Hasta La Gadget!

Could you live your mobile life on WiFi? Attempts to ween users off of expensive, subsidized smartphone deals have been more successful this year than every before; word earlier today that Google had acquired a WiFi hotspot company – and which later turned out to be false – was believable in part because the search company is a prime candidate for ousting cellular from the mobile equation. The ICOA deal may be fake, but Google‘s appetite to ditch the traditional carriers and strike out more or less alone isn’t new.

The original Nexus One was the company’s first effort at that, an attempt to bypass the commonplace subsidized phone deals with an unlocked handset, and relegate the carriers themselves to “dumb pipe” status. It proved to be an idea ahead of its time; smartphone-naive shoppers blanched at a $529 sticker price in January 2010, and Google had to satisfy itself with carrier distribution just like everybody else.

Though we’re only two years past that point, the reception to the unlocked Nexus 4 has been considerably warmer. The phone’s $299 off-contract price didn’t hurt – the same, it’s worth noting, as some high-profile phones have launched, complete with a subsidy and two-year agreement – on carriers like Verizon and AT&T – and Google’s apparent inability to keep them in stock suggests that demand is strong.

Along the way we’ve seen a growing play for the connectivity market by Google. The company already has an agreement with Boingo, subsidizing or offering free access in locations across the US, and of course has its Google Fiber network beginning in Kansas City. It’s still early days, mind, though there are plenty of other wireless hotspot providers out there, primarily in cities, transit locations, and venues like restaurants.

“When does WiFi become pervasive enough to make users sufficiently confident?”

The question is one of saturation, then, and comfort levels: at what point does WiFi coverage become pervasive enough to make users confident enough to abandon traditional carriers. Would the knowledge that 80-percent of the places you can usually be found had WiFi internet access – such as for messaging, and browsing, and VoIP – put you at ease for not having an active cellphone plan? For some that figure would need to be much higher – 90-, or 95-percent even – whereas others, making fewer calls perhaps, might be willing to go down to 50- or 60-percent coverage in return for cheaper monthly bills. Cellphone coverage isn’t 100-percent, after all.

One reluctance might well be down to hotspot unfamiliarity: just how much of the time could you be using a WiFi connection rather than your carrier’s data pipe? It’s not a metric that the carriers themselves are keen to share – focused, instead, on maximizing 3G/4G revenues – though Google could handle that transition relatively easily. Google Now already tracks your location (it can count your steps each month, like a fancy pedometer, or tell you the timetables for the nearest public transport); it would be a small matter to put together a monthly summary of the amount of time you’d spent within the wireless range of a WiFi hotspot.

Even if that degree of pervasiveness wasn’t quite enough to tick the comfort box, it could be sufficient to at least break down some of the monthly bill. Splitting off data use to a hotspot, and using the carriers merely for traditional voice calls and text messaging, would certainly trim service fees, as well as ensuring that things like emergency calling is still available. There’s also room for more unusual price plans, such as we’ve seen Google and others negotiate for tablets and Chromebooks: would you pay another, say, $80 on top of your off-contract phone for twelve months of minimal calls and messages – just enough to tide you through those times you were out of range of WiFi?

Breaking free of carriers and their demands isn’t the sole reserve of Google – Steve Jobs wanted to do it with WiFi and the first iPhone, and Microsoft has Skype for Windows Phone 8 – but the search giant may well be in the best position to actually deliver it. That might not be with ICOA, but it would be mighty surprising if Google wasn’t looking for a way to further democratize the mobile data pipe in its favor.

A Google plan to kill carriers with WiFi is all too believable is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Another year, another November where Activision gets to tout its success with the Call of Duty franchise. This time around, the game company has announced that Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 has generated $500 million on launch day, becoming the company’s biggest opening yet. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 hit $400 million in sales on launch day last year.

As expected, Activision claims that the game’s success is due to its unique gameplay and new takes on a popular gaming genre. And as expected, the millions around the globe that have flocked to game stores have helped the game publisher celebrate.

But those who have actually played the game, as I have, know that something needs to change. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is more of the same. It’s as if Activision has found a way to repackage the same old game, and make customers think each year that the latest offering is so much greater. In reality, it’s a stale franchise operating in an increasingly stale genre.

After breaking Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 out of the box, you quickly realize just how stale the franchise is. We’re presented with familiar characters and tossed into a major battle to get things going. After playing through that level, you’re then thrown into a jungle. The first setpiece battle looks huge and daunting and includes nonstop firing. The jungle level leaves you breathless as you run through the jungle to get away from an advancing force.

Although the setting is different and the name on the game disc is changed, doesn’t that sound like much of what you’ve already done in a Call of Duty game? It’s as if Activision has a big board at headquarters and on that, says that each title must have a few huge battles, a couple sniper levels, and nonstop action. After all, it’s a model that, judging by sales, continues to work exceedingly well.

“The CoD franchise is essentially a bunch of new maps launched annually”

But I’ve had enough. The Call of Duty franchise has become one big, repurposed offering that gets customers to pay too much for what is essentially a bunch of new maps launched annually in November. Sure, there’s a bit of a storyline and the updates to online gaming are nice enough, but are they enough to justify calling the game an entirely new entry into the franchise? As far as I’m concerned, it’s just more of the same.

Where is the innovation? There was a time when the Call of Duty franchise represented all that was great about first-person shooters. Now, it has become what’s wrong with the genre. Each year, we see barely updated games packaged as new titles. And each year, customers flock to stores thinking the new games will deliver as much fun as those before it. In some cases, they might. In others, they might not. But if anything is certain, it’s that customers hoping to get something new and fresh won’t find it.

So, forget about the sales. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is the same old take on the same old formula in a $60 package.

It’s just too bad that we’ll continue to get such games as long as so many people buy each new title. After all, why should Activision try to fix something that, judging by sales, isn’t broken?

Sales Mean Nothing: Call of Duty Has Gone Stale is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Is it just me or does the music industry really, really hate fairness? For years now, we’ve been hearing about labels trying to limit what we can access on digital stores and musicians holding out on offering their tracks because of the so-called “unfairness” across the Web.

You remember it, right? Apple for years was trying to bring certain record labels into the iTunes fold, but they continued to fight it. And when The Beatles finally (finally!) came to iTunes, it was as if the prior several years spent waiting for the band’s catalog wasn’t necessary.

[Image credit: Freimut]

Now, we’re dealing with a similar issue. Musicians and record labels are teaming up to battle music-streaming providers, like Pandora and Spotify, that want to see their royalty rates cut to match those offered to radio stations. Sounds fair, right? Both industries are playing the same music, and yet, the companies that are online are paying more for the right to offer the tracks to customers. Pandora, among others, wants to level the playing field.

Of course, musicians and the record labels disagree. Rather than cut Pandora’s pricing, they say, all prices should be brought up to those charged to music-streaming companies. That way, the music industry makes out and those of us who want to consumer content are forced to deal with whining music providers that will in some way try to past that cost on to us.

At what point will the music industry realize that battling the digital world won’t work? For years, we heard that digital downloads through peer-to-peer networks would amount to nothing. Napster proved the labels wrong. And when so-called “legitimate” services like iTunes arose, the labels thought they were getting too little for their product and decided to stick with discs. Do me a favor and try to find a CD worth buying today. Hard, huh?

“Once again the music industry chose the wrong side for the dumb hope it will raise more cash”

Now, we’re dealing with streaming. And once again, the music industry has decided to choose the wrong side of history for the hope – the dumb hope – that it will help it raise more cash.

The fact is, fairness is what makes record labels and musicians more money. The more fair the companies are to streaming providers or digital-services companies, the greater their chances of being successful. That’s why betting on iTunes has turned out to be a good idea. That’s also why betting on Pandora should top their lists.

Consumers respond well to companies that actually want to be nice to those service providers they support. Believe it or not, a relationship between record labels and consumers works both ways. And the sooner the music industry tries to give as much as it wants to take, the sooner it can unleash the real value of the entertainment it provides.

So, can we put aside our differences and be fair? Radio stations shouldn’t be charged less than companies like Pandora, and that streaming provider’s rates should be cut. That will result in more usage, more consumers, and yes, more cash for the music industry.

Simple logic and math goes a long way.

Why Does the Music Industry Seem to Hate Fairness? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Beautiful screen, crisp hardware, superlative specifications: if ever a smartphone deserved Google’s Nexus branding, the DROID DNA by HTC is probably it. Announced on the same day that LG’s Nexus 4 went on sale, the HTC DNA is so impressive a phone that its looming, 5-inch presence even managed to overshadow Google’s dire performance with Play store stability as eager Nexus buyers tried to secure a new phone. It’s a sign that HTC is taking the smartphone segment as seriously as it really needs to, not only iterating on what’s out there today but leading with new, compelling features in an appealing package. So appealing, in fact, that it’s hard to escape the feeling that the DNA, not LG’s handset, should’ve been the new Nexus.

The Nexus program has always been about pushing the envelope in mobile. That started out purely in hardware terms, with the original Nexus One acting as a shove for manufacturers to wade into the specifications arms-race. In handsets since, Google has used each iteration to frame its ambitions with Android, in terms of what it believes should be standards in software, hardware, services, and features. So, the LG Nexus 4, Google’s latest collaboration, adds wireless charging for one, the search giant’s theme-du-jour.

HTC has given the DROID DNA wireless charging. It has the high-resolution cameras – back and front, the latter ideal for the Google+ video hangouts Google has been pushing of late, what with its wide angle 88-degree lens – and top-tier processor of the Nexus 4, and the 2GB of RAM, and the gamut of sensors. It has a display that not only uses Super LCD, like the Nexus 4, but which blows its resolution out of the water with a Full HD panel, double the 720p LG opted for. There’s NFC, for Google Wallet. Even Google and LG’s decision to limit internal storage and leave out a microSD card slot has been mimicked, with Google hoping the cloud will drift in to take the place of local files.

In fact, there are only really two points of divergence from Google’s current Nexus strategy and HTC’s approach with the DROID DNA – well, three if you count Sense, but then it’s an HTC-branded Android phone, and so Sense (for better or worse) is a given. First is on-screen buttons, or their absence, with HTC insisting on keeping its dedicated keys for system navigation. That’s something Google has been trying to push for a couple of Nexus generations now, but it’s something OEMs (when they’re not being coerced with Nexus branding, that is) seem reluctant to accept.

DROID DNA by HTC hands-on:

The second, and more important, is price, and it’s here that Google and HTC’s approaches may have proved incompatible for Nexus purposes. The LG Nexus 4 is distinguished in no small part by its affordability in SIM-free state, and at $299 sans-contract it actually matches some handsets sold with the shackles of a 24-month contract. Google’s ambition is to drive off-contract adoption (just as it tried – and failed – with the first Nexus, because either the market, or the carriers, or consumers, or most likely all three, weren’t ready) and further relegate the operators to the role of dumb-pipe, and for that it needs a handset that’s startling in its affordability.

In contrast, the HTC DNA is unlikely to be a cheap phone, at least not SIM-free. True, Verizon is hitting the $199.99 price point, but that’s a subsidized figure: it relies on the carrier recouping its initial outlay on your shiny new phone with an overflowing wallet-full of cash on calls, messaging, and data each month over a two year period. That expectation, plus HTC’s desperation what with its own dire financial straits, has undoubtedly prompted a more competitive subsidy, with an eye on the longer-term that an off-contract phone simply can’t match.

“Google needed a cheap Nexus, a device as network-agnostic as possible”

Here, then, is where HTC and Google’s ambitions diverge most significantly. Google needs a cheap Nexus, a device as network-agnostic as possible. That’s why it left out LTE, after all – because supporting each individual flavor of 4G means tying yourself to a handful of carriers, and the necessary testing and approval for each – and why operator offers in each country where the Nexus 4 is being sold feels like an afterthought.

HTC, though, desperately needs a device that will see the company taken seriously again. A phone that can stand against the best from Samsung, and LG, and Motorola, and even Apple, and not immediately be relegated to the also-ran category. Once, the company was synonymous with Android phones; in the past 12-18 months, however, it has dwindled to a shadow of its former glories.

It’s too early to say whether the DROID DNA will achieve all that, though on a specs basis (an important element, though not the only one) it’s off to a promising start. If there’s a drawback to be found, though, it’s likely to be the software side of the equation: one of the reason Google’s Nexus devices have grown in popularity among users, particularly those heavily invested in Android, is because they’re first in line for OS updates. The DNA runs an older version out of the box, Android 4.1, and by saddling it with Sense, HTC has introduced further delay into the upgrade process.

Right now, that delay seems inevitable. If HTC can use the early access Google has promised to new versions of Android for key OEMs, and give supporting existing devices with timely updates the same degree of priority as it does pushing out new phones, it could do what so far Samsung, LG, and the others have failed to achieve. That is, create its own take on the Nexus program, delivering the latest and greatest in hardware with the latest and greatest in software, maintaining its unique brand in Sense without also demanding a compromise on software freshness from users. That’s the way to build brand loyalty and relevance, and they’re the two factors that could yank HTC from its current downward spiral. The answer’s simple: just make the DROID DNA a Nexus in all but name.

It should’ve been the HTC Nexus DNA is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

There are signs of a new attitude emanating from Cupertino, extending across Apple’s relationship management of customers and competitors.

One of the two most important things you can say in English is “I’m sorry.” (The other is “Thank you.”) Failure to get the apology right brands a person as arrogant. As with people, so with companies — to whatever extent they have personal relationships with their customers. In Apple’s case, its best customers definitely feel personally involved with the company’s ethos, products and leaders.

Apple’s main personifying force is its CEO. That individual manages both the connection with customers and the competitive relationship with other industry players. Now, following an unusual apology to users, Apple startlingly unplugs one of its Android lawsuits against a competitor, and a profound personality change seems to be in progress. Apple is not apologizing for its historical Android rage. But the brand’s official temperament might be changing at the core, with the company possibly becoming a more conciliatory actor in the field.

Continue reading Editorial: A conciliatory Apple would be real innovation

Filed under: Misc, Apple

Editorial: A conciliatory Apple would be real innovation originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:00:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments