Hasta La Gadget!

If you’re into keeping tabs on irony, check this out. Amazon apparently sent out its robotic droogs last night, deleting copies of the George Orwell novels Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four from Kindles without explanation, then refunding the purchase price. As you can imagine, a lot of people caught in the thick of Winston and Julia’s love story aren’t very happy — and rightfully so — the idea that we “own” the things we buy is pretty fundamental to… ownership. We’re not sure exactly what happened, but it seems that the publisher of said novels, MobileReference, has changed its mind about selling content on the Kindle, and poof! Amazon remotely deleted all previously purchased copies. It’s all a bit Orwellian, is it not? Good thing we “permanently borrowed” hard copies of both from our middle school library, huh? Let Hate Week commence.

Update: According to commenters on Amazon, this message was sent out from the company’s customer service department:

The Kindle edition books Animal Farm by George Orwell. Published by MobileReference (mobi) & Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) by George Orwell. Published by MobileReference (mobi) were removed from the Kindle store and are no longer available for purchase. When this occurred, your purchases were automatically refunded. You can still locate the books in the Kindle store, but each has a status of not yet available. Although a rarity, publishers can decide to pull their content from the Kindle store.

While that publisher’s version of the book may have been removed, it appears other versions of the novels are still available.

Update 2: Drew Herdener, Amazon.com’s Director of Communications, pinged us directly with the following comment, and now things are starting to make a lot more sense. Seems as if the books were added initially by an outfit that didn’t have the rights to the material.

These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books. When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers’ devices, and refunded customers. We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers’ devices in these circumstances.

Still, what’s upsetting is the idea that something you’ve purchased can be quietly taken back by Amazon with no explanation and no advance notice. It’s a rotten policy, regardless of the motivations behind this particular move.

Filed under: Handhelds

Amazon remotely deletes Orwell e-books from Kindles, unpersons reportedly unhappy (update) originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Apple’s iPhone App Store may be a resounding success. But Google says app stores are a dead end.

Sour grapes? Maybe. It’s no coincidence that Google has placed its money on web-based applications, for its mobile Android operating system as well as its forthcoming Chrome OS.

Vic Gundotra, Google’s engineering vice president and developer evangelist, said on Friday at the Mobilebeat conference in San Francisco that the future of the mobile industry lies in web-based applications, rather than native software coded to run on specific smartphone operating systems.

“Many, many applications can be delivered through the browser and what that does for our costs is stunning,” Gundotra was quoted in a Financial Times report. “We believe the web has won and over the next several years, the browser, for economic reasons almost, will become the platform that matters and certainly that’s where Google is investing.”

Ever since Java emerged in the 1990s, the tech industry has debated whether software would shift from native programs sitting on a hard drive (like Microsoft Office) toward web-based applications accessible through a browser (like Google Docs). Developed by Sun Microsystems, Java is a cross-platform environment that many web-based applications use today, albeit “in the cloud” — on central servers — rather than in the browser. One big benefit of cloud-based, web-centric applications is that users can access the apps and their personal data from any computer using a browser.

However, while Google’s internet software suite is certainly popular, web-based apps are far from winning, said Michael Gartenberg, technology strategist of Interpret. He noted that Apple’s App Store, which serves 65,000 third-party apps and has attracted over 1.5 billion downloads and 100,000 developers, is a testament for strong consumer and developer interest in native applications.

“It’s odd that Google feels the need to position as one versus the other,” Gartenberg said. “That’s last century thinking.”

Gartenberg pointed out that many iPhone apps are native and web-based at the same time. That’s because a lot of the apps download or share data via the internet. And it’s beneficial for the apps to be native, because that way they’re programmed to specifically take advantage of the iPhone’s processor, graphic accelerator and other hardware features.

“It’s not about web applications or desktop applications but integrating the internet in the cloud into these applications that are on both my phone and the PC,” Gartenberg said. “Ultimately, it’s about offering the best of both worlds to create the best experience for consumers — not forcing them to choose one or the other.”

Gartenberg highlighted social networking service Twitter as an example. The Twitter service exists on the internet, and yet most users prefer reading their feeds and posting tweets with a native application rather than visiting Twitter.com in a browser, Gartenberg said.

Raven Zachary, an analyst and president of iPhone strategist firm Small Society, also disagreed with Google’s assessment. He said that the App Store makes it clear that native apps are proving a better experience for consumers. When Apple released the original iPhone in 2007, the company offered no software developer kit for the smartphone and told developers to make web-based apps. However, web-based apps proved unpopular among developers, and the iPhone didn’t explode in popularity until its App Store and the second-generation iPhone 3G launched in 2008.

“It’s pretty clear that native apps and on-phone distribution are by far the most efficient and compelling ways to have consumer apps,” Zachary said.

And speaking technically, Zachary pointed out that there will always be fundamental challenges with coding apps purely for the web: Not all hardware will be optimized to run the software. Different phones possess different screen resolutions, for example, meaning some apps would load better on certain phones than others. And other than that, a web-based app can’t take full advantage of a specific phone’s powers if it’s coded to work in a cross-platform environment.

Loren Brichter, developer of the popular iPhone Twitter application Tweetie, can vouch for the technical challenges lying ahead for web-based mobile programming. He said he’s been trying to code apps using the Palm Pre’s webOS software development kit, which involves programming in JavaScript and CSS.

“The Pre’s SDK is painful to work with because JavaScript is so clumsy,” Brichter said.

He added that web technology is not improving quickly enough to fulfill Google’s prophecy of web apps winning in the near future.

“The progress of web technologies is going so slow,” Brichter said. “With HTML5, they can’t even decide on a video format…. It’s just moving at a snail’s pace.”

What do you think about the future of mobile? Web apps winning? App stores surviving? Both native and web co-existing? Vote in the poll below.

See Also:

• Report: Sony Readies PSP ‘App Store’
• GDC: In iPhone’s Wake, Nintendo, Sony Push Handheld Game Downloads …
• Nokia Ovi App Store Faces Turbulent Start
• BlackBerry App Store Gets a Name
• Microsoft Reveals New App Store Strategy
• Coder’s Half-Million-Dollar Baby Proves iPhone Gold Rush Is Still …
• iPhone 3.0: Will the Gold Rush Continue?

Photo: Jon Snyder/Wired.com

We already showed you what exclusive titles you can expect for the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3, now let’s wrap things up with the Nintendo Wii.

Historically, the Wii has benefited from a large amount of solid first-party titles like Super Mario Galaxy and The Legend of Zelda.

…

We pointed out why gadgets were more expensive 30 years ago, but it is also important to note that many of these gadgets were hilariously huge. I’ve collected eight examples, I’ll leave it up to you to add the rest.

In other words, feel free to use our new comments system to add photos of any oversized retro gadgets you have access to.

In the ’70s and early ’80s, it was trendy to offset tiny, crappy screens with enormous and ornate wooden consoles. My family had one of these when I was a kid—looking back on it, I understand why my father chose to put it on the lowest level of our house. It would have seriously compromised the structural integrity of any floor it was sitting on. [TV History]
This is what passed for a widescreen television in 1978. However, the GE Widescreen 1000 really wasn’t widescreen at all. In reality this absurdly huge cabinet housed a small CRT screen that used “a vertical deflection reversing switch to invert and laterally reverse the image, and a three element lens within a light-proof projection chamber to re-invert, magnify and project the image onto a forward projection type reflective screen.” In other words, the image was artificially enlarged through projection. Oh, and that beastly monstrosity sitting next to it is an early VHS recorder. Back in the day, video players like this one could weigh 30 pounds or more. [Flickr and RetroThing]
Surely you are familiar with the DynaTAC 8000X—the first commercially available mobile phone. Seriously, is Dr Martin Cooper making a call to his wife or calling in an air strike? [Puremobile]
The Walkman portable cassette player made its debut in 1979, but if you wanted a more feature rich portable player, you risked a dislocated shoulder picking up one of these ghetto blasters. [’80s Rewind]
Today we have camcorders built into our tiny cellphones. In the ’70s and early ’80s you had to deal with beasts like the Sony SL-F1 Betamax camera. Before the advent of the Betamovie BMC-100P personal camcorder in 1983, the camera and the portable recorder were not integrated into a single unit. [Wikipedia]
The JVC HR-4100 was the first ever “portable” VHS recorder, but this woman appears to be in over her head. This is definitely a “team lift” situation. [Rewind Museum]
We bitch about gas guzzling SUV’s now, but get a load of this ’73 Thunderbird. Seriously, there is enough metal between the cabin and the grill to take on a locomotive. [Corral.net]
Microwaves in the ’70s were big enough to crawl into. According to the owner, this particular model weighed around 80 pounds. [Forty Two]
Bonus: Glasses are not really a gadget, but honestly, what the hell was going on in the ’70s? I have to admit though, Wonder Woman still looks great with those telescopes attached to her face. Anyway, thank God for contacts and Lasik. [Blurbomat]

In 1909, Peter Christian Richard (P.C.) opens a hardware store in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn. His son Alfred J. Richard is born. At the age of six, A.J. starts to help his father around the store. Today you know that store as P.C. Richard & Son.

In the 1920s, the store begins to sell appliances. After expanding to many different locations across Queens, P.C. Richard & Son offered TV service in the 1960s. Today, the retailer has more than 50 locations in the New York City metro area, selling all sorts of electronics and appliances.

This week, P.C. Richard & Son is offering some hot deals on electronics, a few with free shipping offers. For today’s TechSaver Test, I’m going to challenge the store’s sales on the RCA Opal 2GB MP3/Video Player, the Garmin nuvi 205, the JVC Mini DV Camcorder GRDA30US, and the Olympus FE360 digital camera.

Dive in to this TechSaver Test, after the jump.