Hasta La Gadget!

The debate over the longevity of native software continues. Mozilla, creator of Firefox, claims that its new browser for smartphones will contribute to the death of smartphone app stores.

Scheduled to begin appearing on devices at the end of this year, the Firefox mobile browser, code-named Fennec, will be packed with features to make it the closest thing yet to a real, desktop-class browser. (Wired.com’s Mike Calore has a detailed look at Fennec.) Mozilla claims it will have the fastest JavaScript engine of any mobile browser, allowing developers to produce HTML- and JavaScript-coded apps for Fennec rather than for multiple smartphone platforms, such as iPhone OS, Google Android or Windows Mobile.

“In the interim period, apps will be very successful,” said Jay Sullivan, vice president of Mozilla’s mobile division, in an interview with PC Pro. “Over time, the web will win because it always does.”

Web proponents such as Mozilla and Google dream that internet standards will enable any app to run on any device, just as Java proponents touted a “write once, run anywhere” vision in the 1990s. Similarly, Adobe’s Flash emerged as a cross-platform environment for creating animations, games and apps for the web. But many consumers and developers have complained that Java and Flash exhibit bugs, performance problems and security vulnerabilities, among other issues. And Java’s promises of universality didn’t quite work out, because different implementations of the Java virtual machine (not to mention wildly varying hardware capabilities) mean that, even today, Java coders need to rework their apps for each target device.

But web proponents maintain that the wide acceptance of next-generation internet standards, particularly HTML5, will win out where Java failed.

It’s a tempting vision. Currently, when deciding whether to buy a Mac or a PC, an Xbox 360 or a PlayStation 3, or an iPhone or a Droid, you need to consider which applications you’ll be able to run on each one. If programmers head in the direction of the web, then ideally you’ll be able to gain access to any application regardless of the computer or smartphone you own.

Google is attempting to lead the web movement. The search giant is pushing its web-only regime with Chrome OS, its browser-based operating system for netbooks that will run only web applications. Also, in July, Google’s engineering vice president and developer evangelist Vic Gundotra said in a conference that mobile app stores have no future.

“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.”

But iPhone developers and analysts polled in July by Wired.com explained the problems with current web technologies, and some highlighted the merits of native-app architecture.

Interpet analyst Michael Gartenberg noted that many iPhone apps are a combination of native and web technologies, because many apps download or share data through the internet. He said it’s beneficial for the apps to be native, because they’re programmed to take full advantage of the iPhone’s hardware.

“It’s odd that Google feels the need to position as one versus the other,” Gartenberg said in July. “That’s last century thinking…. It’s not about web applications or desktop applications but integrating the cloud into these applications that are on both my phone and the PC. 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.”

With Firefox’s mobile browser rolling out soon, we have yet to see how consumers and developers react to Mozilla’s attempt to spark a web-only exodus. We’ll continue examining this topic in the months to come.

Meanwhile, what are your thoughts about the web-versus-native debate? Add your comments, or participate in the poll below.

See Also:

• Google Says Mobile App Stores Have No Future
• Google Chrome OS: Ditch Your Hard Drives, the Future Is the Web …
• New Firefox ‘Fennec’ Alpha Arrives as Mobile Browser Wars Heat Up …
• iPhone Opens to Some 3rd-Party Web Browsers, But Not Mobile …
• They Shrunk My Firefox! Mozilla Shows Off Touch-Sensitive Mobile …

Even though the FCC just gave Verizon until Monday to respond to its inquiries regarding the company’s new $350 “advanced device” early termination fee, they’ve shown some hustle here and delivered their 77 (yes, seventy-seven) page response today. Here are the two big takeaways consumers are going to care about:

• The company justifies the advanced device ETF a couple ways; it starts out by referring to some 2003 statements by the FCC in which the Commission says that it doesn’t support the concept of customers breaking contracts and that carriers have a right to recoup those fees. Of course, that really doesn’t drive to the point here, which is that Verizon’s now charging two completely different ETFs based on a rather arbitrary line in the sand drawn by Verizon; to that end, the carrier says that the additional cost it incurs to procure the devices on its advanced list is greater than the difference between the two ETFs ($175) on average. It also says that it needs that extra guaranteed revenue to keep its broadband network up to snuff, since advanced devices are more likely to strain it.
• Regarding the weirdness at the end of the contract — where a customer still owes $120 23 months into a two-year deal — Verizon says that it’s still losing money (read: we should be thankful they’re prorating at all). As an example, it says that its average loss for a customer canceling 12 months into a contract is about double the $230 prorated ETF on an advanced device, and that statistically speaking, customers are far more likely to cancel early on than late. While we don’t doubt that, we think they’re trying to divert the conversation here just a bit.

It’s hard to say whether these responses are going to sate the FCC on the matter, but seeing how Verizon’s showing no signs that it’s interesting in changing its policies, this could still turn into a battle royale. Stay tuned — something tells us this isn’t the last we’ll hear on the matter.

[Thanks, Daniel P.]

Verizon to FCC: hey, you said ETFs were okay! originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:50:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  FCC  | Email this | Comments

Most of us already know that it’s NOT socially acceptable to talk during a movie. But to those of us who weren’t born in a barn, these rude movie-goers are still a constant burden. It’s time to fight back, dirty.

With Avatar in theaters, the stakes are simply too high to risk losing a film to some pudgy frat boy film school drop out who is convinced his personal commentary is just as important as the countless hours of work that have gone into the filmmaking process.

The following are a list of rules and responses that I feel, as a society, we need to deem socially acceptable to assimilate into our communal fabric.

6-Inch Voices, Or Group Humiliation
I know I’m coming off rude already. The occasional quiet comment to the person beside you, that’s totally fine by me. But If I can hear you from over two seats away, chances are, you need to shut the fuck up (throughout life, possibly, but definitely in the theater). If a person makes loud comments that a single “shhh” doesn’t thwart, everyone around them should stand, point and loudly ask them to leave (with liberal use of expletives). It’ll be a painful, distracting experience, but chances are, it won’t be needed again.

Really, It’s OK To Tell People to Shut Up
I know I just made this point, but I want to make it abundantly clear: telling talkers to shut up is OK. You are doing all of the shy, weak and first daters who want to enjoy a movie but not lose out on a potential post-film grope a huge favor. Let’s just make an oath, right now, to support one another against the talkers, be they intimidatingly muscley or not. Let’s acknowledge a silent brotherhood, poised to attack at the slightest breach of conduct.

If You Pull Out a Cellphone During a Movie, You Relinquish All Rights to It
I don’t care if you have it’s on vibrate or turned to silent. Any cellphone pulled from a pocket during a movie—most probably a Sidekick—that’s glowing in the corner of the entire audience’s eye is now communal property. It can and should be yanked from the offender’s hand and chucked across the room to break against the nearest hard surface. The offender’s head is one such potential surface.

Bathroom Exits, OK, Refills, Not OK
We’ve all overestimated the endurance of our bladders. And as you grow older, you realize that uncontrollable bodily functions are something we all just need to be adults about. If someone walks out during a pivotal scene because they NEED to go, well, that’s alright. But if they take their empty popcorn bucket with them, proceed with skepticism. Do they look like they needed to use the bathroom while they were up? No? Then tripping them on the way back is totally Kosher.

Honor Those Who Watch Credits
In the theater, credits are part of the film. It’s your option to watch them, but should you elect not to, do not disturb those around you who enjoy finishing a film by celebrating all those who made it possible. That means, no standing in front of someone seated to finish the credits (a quick, polite pass is OK). And maybe save that thing you NEED to say for the hallway or the parking lot, rather than voice it right as the film fades to black. Offenses in this realm will not elicit punishment, but you may be deemed “tacky.”

Oh, But None Of This Applies to Kids Movies on a Tuesday Afternoon
Once again, I’m not an evil or malicious person (by nature). If you’re watching some Shrek sequel, especially during a matinee, pretty much anything goes—for children. Adults who are offending any of the above rules in ways not directly resulting from or related to a child’s actions are fair game for fair punishment.

And if you have any points or suggestions that I may have missed, please, please, please list them in the comments. Two people can easily drop $40 and and a free evening to see a movie. And the first time you watch something truly special can never be rekindled.

Let’s band together and see to it that movie talkers STFU for good.

CNET reviews 2009 with the top cell phones of the year. pOriginally posted at a href=”http://www.cnet.com/8301-17918_1-10418079-85.html” class=”origPostedBlog”Dialed In/a/p

Continue reading Crapgadget master class: USB portable media speaker with webcam

Crapgadget master class: USB portable media speaker with webcam originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:46:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  GizFever  | Email this | Comments