacked it onto its current one, and the combo is a bit messy at times. We won’t knock them for aiming high, but we don’t know how much we enjoy the lag and stutter of the current Hero build.

Widgets and new applications

HTC has loaded the phone with a slew of new applications and widgets — and the company has made a lot of the right choices. We’ve also felt that one of the really untapped resources Android had was its widget implementation, so it’s really nice to see that HTC has taken up the mantle here. Unfortunately, these aren’t standard Android widgets, so as far as we know, you’re only going to be seeing them on HTC phones.

Of course there are the standard clock and weather widgets (both beautiful, mind you), though the company has provided a number of other options that really do improve the day-to-day use of the phone. We’re not going to run through every single one, but we do want to mention the notable additions.

To start with, HTC has gone to the trouble of creating it’s own Twitter client, Peep. The application lives in two places on the phone; the first is a variable sized widget for your homescreen which allows basic functionality like reading recent tweets and updating your status. The second iteration is a full-on app which offers robust options along the lines of Tweetie for the iPhone. While the application is excellent at what it does, there is some disconnect between the widget and the program itself. Like other parts of the OS, Peep seems to be hampered by the slower CPU and limited RAM as well — scrolling can sometimes be stuttery, and it often takes some doing to refresh its content.

Another notable widget / application combo is Footprints. The premise is simple: it allows you to quickly snap a photo and geotag your location, then gives you options for sorting the content as favorites, restaurants, shopping, etc. It’s actually a pretty clever little idea, and for those who travel or are planning a trip, along with that 5 megapixel camera, it’s a nice addition to the phone.

Interestingly, our favorite widgets are actually simple toggles — switches which allow you to flip services like WiFi, mobile networks, Bluetooth, and Airplane Mode on and off without jumping into your settings screen. During testing, we found ourselves putting these small, icon-sized micro apps into heavy rotation. It’s a thoughtful inclusion which shows HTC is actually paying attention to how users operate their phones.

Flash

So Flash is kind of a big deal on new smartphones. The iPhone doesn’t have it, the Pre doesn’t have it, BlackBerry devices don’t have it… but the Hero does. Unfortunately, in our testing, we found the inclusion actually hurts operation of the phone more than it helps. When browsing to a site heavy on Flash (there are many), the browser loading times were abysmal. Furthermore, trying to view videos in-window produced choppy, nearly unwatchable results. You may have a better experience with lighter kinds of content, but in our opinion the main reason to introduce Flash into a mobile environment is to allow for broader media viewing options, and in the current state of this Flash player, you’re not really going to get much mileage out of it.

Wrap-up


The Hero represents a valiant effort from HTC — though unfortunately, the company appears to have bitten off more than its last-generation hardware can chew. If this build of Android were to be loaded atop the guts of a 3GS or Pre, the performance would likely be astounding, but fused with the two-year old architecture of previous devices, it’s mostly disappointing. We’re not saying this isn’t the best build of Android on the market — we think it is. What we are saying is that this build is a bit too much for a device like the Hero to handle, and that makes for an uneven, sometimes frustrating experience. Going into the review, we desperately wanted to love this phone, but given the combination of a few poor hardware choices and an OS which outclasses the device it runs on, we can only recommend that you enter at your own risk. HTC has an explosive entry in the smartphone category with what its done on the software side… now it just needs the hardware to match.

with thanx from here

Credit:
HTC Hero review

Share/Save/Bookmark

Intel Said to Win Nokia as Customer for Mobile Chips

June 23rd, 2009 No comments

Intel Said to Win Nokia as Customer for Mobile Chips (Update2) – Bloomberg.com

June 22 (Bloomberg) — Intel Corp., the world’s largest chipmaker, will supply Nokia Oyj with processors for mobile devices, a breakthrough in its effort to enter the phone market, a person familiar with the matter said.

The deal will be announced on a conference call tomorrow, said the person, who declined to be identified because the details are confidential. Intel scheduled the call for an “important announcement” with Anand Chandrasekher, senior vice president of the company’s ultra-mobility group.

Intel, whose microprocessors run more than 80 percent of the world’s personal computers, has struggled for about a decade to get a foothold in the market for mobile-phone chips. Chandrasekher leads a group that sells a scaled-down version of Intel’s personal-computer processor. The chip, called Atom, is designed for mobile devices that access the Web and send e-mail.

“Even if they get just a piece of Nokia’s business, it’s a big deal,” said Will Strauss, a Cave Creek, Arizona-based analyst for research firm Forward Concepts. “Nokia is still the biggest cell-phone maker in the world.”

Claudine Mangano, a spokeswoman for Santa Clara, California-based Intel, declined to comment. Laurie Armstrong, a spokeswoman for Nokia in the U.S., didn’t immediately return calls seeking comment.

Otellini’s Plan

In 2006, Intel Chief Executive Officer Paul Otellini scrapped his predecessor’s $5 billion investment in chips for mobile devices, after the company was late to the market and failed to win enough customers.

Now Otellini is again pushing to get Intel’s chips into phones, a bid to lessen the company’s reliance on computers, which account for than 90 percent of sales. A total of 1.21 billion mobile phones were sold globally last year, according to ABI Research in Oyster Bay, New York.

Intel shares fell 33 cents, or 2.1 percent, to $15.68 today on the Nasdaq Stock Market. They have gained 7 percent this year. Espoo, Finland-based Nokia fell 46 cents, or 4.3 percent, to 10.29 euros.

Intel Chief Financial Officer Stacy Smith said in February that the company needed to land one of the top five mobile-phone makers if it wanted to build a significant business.

Texas Instruments

Intel is challenging Texas Instruments Inc., the largest maker of chips used to run programs in mobile phones. San Diego- based Qualcomm Inc., meanwhile, supplies the majority of communications chips for phones. Both companies have said that Intel would struggle to break their dominance because its products use too much power.

Intel announced in February it had landed LG Electronics Inc., the world’s third-largest phone maker, as a customer. LG will use an Intel processor to make a mobile Internet device, a cross between a mobile phone and a computer.

Intel’s attempts to create a mobile business have foundered before after early announcements of interest from customers, said Jim McGregor, an analyst at Scottsdale, Arizona-based research firm In-Stat.

“They’ve been dreaming of getting a significant win at Nokia,” he said. “It’s a big announcement, they’re a key guy. The only question now is whether they will actually come out with a product.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Ian King in San Francisco at ianking@bloomberg.net

source

Originally posted here:
Intel Said to Win Nokia as Customer for Mobile Chips

Share/Save/Bookmark

Microsoft: There Will Be “No New Console” – Microsoft

June 19th, 2009 No comments

Kotaku – Microsoft: There Will Be “No New Console” – Microsoft

By Michael McWhertor, 6:40 PM on Thu Jun 18 2009, 21,621 views (Edit post, Set to draft, Slurp)

Copy this whole post to another site
Slurp cancel
sending request

Today, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer indicated that the company would be releasing a new Xbox 360 in 2010, one featuring a built-in camera. That seemingly confirmed a new hardware configuration with the company’s Project Natal built-in. Microsoft’s official word?

While Ballmer’s casual mention of a new Xbox 360 hardware iteration at the Executive’s Club of Chicago seemingly confirms a rumor originating from 1UP, Microsoft’s Director of Product Management for Xbox 360 and Xbox Live Aaron Greenberg told Kotaku “There will be no new console.”

“We’re not going to be launching a new console any time soon,” Greenberg said during a phone call today. “I really believe he was speaking about Project Natal.”

“We want to make sure people know that we’re excited about Project Natal,” Greenberg noted, “But we’re barely halfway through this generation. We’re happy with the Xbox 360, so there are no changes from that standpoint. For the time being, we’re really just showing a whole new category of gaming.”

Asked if Microsoft was at least considering putting the hands-free motion controller technology into a new Xbox 360 configuration, Greenberg said “Yes, we have looked at that, but we haven’t announced any details for something like that.”

Nor has the company announced a ship date or final name for the motion-sensing camera tech it debuted at E3 2009, Greenberg added.

“We are saying that the Natal will run on the Xbox 360, so there’s no new hardware to purchase,” Greenberg said, reiterating the company’s position on its current generation platform. “What we’re doing that’s unique is, instead of asking you to invest in a new generation of hardware, a generation that’s already well established, extending the experience even longer by adding this whole new category of experiences with Project Natal.”

“We’re changing the rules a little bit just like we did with the New Xbox Experience,” he said.

We’ve requested a transcript of Mr. Ballmer’s speech from Executive’s Club of Chicago and will follow up when and if it becomes available.
from here

Read more:
Share/Save/Bookmark

Apple close to unveiling guarded Snow Leopard UI overhaul

March 26th, 2009 No comments

AppleInsider | Apple close to unveiling guarded Snow Leopard UI overhaul

While developers have been privy to pre-releases of Apple’s Snow Leopard operating system for quite some time, those distributions have been stripped of several features including a major UI overhaul that the company is now preparing for broader consumption, AppleInsider has been told.

People familiar with the matter say the next developer build of the software will unleash some of the biggest changes to the next-gen OS since Apple first previewed the software to developers at last June’s Worldwide Developers Conference.

Among the changes under consideration for the new build is a striking overhaul to the Mac OS X user interface, which is expected to surrender its platinum theme. Apple has reportedly been working on this new interface since day one, despite public claims that Snow Leopard would forgo forward-facing improvements for a focus strictly on under-the-hood enhancements.

Still, those familiar with the situation say it’s not clear whether management has given the green light to include the UI changes in an incremental developer build. The concern is that those changes will inevitably leak on the web, and therefore they may preserve them for an official demonstration during the company’s spring Worldwide Developers Conference.

These latest reports add to previous claims that similarly predicted Apple would eventually wrap Snow Leopard in a new interface rumored to go by the code-name “marble.” Details were sparse, but speculation pointed to the adoption of the smoother iTunes-style scrollbars and a move towards a darker chrome motif for application windows alongside an inverted menubar with light text on a dark background.

Marble
Interface elements and colors of the rumored “Marble” theme.

It’s possible that Apple may have already tipped its hand to this end earlier this month when it included the first external builds of its QuickTime X Player with Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard build 10A286. The software included a new minimal interface consisting only of a titlebar, leaving all playback controls to reside in floating interface overlays.

QuickTime X
An artist’s mockup of the minimal QuickTime X Player window interface with the “trim” tools overlay.

The titlebar itself (seen in the artist rendition, above) is reminiscent of the iPhone’s semi-transparent black glass interface but is also capable of adopting hues from the video frames playing beneath it. Although seen in the rendering as sporting a purplish hue (due to the underlying blue video frame) the titlebar appears glass-black when set atop a white or tan-colored video frame.

Story Highlights

* Next Snow Leopard builds to include big changes
* Snow Leopard to be wrapped in new interface ahead of launch
* WWDC to offer finalized preview, release date
* Snow Leopard to hit retail within two months of WWDC
* Upcoming iPhone OS 3 beta to activate live Push Notification support

As it stands, Apple reportedly plans to use its WWDC 2009 to preview a feature complete version of Snow Leopard and announce a formal release date. Based on the current status of the software, those familiar with the project say the company will need approximately two months from this public preview to fine tune the software. Assuming WWDC takes place in June, that would suggest a release around August.

In somewhat related news, company engineers are also racing to deliver a new build of iPhone Software 3.0 to iPhone and iPod touch developers. One of the big features destined for this build is said to be live support for Push Notifications through Apple’s servers, which is currently undergoing some final internal tests.

SOURCE

, , , , , , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Read more from the original source:
Apple close to unveiling guarded Snow Leopard UI overhaul

Share/Save/Bookmark

Samsung netbooks could offer full Windows 7

March 26th, 2009 No comments

Samsung netbooks could offer full Windows 7 | News | TechRadar UK

Future Samsung netbooks could feature fully blown edition of Windows 7

Towards the end of our day at Samsung’s European Forum in Vienna, we were ushered into a small room to interview Samsung’s Head of Worldwide Sales and Marketing (Computing Division), Kyu Uhm.

samsung-forum

As well as talking about the state of the netbook market, Uhm hinted at some interesting developments with Windows 7, not least that the company may consider shipping better versions – rather than Windows 7 Starter Edition – depending on the royalties Samsung would have to pay Microsoft.

When asked whether Samsung was actively developing Windows 7 netbooks, Uhm was certain. “Of course, of course.” And what of better versions of Windows?

“Currently Microsoft provides Windows XP for netbooks. For Windows 7 they would like to give us Windows 7 Starter Edition for netbooks. That’s the current plan.

“[Different versions are a] matter of how much we need to pay to Microsoft. It is an open issue. So we can ship other Windows 7 versions, but it is a matter of royalties.”

When we pressed further, Uhm became cagey. “We need to ask Microsoft first.”

Uhm also had some observations on the netbook market and how the market will pan out. By the way, Samsung confusingly refers to netbooks as mini notebooks.

“Mini notebooks are one of the key drivers for Samsung’s growth in the short term period,” he said.

But are netbooks a flash in the pan? “It’s difficult to say. Short term is last year… we didn’t even know the mini notebook market is growing so fast. We [hope] to grow faster than our competitors. But we don’t know about tomorrow. Until then, we will do our best to expand our current capability.”

Future plans for Samsung

Patrick Pavel European Product Manager, was also in our meeting and gave us some insight into how Samsung sees itself in terms of its market share. We asked him whether he believed Samsung is where it wants to be in terms of computing sales in Europe – it’s currently down the pecking order in sixth place for notebook sales.

“Let’s say we have a short term and a long term strategy. In the long term we want to be, let’s say in the next two or three years, top three. Recently in the mini notebooks, we reached number one position in the UK. At the same time you see the customer who was maybe hesitating to put our brand towards their shelves, there is this very nice mini notebook.”

Pavel added that he expected a 6.5-7 per cent market share in Europe this year.

On Linux and Apple…

Speaking about Linux, Pavel said it was now unlikely the company would make a Linux netbook, but added that Samsung would do one if users demanded it: “[Linux netbooks] made a certain community very happy.”

Referring to Best Buy’s reputed 40 per cent return rate on these devices, he added: “The normal user, they are used to XP and how to install a printer and so on. We can do Linux if the market is demanding it. If there’s demand, let’s do it. We even started to develop some Linux platforms.”

On a different tack, Pavel also made it clear that Samsung isn’t considering launching a secondary brand like Dell’s Adamo. “If we are doing advertising, if we start now doing some other brand… rather than splitting the funds. As you know, the margins in the PC market are not that big. We decided to use the Samsung brand, which is obviously a strong brand.”

Pavel added that the company wouldn’t be held to ransom by trying to compete with Apple in the design space. Referring to the X360 thin and light notebook, he said: “We do such a flagship product not because of sales but more a marketing tool. Yes, we’re going to continue to do such stuff, maybe one or two products, but in order to make the money and make the volume it’s not so important, but maybe we’ll be more aggressive in this area.”

Uhm added “We will continue. Apple? Different market sector, different users. We are targeting Windows users.” He refused to be drawn when we pointed out that Apple was now targeting Windows users itself.

SOURCE

, , , , , , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

View original post here:
Samsung netbooks could offer full Windows 7

Share/Save/Bookmark

Six ways to make Web 2.0 work

February 19th, 2009 No comments

Six ways to make Web 2.0 work – The McKinsey Quarterly – Six ways Web 2.0 work – Business Technology – Application Management

Business Technology, Application Management Article, Six ways Web 2.0 work
In This Article

Technologies known collectively as Web 2.0 have spread widely among consumers over the past five years. Social-networking Web sites, such as Facebook and MySpace, now attract more than 100 million visitors a month. As the popularity of Web 2.0 has grown, companies have noted the intense consumer engagement and creativity surrounding these technologies. Many organizations, keen to harness Web 2.0 internally, are experimenting with the tools or deploying them on a trial basis.

Over the past two years, McKinsey has studied more than 50 early adopters to garner insights into successful efforts to use Web 2.0 as a way of unlocking participation. We have surveyed, independently, a range of executives on Web 2.0 adoption. Our work suggests the challenges that lie ahead. To date, as many survey respondents are dissatisfied with their use of Web 2.0 technologies as are satisfied. Many of the dissenters cite impediments such as organizational structure, the inability of managers to understand the new levers of change, and a lack of understanding about how value is created using Web 2.0 tools. We have found that, unless a number of success factors are present, Web 2.0 efforts often fail to launch or to reach expected heights of usage. Executives who are suspicious or uncomfortable with perceived changes or risks often call off these efforts. Others fail because managers simply don’t know how to encourage the type of participation that will produce meaningful results.

Some historical perspective is useful. Web 2.0, the latest wave in corporate technology adoptions, could have a more far-reaching organizational impact than technologies adopted in the 1990s—such as enterprise resource planning (ERP), customer relationship management (CRM), and supply chain management (Exhibit 1). The latest Web tools have a strong bottom-up element and engage a broad base of workers. They also demand a mind-set different from that of earlier IT programs, which were instituted primarily by edicts from senior managers.

Web 2.0 covers a range of technologies. The most widely used are blogs, wikis, podcasts, information tagging, prediction markets, and social networks (Exhibit 2). New technologies constantly appear as the Internet continues to evolve. Of the companies we interviewed for our research, all were using at least one of these tools. What distinguishes them from previous technologies is the high degree of participation they require to be effective. Unlike ERP and CRM, where most users either simply process information in the form of reports or use the technology to execute transactions (such as issuing payments or entering customer orders), Web 2.0 technologies are interactive and require users to generate new information and content or to edit the work of other participants.
Back to top

Earlier technologies often required expensive and lengthy technical implementations, as well as the realignment of formal business processes. With such memories still fresh, some executives naturally remain wary of Web 2.0. But the new tools are different. While they are inherently disruptive and often challenge an organization and its culture, they are not technically complex to implement. Rather, they are a relatively lightweight overlay to the existing infrastructure and do not necessarily require complex technology integration.

Clay Shirky, an adjunct professor at New York University, calls the underused human potential at companies an immense “cognitive surplus” and one that could be tapped by participatory tools. Corporate leaders are, of course, eager to find new ways to add value. Over the past 15 years, using a combination of technology investments and process reengineering, they have substantially raised the productivity of transactional processes. Web 2.0 promises further gains, although the capabilities differ from those of the past technologies (Exhibit 3).

Research by our colleagues shows how differences in collaboration are correlated with large differences in corporate performance.1 Our most recent Web 2.0 survey demonstrates that despite early frustrations, a growing number of companies remain committed to capturing the collaborative benefits of Web 2.0.2 Since we first polled global executives two years ago, the adoption of these tools has continued. Spending on them is now a relatively modest $1 billion, but the level of investment is expected to grow by more than 15 percent annually over the next five years, despite the current recession.3
Management imperatives for unlocking participation

To help companies navigate the Web 2.0 landscape, we have identified six critical factors that determine the outcome of efforts to implement these technologies.

1. The transformation to a bottom-up culture needs help from the top. Web 2.0 projects often are seen as grassroots experiments, and leaders sometimes believe the technologies will be adopted without management intervention—a “build it and they will come” philosophy. These business leaders are correct in thinking that participatory technologies are founded upon bottom-up involvement from frontline staffers and that this pattern is fundamentally different from the rollout of ERP systems, for example, where compliance with rules is mandatory. Successful participation, however, requires not only grassroots activity but also a different leadership approach: senior executives often become role models and lead through informal channels.

At Lockheed Martin, for instance, a direct report to the CIO championed the use of blogs and wikis when they were introduced. The executive evangelized the benefits of Web 2.0 technologies to other senior leaders and acted as a role model by establishing his own blog. He set goals for adoption across the organization, as well as for the volume of contributions. The result was widespread acceptance and collaboration across the company’s divisions.

2. The best uses come from users—but they require help to scale. In earlier IT campaigns, identifying and prioritizing the applications that would generate the greatest business value was relatively easy. These applications focused primarily on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of known business processes within functional silos (for example, supply-chain-management software to improve coordination across the network). By contrast, our research shows the applications that drive the most value through participatory technologies often aren’t those that management expects.

Efforts go awry when organizations try to dictate their preferred uses of the technologies—a strategy that fits applications designed specifically to improve the performance of known processes—rather than observing what works and then scaling it up. When management chooses the wrong uses, organizations often don’t regroup by switching to applications that might be successful. One global technology player, for example, introduced a collection of participatory tools that management judged would help the company’s new hires quickly get up to speed in their jobs. The intended use never caught on, but people in the company’s recruiting staff began using the tools to share recruiting tips and pass along information about specific candidates and their qualifications. The company, however, has yet to scale up this successful, albeit unintended, use.

At AT&T, it was frontline staffers who found the best use for a participatory technology—in this case, using Web 2.0 for collaborative project management. Rather than dictating the use, management broadened participation by supporting an awareness campaign to seed further experimentation. Over a 12-month period, the use of the technology rose to 95 percent of employees, from 65 percent.

3. What’s in the workflow is what gets used. Perhaps because of the novelty of Web 2.0 initiatives, they’re often considered separate from mainstream work. Earlier generations of technologies, by contrast, often explicitly replaced the tools employees used to accomplish tasks. Thus, using Web 2.0 and participating in online work communities often becomes just another “to do” on an already crowded list of tasks.

Participatory technologies have the highest chance of success when incorporated into a user’s daily workflow. The importance of this principle is sometimes masked by short-term success when technologies are unveiled with great fanfare; with the excitement of the launch, contributions seem to flourish. As normal daily workloads pile up, however, the energy and attention surrounding the rollout decline, as does participation. One professional-services firm introduced a wiki-based knowledge-management system, to which employees were expected to contribute, in addition to their daily tasks. Immediately following the launch, a group of enthusiasts used the wikis vigorously, but as time passed they gave the effort less personal time—outside their daily workflow—and participation levels fell.

Google is an instructive case to the contrary. It has modified the way work is typically done and has made Web tools relevant to how employees actually do their jobs. The company’s engineers use blogs and wikis as core tools for reporting on the progress of their work. Managers stay abreast of their progress and provide direction by using tools that make it easy to mine data on workflows. Engineers are better able to coordinate work with one another and can request or provide backup help when needed. The easily accessible project data allows senior managers to allocate resources to the most important and time-sensitive projects.

Pixar moved in a similar direction when it upgraded a Web 2.0 tool that didn’t quite mesh with the way animators did their jobs. The company started with basic text-based wikis to share information about films in production and to document meeting notes. That was unsatisfactory, since collaborative problem solving at the studio works best when animators, software engineers, managers, and directors analyze and discuss real clips and frames from a movie.4 Once Pixar built video into the wikis, their quality improved as critiques became more relevant. The efficiency of the project groups increased as well.

4. Appeal to the participants’ egos and needs—not just their wallets. Traditional management incentives aren’t particularly useful for encouraging participation.5 Earlier technology adoptions could be guided readily with techniques such as management by objectives, as well as standardized bonus pay or individual feedback. The failure of employees to use a mandated application would affect their performance metrics and reviews. These methods tend to fall short when applied to unlocking participation. In one failed attempt, a leading Web company set performance evaluation criteria that included the frequency of postings on the company’s newly launched wiki. While individuals were posting enough entries to meet the benchmarks, the contributions were generally of low quality. Similarly, a professional-services firm tried to use steady management pressure to get individuals to post on wikis. Participation increased when managers doled out frequent feedback but never reached self-sustaining levels.

A more effective approach plays to the Web’s ethos and the participants’ desire for recognition: bolstering the reputation of participants in relevant communities, rewarding enthusiasm, or acknowledging the quality and usefulness of contributions. ArcelorMittal, for instance, found that when prizes for contributions were handed out at prominent company meetings, employees submitted many more ideas for business improvements than they did when the awards were given in less-public forums.

5. The right solution comes from the right participants. Targeting users who can create a critical mass for participation as well as add value is another key to success. With an ERP rollout, the process is straightforward: a company simply identifies the number of installations (or “seats”) it needs to buy for functions such as purchasing or finance and accounting. With participatory technologies, it’s far from obvious which individuals will be the best participants. Without the right base, efforts are often ineffective. A pharmaceutical company tried to generate new product ideas by tapping suggestions from visitors to its corporate Web site. It soon discovered that most of them had neither the skills nor the knowledge to make meaningful contributions, so the quality of the ideas was very low.

To select users who will help drive a self-sustaining effort (often enthusiastic early technology adopters who have rich personal networks and will thus share knowledge and exchange ideas), a thoughtful approach is required. When P&G introduced wikis and blogs to foster collaboration among its workgroups, the company targeted technology-savvy and respected opinion leaders within the organization. Some of these people ranked high in the corporate hierarchy, while others were influential scientists or employees to whom other colleagues would turn for advice or other assistance.

When Best Buy experimented with internal information markets, the goal was to ensure that participation helped to create value. In these markets, employees place bets on business outcomes, such as sales forecasts.6 To improve the chances of success, Best Buy cast its net widely, going beyond in-house forecasting experts; it also sought out participants with a more diverse base of operational knowledge who could apply independent judgment to the prediction markets. The resulting forecasts were more accurate than those produced by the company’s experts.

6. Balance the top-down and self-management of risk. A common reason for failed participation is discomfort with it, or even fear. In some cases, the lack of management control over the self-organizing nature and power of dissent is the issue. In others, it’s the potential repercussions of content—through blogs, social networks, and other venues—that is detrimental to the company. Numerous executives we interviewed said that participatory initiatives had been stalled by legal and HR concerns. These risks differ markedly from those of previous technology adoptions, where the chief downside was high costs and poor execution.

Companies often have difficulty maintaining the right balance of freedom and control. Some organizations, trying to accommodate new Web standards, have adopted total laissez-faire policies, eschewing even basic controls that screen out inappropriate postings. In some cases, these organizations have been burned.

Prudent managers should work with the legal, HR, and IT security functions to establish reasonable policies, such as prohibiting anonymous posting. Fears are often overblown, however, and the social norms enforced by users in the participating communities can be very effective at policing user exchanges and thus mitigating risks. The sites of some companies incorporate “flag as inappropriate” buttons, which temporarily remove suspect postings until they can be reviewed, though officials report that these functions are rarely used. Participatory technologies should include auditing functions, similar to those for e-mail, that track all contributions and their authors. Ultimately, however, companies must recognize that successful participation means engaging in authentic conversations with participants.
Next steps

Acceptance of Web 2.0 technologies in business is growing. Encouraging participation calls for new approaches that break with the methods used to deploy IT in the past. Company leaders first need to survey their current practices. Once they feel comfortable with some level of controlled disruption, they can begin testing the new participatory tools. The management imperatives we have outlined should improve the likelihood of success.

SOURCE

Six ways to make Web 2.0 work

Share/Save/Bookmark

The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding

February 15th, 2009 No comments

The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding

The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding

1. The Law of Expansion: The power of a brand is inversely proportional to its scope. Trying to be all things to all people undermines the power of the brand. The strength of brands lies in becoming synony-mous with a single category. Brands that spread themselves across categories lose brand focus, identity, and ultimately market share.
2. The Law of Contraction: A brand becomes stronger when you narrow its focus. By narrowing the focus to a single category, a brand can achieve extraordinary success. Starbucks, Subway and Dominos Pizza became category killers when they narrowed their focus.
3. The Law of Publicity: The birth of a brand is achieved with publicity, not advertising. A new brand must be capable of generating favorable public-ity in the media or it won’t have a chance in the marketplace. Anita Roddick built the Body Shop into a global brand with no advertising, but with massive amounts of publicity. On the other hand, Miller Brewing spent $50 million in advertising to launch a brand called Miller Regular. The brand generated no publicity and very little sales.
4. The Law of Advertising: Once born, a brand needs advertising to stay healthy. Sooner or later, a brand leader has to shift its branding strategy from publicity to advertising. By raising the price of admission, advertising makes it difficult for a competitor to carve out a substantial share of the market.
5. The Law of the Word: A brand should strive to own a word in the mind of the consumer. If you want to build a brand, you must focus your branding efforts on owning a word in the prospect’s mind. A word that nobody else owns. Kleenex owns “tissue,” Federal Express owns “overnight,” Volvo owns “safety.”
6. The Law of Credentials: The crucial ingredient in the success of any brand is its claim to authenticity. Coke is the real thing in the minds of many, even though the last “real thing” advertisement ran almost thirty years ago. A brand’s credentials in a category as authentic, real, original, or the leader are very powerful indeed.
7. The Law of Quality: Quality is important, but brands are not built by quality alone. Does a Rolex keep better time than a Timex? Does Hertz have better service than Alamo? Does a Montblanc pen write better than a Cross? Are you sure? The perception of quality, more than quality itself, is what builds a brand. And the best way to build a quality perception in the mind of consumers is by following the laws of branding.
8. The Law of the Category: A leading brand should promote the category, not the brand. The most efficient, most productive, most useful aspect of branding is creating a new category. Customers don’t really care about new brands, they care about new categories. What was the market for cheap cars before Volkswagen? What was the market for home pizza delivery before Dominos? What was the market for in-line skates before Rollerblade?
9. The Law of the Name: In the long run, a brand is nothing more than a name. In the short term, a brand needs a unique idea or concept to survive. But in the long term, all that is left is the difference between your brand name and the brand names of your competitors. Shorter names that are unique and memorable are far stronger than longer, vague or generic names.
10. The Law of Extensions: The easiest way to destroy a brand is to put its name on everything. More than 90% of all new product introductions in the U.S. are line extensions. Line extensions destroy brand value by weakening the brand. The effects can be felt in diminished market share of the core brand, a loss of brand identity, and a cannibalization of the one’s own sales. Often, the brand extension directly attacks the strength of the core brand. Does Extra Strength Tylenol imply that regular Tylenol isn’t strong enough?
11. The Law of Fellowship: In order to build the category, a brand should welcome other brands. Consumers want to have choices. Choice stimulates demand. Healthy competition helps to build the category. The competi-tion between Coke and Pepsi makes customers more cola conscious. Per capita consumption goes up.
12. The Law of the Generic: One of the fastest routes to failure is giving a brand a generic name. The problem with a generic brand name is its inability to differentiate the brand from the competition. At your local health food store, you’ll find Nature’s Resource, Nature’s Answer, Nature’s Bounty, Nature’s Secret, Nature’s Way, Nature’s Best, Nature’s Plus, etc. Will any of these generic brands break into the mind and become a major brand? Unlikely.
13. The Law of the Company: Brands are brands. Companies are companies. There is a difference. Customer’s think of brands, not companies. Procter and Gamble isn’t Tide. General Motors isn’t Cadillac. The brand itself should be the focus of your attention. Use the company name, if necessary, in a decidedly secondary way.
14. The Law of Subbrands: What branding builds, subbranding can destroy. Subbranding erodes the power of the core brand. Waterford is the leading Irish crystal maker. Introducing “cheap” Waterford as “Marquis by Waterford” only dilutes the Waterford brand. Subbranding attacks a brand’s place in he mind of the prospect.
15. The Law of Siblings: There is a time and place to launch a second brand. A second brand can be launched to focus on a new subcategory within the same product family. Toyota launched Lexus because the Toyota brand couldn’t fill the luxury ar category. The focus is on the brand, not the company. Customers buy a Lexus not because it’s made by Toyota, but in spite of it.
16. The Law of Shape: A brand’s logotype should be designed to fit the eyes. Both eyes. A customer sees the world through two horizontal-ly mounted eyes peering out of the head. For maximum visual impact, a logotype should have a horizontal shape. The ideal shape is 2 1 /4 units wide by 1 unit high.
17. The Law of Color: A brand should use a color that is the opposite of its major competitor. Coke is red, and Pepsi is Blue. Hertz is yellow, and Avis is Red. Color consistency over the long term can help a brand burn its way into the mind.
18. The Law of Borders: There are no barriers to global branding. A brand should know no borders. The perfect solution to growth in a competitive market is not line extensions, but building a global brand. A brand should have a consistent message globally, but must take into account the perceptions of its country of origin.
19. The Law of Consistency: A brand is not built overnight.
Success is measured in decades, not years.This is the law which is violated most frequently. Once a brand occupies a position in the mind, the manufacturer often thinks of reasons to change. Markets may change, but brands shouldn’t. They may be bent slightly, or given a new slant, but their essential characteristics should never be changed. Long-term, consistent programs might be boring, but they are also immensely powerful.
20. The Law of Change: Brands can be changed, but only infrequently and only very carefully. Nothing is absolute and there are exceptions to every rule. There are three situations where changing your brand is feasible: When your brand is weak or non-existent in the mind, when you want to move your brand down the food chain to a lower price and perception point, or when your brand is in a slow-moving field and the change is going to take place over an extended period of time. Remember, changing your brand is a long and difficult process. Change at your own risk!
21. The Law of Mortality: No brand will live forever. Euthanasia is often thebest solution. While the laws of branding are immutable, brands themselves are not. They are born, grow up, mature, and eventually will die. Yet companies that are willing to spend millions to save a dying brand, won’t spend pennies to launch a new one. Opportunities for new brands and threats to old ones are constantly being created by the invention of new categories. The rise of personal computers created opportunities for Compaq, Dell and Gateway, but put pressure on Digital, Data General and Wang.
22. The Law of Singularity: The most important aspect of a brand is its single-mindedness. What is a brand? A singular idea or concept that you own inside the mind of the prospect. It’s as simple or as difficult as that.

Excerpted from “The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding”
SOURCE

© Copyright 2004 by Synergy Network, Inc.

, , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

See more here:
The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding

Share/Save/Bookmark

Angry shareholders say Microsoft squanders billions on pointless R&D projects

February 11th, 2009 No comments

Welcome to the second article in a series on Microsoft shareholder activism. These posts examine why investors, through the power of the stock price, aren’t buying the idea that Microsoft has a great future.  In this post, one of the top Microsoft securities analysts weighs in, Brendan Barnicle from Pacific Crest Securities. (To summarize his take, “Yeah a lot of people are frustrated … the stock should have grown.”). We reveal more details on what activist Craig Montgomery wants Microsoft to change. We’ll give you a sneak peek of the third post in the series, a candid interview with an outspoken shareholder who likens Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates to fraudster Bernard Madoff.

When we last left off, we had explained Montgomery’s viewpoint that Microsoft’s lagging share price was not a result of the soft economy. Montgomery of The Crandrea Group is creating a grassroots shareholder activism movement. He thinks – and others interviewed for this story agree – that Microsoft’s stock is underperforming and has been for years. One of the biggest problems, Montgomery says, is the astronomical amount of money that Microsoft spends on R&D. Not that he wants Microsoft to stop all R&D spending, but he, like the other investors we talked to, want an R&D reality check. By trimming the now-nearly $8 billion annually R&D budget, it is their belief that Microsoft frees up cash to do something truly game changing – like purchasing a mobile carrier.

“During 2007, Apple spent $782 million on R&D, Oracle spent $85 million while Microsoft spent about $7.5 billion. In 2007, Apple annual revenue amounted to $24 billion and net income totaled $3.5 billion,” says Montgomery. “According to 2008 annual report, Apple increased revenue to $32 billion and net income to $4.8 billion. During the same period Microsoft spent $8 billion on R&D and increased revenue from $51 billion to $60 billion. Therefore, Apple has a R&D budget that equates to approximately 10% of Microsoft’s; however, during this period Apple increased revenue by $8 billion and Microsoft increased revenue by $9 billion.”

Problem is, activists say that what Microsoft has been doing isn’t paying off.

Montgomery notes that Google has spent about $1 billion annually on R&D in ‘05 and ‘06, increasing to $2 billion in ‘07.  Meanwhile, in ‘05 its online advertising revenue was about $6 billion. In ‘07 that rose to $16 billion while its market share moved from about 30% to today’s range of over 50%. He contrasts that to, in 2005, Microsoft generating online advertising revenue of $1.5 billion (compared with Google’s $6 billion), reporting a mere 8% market share. In 2007, Microsoft reported revenue of $2 billion, which it says represents an even tinier 6% of the market.

“Google within this period has increased revenue by $10 billion and increased market share by 20%. Despite a larger R&D budget, however, within the same period, Microsoft has increased revenue by $500 million and potentially has lost 2% market share,” Montgomery spells out.

So, then, if you can’t develop your own home grown, you can always buy your way into a potential market with brilliant futures, right?. Wrong again, for Microsoft, says Montgomery.

It has bought Motionbridge, Medstory, Jellyfish, Fast Search and Transfer (that one for over  1 billion) and paid an astronomical sum of $6 billion for aQuantive. Then there’s investments like Onfolio, bought in 2006, which was integrated into the Windows Live toolbar “and by 2008, Microsoft announced that this was discontinued,” Montgomery recounts.

“Microsoft needs to stop telling the consumer what it wants and start asking what the customer wants. It is very ironic and yet a very sad commentary that Microsoft is a company that sells CRM software to clients (Microsoft Dynamics CRM),” he says.

While Montgomery would like to see Microsoft strike a deal with Yahoo on search – which would give Microsoft an instant about 30% market share in advertising — he knows that if the company doesn’t understand how to aptly serve advertisers, then it would simply be wasting more money.

In agreement is shareholder Mike McDonald. McDonald owns 118,000 shares of Microsoft, bought in 2000 at an average price of $36 share (adjusted for splits and dividend payouts). He has since seen the company grow its revenue and profits while his equity has been halved. And he’s ticked about it.

“I still hold Microsoft so I still hold hope it will achieve what I think is its potential. By now it should have been $100+ per share. We’ve seen Apple rise and I remember when MS was handing out Apple oxygen because we didn’t know if it would survive. (Funny. I don’t even use Windows … I love the Mac.) I also believe Bill Gates is a charlatan because what he has said, implied, promised to shareholders and stakeholders and all of these visionary things that he mumbles and jumbles about and doesn’t make reality of. MS is spending billions of dollars on R&D.  Where is the return on investment? Who is there saying, as IBM eventually did, ‘We need to get a return on our R&D, we’re a  business’?”

One big part of the solution, in Montgomery’s eyes, is for Microsoft to buy a mobile provider – and not simply to partner with one, as it did with Verizon last month. He notes the math (per Citi analyst Mark Mahaney) that says Microsoft’s recent deal to provide search to Verizon mobile users won’t be a winner for Microsoft, as it will require each user to conduct 17 searches per month on their phones in the next five years just to break even.

He wants Microsoft to leverage its R&D money to buy a mobile carrier – in his mind, the perfect one would be the beleaguered Sprint, with $40 billion in revenue, 40 million mobile subscribers and trading at about $3 per share (at that rate, a market valuation of $7 billion).

McDonald agrees that a mobile acquisition would be good for Microsoft – though thinks Research in Motion is a better fit. Pacific Crest Securities’ Barnicle isn’t gung-ho on either idea. “As for buying a mobile carrier like Sprint, we just saw Microsoft divest itself in cable, its Comcast investment. It didn’t work out. They didn’t lose much money on that, but it’s a similar principle to own its own mobile network so it can then control it … Buying something like Sprint is not something the shareholders would be happy about … it would send the stock lower.”

He doesn’t see investors wanting Microsoft to buy into any business that the company doesn’t know how to run, and when it comes to wireless, operating margins are deterorating even faster than on Windows products.

Barnicle says that Microsoft’s main problem is an image battered by Vista. “There’s the perception that Vista wasn’t a successful product launch but it’s been fairly successful from a financial standpoint. There have been mounting concerns all decade that Microsoft’s business is going to be hurt from open source and that has never materialized, hurt from Google’s Web Office application offerings, from open source versions of Office and those things never materialized,” he said. “Microsoft has made its numbers. If you look at the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis, the stock price is suggesting that cash flow is going to decline at 3% a year in perpetuity and that’s not going to happen.”

Barnicle believes that the stock is also suffering from a nostalgia effect — people remembering its glorious reputation in the 1990s and think it can’t grow like that again. “It was a huge growth stock in the 1990s and it has experienced multiple compressions year over year. …Yeah a lot of people are frustrated … the stock should have grown — if you look objectively at the numbers Microsoft has put up the last couple of years. In 2008 it grew revenue 18% and earnings 21%, it is expected to grow revenues at 2% in 2009, which is good in this economy, and earnings per share is down maybe 6% which is pretty stable. Plus, given its enormous cash position, [the stock is definitely underperforming].”

But McDonald says the numbers don’t lie and investors are not fooled. Microsoft is losing market share on its high-margin products. Barnicle confirms this, “As for declining net operating revenues, that’s part [of the reason the stock has underperformed]. Also declining margins. Investors are also frustrated with Microsoft’s investments in its online business and entertainment devices.”

In the company’s defense, he says management is listening to its shareholders and doing what they ask of it. “There are lots of activist shareholders – and these are big, institutional investors. So you see management doing things like the Dutch auction [on a $20 billion buyback of shares in 2006], increased dividends, increased buybacks. They’ve done all the things investors have asked for and the stock is still underperforming. Shareholders are frustrated and management is frustrated.”

Shareholders also aren’t buying it. Stay tuned for the next installment where we will explore McDonald’s guest blog entitled “How to screw up a monopoly.”

SOURCE

Read the original here:
Angry shareholders say Microsoft squanders billions on pointless R&D projects

Share/Save/Bookmark

Video Chats Overcome Clunkiness

February 5th, 2009 No comments

When AT&T demonstrated its video telephone at the 1964 World’s Fair, everyone — including AT&T — pretty much figured that it would be the future. People wouldn’t just hear each other over the phone — they would see each other, too.

Skype 4.0 for Windows allows switching among multiple calls by clicking on the list of names.
What everyone forgot, of course, was a little factor called human nature. People don’t want to be watched on the phone. You don’t want to have to make yourself presentable, to perform or to give up the freedom of multitasking. In the absence of video, you can walk around cleaning, perform small acts of personal grooming, maybe roll your eyes at a stupid comment.

And so here we are, 45 years later, still making audio-only phone calls. Not because of technological limits, but human ones.

So what about Skype?

If you’re under 30 or so, you probably know all about Skype. It’s a free program (Mac, Windows or Linux) that connects you to other people who have Skype. You can type instant messages back and forth, make crystal-clear audio calls, and, yes, even make video calls, provided your computers have webcams or built-in cameras — all without paying a penny.

No wonder more than 300 million people have tried Skype. It’s a natural for the college crowd, in particular; free calls are especially attractive when you’re young and broke and miles from your friends and family.

Of course, plenty of other programs do the same things: iChat, Google Talk, MSN Messenger, AIM, Yahoo Messenger, SightSpeed and Oovoo. But because of its simplicity, its quality and its early start, Skype is the one whose name has become a verb.

On Tuesday, after a year of public testing, the Skype team (now owned by eBay) released Skype 4.0 for Windows, which the company calls “the biggest new release in Skype’s history.”

The first change strikes you immediately — and during the months of public testing, caused howls of protest among the faithful: Skype is no longer a flotilla of little windows dancing around your screen. It’s now a single consolidated window. You can still carry on multiple chats or audio calls simultaneously, but you switch among them by clicking their names in a list at the left side, rather than juggling multiple windows. (A variation of the old arrangement is still available.)

All kinds of useful features are on display. You can drag various sections of the software to resize them; discreet notifications pop up from your system tray when people are trying to reach you; you can import the address book from Hotmail, Yahoo or Outlook.

The most important changes in Skype 4, though, have to do with video calls. If you’ve ever used video-chat programs before, then you know what an unsatisfying experience it can be. The picture breaks up. Connections are dropped. Clarity comes and goes.

Worst of all, there’s that annoying delay that makes both you and your conversation partner seem slightly dimwitted. Reactions lag, jokes fall flat and you wind up accidentally interrupting each other — “Oh, I’m sorry, go ahead ”— all because there’s a one-second delay between saying something and its arrival at the other person’s speakers.

The video quality still varies when you use Skype. Fast Internet connections and fast computers still work better than slow ones. But if you do have a good setup — wow. With certain Logitech or Philips webcam models, Skype 4.0 can deliver a picture that’s as big and sharp and smooth as a TV picture (30 frames a second, 640 by 480 pixels), with almost no delay.

In my test calls to friends in California, New York and Virginia, we were amazed at what a difference it makes when the delay goes away. (Maybe, for its next trick, Skype can lend its technology to the world’s cellphone carriers.)

Just for kicks, we then tested iChat, Oovoo and Sightspeed under the same conditions, on the same computers. None of them matched Skype’s immediacy or video and audio quality.

According to the company, you get the best results if both parties are using Skype 4.0 for Windows (or Skype 2.8 for Mac). But some quality improvement will be apparent even if only one party has the latest.

Skype’s audio quality has always been terrific — more like a CD than a telephone, so if you have decent speakers, audio calls have an eerie, you-are-there presence. But the company says that the new version requires only half as much data to transmit all of that sound. In other words, no matter what your Internet connection, you’ll probably hear an improvement.

Skype’s video now offers some handy bells and whistles. You no longer have to begin a video chat by first starting with an audio call, for example; there’s a dedicated Start Video Chat button. You can also expand the window to full screen, or capture a still image during the call, with one click.

You can resize both your partner’s video image and your own, smaller picture-in-picture image, or drag them around the screen to suit the situation. And a small utility strip below the picture offers space to type Web addresses or other instant messages to your partner. You can even send a file to your pal by clicking the Send File button in this box.

Still, the new Skype is not necessarily the king of video-chat apps. It’s missing some big-ticket items that you can find in its rivals. For example, although Skype can accommodate several participants in a typed chat or an audio call, video calls are strictly one-to-one.

In programs like Oovoo, SightSpeed and Apple’s iChat, by contrast, several of you can be on a single video call, creating virtual meetings that bring together participants from far-flung corners of the globe without ever involving airplanes. In this economy, that’s not such a bad idea.

SightSpeed also offers a “video answering machine”— your buddies can leave a video recording for you when you’re not around. The paid versions of SightSpeed’s service also offer one-click recording of your video chats, which can be a useful record indeed, especially in matters of the heart (or business deals).

Weirdly, Skype 4.0 doesn’t offer screen sharing — an indispensable collaboration and troubleshooting tool that’s in Skype for Macintosh. It lets you see your buddy’s computer screen and even operate the mouse by long distance. (“Coming soon,” says Skype.)

And while we’re quibbling: it’s great that Skype offers you the chance to place calls from your computer to somebody’s actual telephone for a couple of cents a minute — that, after all, is how the company makes money. (Rates are, for example, $3 a month for unlimited calling to United States and Canadian phones, or $10 a month globally.) But Skype really shouldn’t charge you to send text messages this way. Other chat programs let you send text messages straight to people’s cellphones at no charge to you.

Even so, Skype 4 is better than before, and it’s free, and that means it’s a no-brainer to upgrade. So if video calling is inching closer to being instantaneous, clear, and satisfying, does that mean that AT&T’s 1964 vision will finally come to pass? Will we one day adjust to the idea of being on camera every time someone calls?

Nah.

In the end, video chatting isn’t a replacement for phone calls but a supplement to them, a perfect way to check out someone’s new place, check in with distant family members and friends or show off a new talent (or baby). They saw the possibilities back in 1964 — they just didn’t realize that we wouldn’t always want to use them.

SOURCE

Video Chats Overcome Clunkiness

Share/Save/Bookmark

How Twitter Was Born

February 1st, 2009 No comments

Twitter was born about three years ago, when @Jack, @Biz, @Noah, @Crystal, @Jeremy, @Adam, @TonyStubblebine, @Ev, me (@Dom), @Rabble, @RayReadyRay, @Florian, @TimRoberts, and @Blaine worked at a podcasting company called Odeo, Inc. in South Park, San Francisco. The company had just contributed a major chunk of code to Rails 1.0 and had just shipped Odeo Studio, but we were facing tremendous competition from Apple and other heavyweights. Our board was not feeling optimistic, and we were forced to reinvent ourselves.

“Rebooting” or reinventing the company started with a daylong brainstorming session where we broke up into teams to talk about our best ideas. I was lucky enough to be in @Jack’s group, where he first described a service that uses SMS to tell small groups what you are doing. We happened to be on top of the slide on the north end of South Park. It was sunny and brisk. We were eating Mexican food. His idea made us stop eating and start talking.

I remember that @Jack’s first use case was city-related: telling people that the club he’s at is happening. “I want to have a dispatch service that connects us on our phones using text.” His idea was to make it so simple that you don’t even think about what you’re doing, you just type something and send it. Typing something on your phone in those days meant you were probably messing with T9 text input, unless you were sporting a relatively rare smartphone. Even so, everyone in our group got the idea instantly and wanted it.

Later, each group presented their ideas, and a few of them were selected for prototyping. Demos ensued. @Jack’s idea rose to the top as a combination of status-type ideas. @Jack and @Noah were assigned to build version 0.1 while the rest of the company focused on maintaining Odeo.com, so that if this new thing flopped we’d have something to fall back upon.

The first version of @Jack’s idea was entirely web-based. It was created on March 31st, 2006. My first substantive message is #38:

oh this is going to be addictive

Standing Room Only We struggled with a codename and a product name. “It’s FriendStalker!” joked @Crystal, our most prolific user. The userbase was limited entirely to the company and our immediate family. No one from a major company of any kind was allowed in. For months, we were in Top Secret Alpha because of competing products like the now-defunkt Dodgeball. We operated using a “long code”, or a full 10-digit phone number linked to a small-potatoes gateway. The original product name / codename “twttr” was inspired by Flickr and the fact that American SMS shortcodes are five characters. We prototyped with “89887? as our shortcode. We later changed to “40404? for ease of use and memorability. Twttr probably had about 50 users in the long code days.

I was following everyone on the system. We had an admin page where you could see every user. As Head of Quality for the company, it seemed like my duty to watch for opinions or issues from our users. This caused confusion, though, when family members of our team were suddenly being followed by a seemingly random person. Thus, Private Accounts were born. @Jack and @Florian created a means for users to mark themselves private, and we admins had the ability to tell who wanted to be private so we’d know not to follow them. Actual, real privacy with secure protection came a bit later. I’d say there were about 100 users when Private was invented.

Later Twttr Design The interaction model and the visual metaphor for the service were constantly in flux. The meaning of being someone’s “Friend” versus “Following” someone changed regularly. At that point, you could either get all SMS messages or get none. There was no Twictionary back then; data in the system were referred to as “posts” or just “messages”. The lack of clear terminology led to some pretty spirited debates leading up to the Spring of 2006.

We launched Twttr Beta on @Ev’s birthday. We could now invite a slightly larger circle of friends, but still excluding any large companies (with a few trusted exceptions within places like Google). I’ll never forget the family-friendly feeling of that day. We all knew that we were going to change the world with this thing that no one else understood. That day stands out in memory as the deep breath before a baby’s first cry.

Meanwhile, Odeo and the corporate board were at a tension point. Not only was the value of Twttr difficult to describe, the relevance of Odeo was declining monthly. Drastic cuts were recommended. One day in early May 2006, @Ev let four of us go: @Adam, @TonyStubblebine, me, and @Rabble. @Noah and @TimRoberts would later be asked to leave as well. It was a tough decision and huge shock to each of us. We all handled it differently. Looking back on it, I think Twitter allowed us to stay connected when we might not have otherwise been. After all, we weren’t even public with the site yet, so each of us continued to add value just by using it with each other.

Twttr, directly. During this transition, Twttr.com launched to the public. Still, very few people understood its value. At the time most people were paying per SMS message, and so wouldn’t Twttr run up our bills? Also, how were we supposed to use this thing and who cares what I’m doing? Each one of us original users became a kind of personal evangelist for Twttr, trying to get our coworkers and friends to use it. At this point, Obvious Corp was born as an incubator with Twttr as its sole project.

Twitter Friends@Jack was still just an engineer, and the service was only a few months old when the group acquired Twitter.com and re-branded. Back then, we had no character limit on our system. Messages longer than 160 characters (the common SMS carrier limit) were split into multiple texts and delivered (somewhat) sequentially. There were other bugs, and a mounting SMS bill. The team decided to place a limit on the number of characters that would go out via SMS for each post. They settled on 140, in order to leave room for the username and the colon in front of the message. In February of 2007 @Jack wrote something which inspired me to get started on this project: “One could change the world with one hundred and forty characters.”

Just in time for SxSW, @RayReadyRay rigged a very sweet Flash-based visualizer that ended up on display on the halls of the conference. I wasn’t working there, but I used to visit regularly to see how our baby was doing. I happened to be at the office in SF when the visualizer went live on site in Austin. I remember finding a bug just before showtime, as @Biz and @Jeremy talked over the phone. Everything miraculously fell into place by the time people filtered out of the sessions to see their comments floating along the hallway screens. Boom #1: Twitter won an award in the Blog category, and @Jack thanked everyone in 140 characters.

MTV Music Awards: Boom #2.

Apple WWDC 2007, and then TV, and then print and pretty soon Cable news: Boom #3.

@Jack became the CEO of a newly spun-off Twitter, Inc. during the Boom Times. People still didn’t quite “get it” but at least some people had heard about it. The team created permalinks and RSS feeds. @Blaine pushed for IM integration. Each major feature added tremendous gains in users, and in usage per user. Still small by social networking standards, Twitter delivered something immediate and vital that no other service could attain.

For a lot of people, the entire API launch was really the time when Twitter first left the nest. But that is another story, for another time.

If you liked this post, you might enjoy following me: http://twitter.com/dom

SOURCE

Go here to see the original:
How Twitter Was Born

Share/Save/Bookmark

InsideView, Web Crawler for Business, Raises $6.5 Million

January 20th, 2009 No comments
By Jenna Wortham

As companies continue to put the brakes on expenditures and reduce staffs, maximizing efficiency becomes even more essential for businesses looking to weather the recession.

InsideView, a start-up based in San Francisco, is hoping to capitalize on that effort by showing businesses how the social Web can make the workplace more efficient. On Thursday, the company announced a $6.5 million round of financing led by Emergence Capital Partners and Rembrandt Venture Partners. The latest round brings InsideView’s total outside investments to $14 million since the company was started in 2005.

The company’s primary product, SalesView, acts as a sort of online divining rod. The service trawls through more than 20,000 public Web sites, social networks and public data sources like LinkedIn, Facebook, Reuters, Securities and Exchange Commission filings and even company blogs. With that information, SalesView can create company snapshots intended to help sales teams identify potential clients.

For example, a sales executive might use SalesView to sleuth out information on prospective customers, from favorite eateries to their alma maters. Or a vendor might skim a LinkedIn profile to determine if there is a shared connection that might provide an entry point to an otherwise inaccessible company.

“Companies are looking to make their salespeople more efficient,” said InsideView’s chief executive, Umberto Milletti, in a phone interview. “They’re not going to be able to hire extra salespeople in 2009, so there’s a need to make the ones they have more efficient.”

Currently, the company has more than 500 customers, including the software company Ariba and the Web analytics firm Omniture, which make use of both free and premium search tools. Mr. Milletti said the company had about a 93 percent renewal rate and expanded its customer base nearly 200 percent year to year since its start in 2005.

Mr. Milletti said the additional financing would be directed toward expanding the technology vendor’s platform and a marketing push to appeal to businesses anxious about the current economic climate.

SOURCE

Go here to see the original:
InsideView, Web Crawler for Business, Raises $6.5 Million

Share/Save/Bookmark