Hasta La Gadget!

I have tried them all. I have been using Pandora since the early days, and I pay for the premium Pandora service. I tried, for at least a month each and often more, all of the old guard of the streaming music services. Rhapsody. Napster. Slacker Radio. I owned a Zune HD, and subscribed to Zune, and when I bought my first Windows phone, I subscribed again to give it a second try. When Spotify got hot, I tried it for a while, sharing playlists and music. I have tried Rdio and Last.fm. I’ve spent time on Turntable. For a couple days, I even used Ping. But there is one online music service that is my favorite by far. I’ve been using it for almost a year, and it’s actually gotten better since I started. I listen at work on my desktop, on my smartphone while I’m exercising, and in my car on my stereo.

Before I tell you exactly which one (have you guessed yet?), let me define what I want in a music service. I want good music. I want the music I am in the mood to hear. Sometimes that’s a song I already own. Sometimes that’s a song I’m familiar with, but haven’t gotten around to downloading. Sometimes it’s a song I didn’t know I would like until I heard it. Never do I want to hear another cover of Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” as long as I live. I’m looking at you, Pandora. Enough with the “Hallelujah.”

My favorite music service, by a long shot, is SiriusXM. That’s right, satellite radio. I love it. I knew I would love it from the start. I love it so much that when I bought a car that had Sirius radio installed, I called up and bought a full year’s subscription with all the bells and whistles, before the 3-month trial period had ended. That’s support for 1 car stereo, plus access to the Web site and the mobile app for streaming.

I don’t know exactly how much it costs, and I’m not going to Google it for you. That’s not the point. It wasn’t so expensive that I balked at paying for a year. The music was much more important to me than the total cost over a year. If you’re looking for a bargain, look elsewhere. But if you want to know why I think this is the best service available, keep reading.

First, an unnecessary disclosure. My day job is with Samsung. As far as I know, we’re not connected to SiriusXM in any way, and I’m not being paid to promote the service. In fact, I’ll bet there are a variety of ways we’re connected to other music services. For some people, those others may be the right choice. There are lots of ways they can serve up music that Sirius can’t match. But those are not my favorites.

One exception is Google Music. I use Google Music in addition to Sirius. When I need to satisfy the itch for just that one song from my library at the precise moment, Google Music comes to the rescue. But I’m not married to Google Music. If another cloud-based storage option came along offering even slightly better service, I would jump ship without regret.

I joined SiriusXM first for Howard Stern. I’m a long time fan. Don’t judge until you’ve tried him for a month. Howard Stern operates two channels on SiriusXM. One plays his main radio show, which is broadcast new three days a week, and then reruns of the show for the rest of the week. The other station plays shuffled clips from his 30+ year history on the radio, as well as shows from other broadcasters Stern has culled.

“When Stern leaves Sirius, I’ll miss his show more than any other”

There is every indication that when Stern’s current contract is up, he will retire from radio. His success on “America’s Got Talent” is probably not helping my chances of hearing him live on my morning drive. When Stern leaves Sirius, I will miss his show more than I have missed any other show that disappeared from the airwaves. But I will remain a loyal SiriusXM subscriber.

Sirius has an excellent collection of curated radio channels. The first 10 channels correspond to decades. Channel 6 is all Sixties music; channel 9 is all nineties music, and so on. There are channels themed towards certain bands or personalities. Jimmy Buffett has his own channel, and so does Eminem. There is a Bruce Springsteen channel, and Sirius recently added a Pink Floyd channel. The best thing about these personality-inspired channels is the bonuses they offer. There are clips of interviews, outtakes, B-sides, and live recordings that even true fans may have missed.

In fact, this is the best thing about all of Sirius. The channels are well-curated. Sirius has employed plenty of old school DJs from the bygone days of radio. Almost all of the original MTV VJs are employed at Sirius. Video killed the radio star, but satellite radio resuscitated the video star’s career.

Tune to a station you like. I love “Lithium,” which is likely named for the eponymous Nirvana song, and which plays mostly alternative music from the early nineties. If you’re a true fan of this genre, on any given day you’ll likely hear songs you already own, songs you never got around to downloading from Napster in its heyday, and some songs you’ll swear you’ve never heard before.

The genre selection could use a little more variety. You won’t find the most obscure genres to quench your thirst. If you’re into underground hip-hop, or pop a cappella, or other less popular genres (as I am), you won’t find stations to support your habit. But there is still plenty to like. I have 6 channels programmed into my dashboard shortcuts, and each of those is a starting point. Sirius channels are nicely grouped. So, if you start with a singer/songwriter channel and work your way up the board, you’ll branch out in ways that make sense: through coffeehouse music; to early alternative rock, with its smooth vocals and padded synths; to the nostalgic Lithium station I mentioned; through college rock and new alternative.

There are blocks of comedy channels, from family friendly through the ultra-raunchy Raw Dog and Howard Stern channels. There are news and political channels that cover a wide spectrum. I still donate to my local public radio station, but I can’t stand listening to it because of the ubiquitous membership drives. On SiriusXM’s NPR station, I get most of my favorite shows with none of that nonsense.

There are occasionally cool special events, but SiriusXM would do better to have more of these. Sirius broadcast live Bruce Springsteen’s first ever show at the Apollo theater in New York City. A special tribute channel will pop up frequently to correspond with an anniversary or a death. The Pink Floyd station seemed to start as a special feature, but now seems like an awesome permanent fixture. Still, when Stern vacates his channels, Sirius will need more original programming to fill in the gap.

There are other small problems, too. The service doesn’t work in tunnels. It cuts out briefly when you drive under a large overpass. Sometimes, it just stops working for a moment or two. Sirius depends on a direct line of transmission from a satellite in space. It doesn’t quite penetrate yet. It would be nice if the service could buffer better, or perhaps pair the satellite component with an online, connected component in the car for a hybrid service that was much more reliable. It doesn’t hamper my enjoyment, but it is annoying when I miss the punch line of a joke because I drove under an exit ramp.

Sirius has been growing steadily, but not quickly enough. It is competing with free terrestrial radio, after all. Free radio gets worse and worse by the day, but hey, it’s free. Plus, most cars have an audio input for your phone or MP3 player, as well as CD players, DVD players, and even Blu Ray built-in. And that’s just in the car. On the desktop and on mobile devices, competition is even more fierce.

I would still recommend SiriusXM above all. If you miss the old days of radio, when a DJ you could trust and enjoy would pick out an interesting selection of music, then SiriusXM will bring you back.

My Favorite Music Service is written by Philip Berne & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Seldom has the smartphone divide looked so broad. HTC‘s financial results for the last quarter, revealed earlier today, puts the company in with struggling Nokia and RIM, an ocean away from the cash-stacked Apple and Samsung. Having already posted one appalling quarter this year, HTC missed market expectations and posted another year-on-year slump in profit, as the One Series failed to set consumers alight in the way the company had hoped.

HTC hasn’t confirmed specific sales performance for each of the One Series models – and it’s unlikely to, for that matter – but with the bulk of consumer attention seemingly taken by the Samsung Galaxy S III and the whispers of Apple’s iPhone 5, it’s clear the trio didn’t do enough to tun the firm around in the way it was predicted to. Apple can share some of the blame there, though we don’t imagine the company will be feeling particularly contrite; an import ban in the US kept key HTC phones from shelves, until it could hurriedly rework software to suit.

Still, apathetic consumers and litigious rivals don’t give HTC a pass on what it might have done to better position itself in the cut-throat mobile marketplace. From being the poster-child of Android innovation to seeing its phones described as the “you might also consider” option, HTC could’ve turned the tide if it had wised up to what it could change and been realistic about what it couldn’t.

Samsung and Apple – the two companies really succeeding today – have something in common: each has a strong hand on the hardware supply chain. Apple does that by collaborating with suppliers and hurling fistfuls of cash; Samsung pretty much owns its own supply chain (and is in some cases the supplier being showered with Cupertino dollars) and has first pick of the innovation spoils.

“HTC is reliant on other for key parts of its range”

In contrast, HTC is reliant on others for most key parts of its range. Its chipsets and displays are made by third-parties; Windows Phone and Android are controlled by Microsoft and Google respectively. Unlike Samsung, which took a stand in the US with the Galaxy S III and said “no more needless customization” to the carriers, HTC hasn’t quite been able to break free from the (expensive and time consuming) obligations of creating needless differences in models for different networks.

Meanwhile, HTC has neglected many of the areas in which it could have seized control. It sensibly pared back the aesthetic overload of Sense, its customized Android skin, but shuttered the companion cloud service just as rivals were building out their online backbone. Back in March, HTC said its newly renovated HTCSense.com would be along soon to replace the closed service, but three months on there’s still not a whisper of what the company intends.

What it does have still active, meanwhile, is under-utilized. HTC Watch, the streaming movie service, could’ve been HTC’s answer to iTunes, but it’s little more than another app on the launcher; there’s no “three free rentals!” promo to lure users into signing up, and the potential integration between it and HTC’s Media Link HD has been ignored in retail. HTC pushed ahead with Beats headphones bundles (while failing to do the obvious there, too, and use the music focus to push downloads from the preloaded MP3 store) when it could have paired its phones with the Media Link HD and encouraged buyers to spend on video content too.

Meanwhile, although Sony is grabbing headlines in the past week with its Gaikai buy, HTC could’ve been driving mobile gaming courtesy of its OnLive investment since last year. The HTC Flyer arrived with an OnLive app, for cloud gaming, but since then has singularly failed to do anything meaningful with it. At the same time, Apple has seen exponential growth in iPhone gaming; now HTC has apparently given in on OnLive altogether, and thrown in with Sony and PlayStation Certification.

“There’s a glaring omission in HTC’s line-up: tablets”

Finally, there’s the glaring omission in HTC’s product line-up: any sort of legitimate tablet competition to the iPad. The Flyer flopped; the larger Jetstream that followed it proved simply too expensive, despite looking prescient today given its pen input option. Since those two devices, however, HTC tablet development has apparently gone dry. Mutterings of a Windows model persist, but right now there’s an entire segment of the mobile ecosystem that HTC has no footprint in.

Still, there are glimmers of hope. HTC’s image processing technology – something the company has taken a hand in developing for the One Series – has rightly been praised, and the company is at least avoiding the scattershot range of screen sizes that it desperately fired out in 2011. The HTC Connect system looks like a step in the right direction too. What we’ve seen of Sense 4.0 so far is certainly the best its been in a few generations, and HTC already has many of the key user-experience elements to-hand; now it needs to tie them together.

Unlike others, HTC’s Q2 results at least showed movement in the right direction. The most recent quarter was bad, sure, but not as bad as the three months before it. Now, HTC needs to double-down on another small clutch of well-crated handsets, preferably getting them to market before the iPhone 5 arrives. Turning the company around won’t be easy, but as Nokia and RIM have discovered, there’s little room for second-chances in today’s mobile world.

HTC’s Precipice Moment is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

A StarTAC saved my life. Well, not really. I wasn’t accidentally transported to the World War II trenches, and saved from a bullet to the heart by an artfully placed Motorola in my jacket pocket. But the StarTAC – a phone dating back to 1996, and in fact the very first cellphone I owned – gave me a very necessary wake-up call: it showed me just how lucky we are with today’s smartphones, with a serving of delicious nostalgia on the side.

Enough of any treat and you’d get inured to its charms. People working in chocolate factories – many a kid’s fantasy job – often find the sweet stuff loses its appeal after a while; I guess the same is probably true for pilots, that initial enthusiasm at take-off getting watered down as what once was special gradually becomes routine. I’m sad to say it can be the same with new gadgets.

Don’t get me wrong, I still get excited about new technology (and yes, this is the definition of a #FirstWorldProblem, and yes I’m hugely grateful for the job I have), but that tightness-in-the-chest feeling when you’re opening something you’re truly excited about isn’t quite there when you’re dealing with review samples. Just as there’s really no such thing as an “awful” smartphone today, the proliferation of Android on broadly identical hardware leaves you picking through the minutiae to find whatever differentiators you can. In the process, it’s all too easy to forget quite how amazing these computers-that-fit-in-your-pocket really are.

I tried to recapture the lost innocence of the StarTAC, not with my original phone – I accidentally sat on that and snapped it many years ago – but with a slightly newer version. The StarTAC 85 I had as a teenager used a full-sized SIM card, basically accommodating a credit-card scale slice of plastic into a huge slot on the underside, whereas the StarTAC 130 sensibly switched to the miniSIM we’re familiar with now (and which has, of course, been supplanted by the microSIM in the iPhone and other handsets, itself soon to be replaced by the nanoSIM) and meant I could take the chip out of my current smartphone and drop it straight in.

“Forget about a browser, you don’t even get a calculator”

For a while, a felt sixteen again. Or, if not quite sixteen, then certainly retro in a not-entirely-hipster way. The aged Motorola demands some compromises of its owners; in fact, even cheap feature-phone users will find themselves missing features they previously took for granted. While modern phones are offering pentaband 3G and LTE, the 1998 StarTAC 130 makes do with a single GSM 900 band. Forget about a browser, or even WAP access; you don’t even get a calculator. There’s a clock, but not an alarm, and you’d better get used to thumbing out SMS messages (MMS? Forget about it) multi-tap style, as T9 predictive text didn’t arrive until later. In fact, Motorola avoided T9 in its phones altogether, pushing its own (awful) iTap rival instead.

And yet… there’s still something deliciously ridiculous about pulling out an extending antenna when you answer a call. You’ve not ended an argument with a loved one if you haven’t angrily snapped shut a clamshell phone when the vitriol gets too much. The StarTAC’s shell may have been skinny when it first launched, but in modern terms it can accommodate an earpiece with some serious lungs on it; similarly, call reception was great (probably irradiating my head nicely in the process).

If using the StarTAC as my primary device convinced me of anything, though, it’s that I hardly need a “phone” any more. I use email, sure, and SMS, and mapping, and browsing, and the camera, and Twitter, and Facebook, and Google+, and various other apps, but I actually do as much as possible to avoid speaking to people in real-time. It just feels inefficient and intrusive.

It didn’t take long before I returned my SIM to a smartphone and got back online. The warm, tender embrace of HSPA+ never felt so welcoming. Yet none of the excitement about today’s new handsets – the Galaxy Nexus, the Galaxy S III, the upcoming iPhone 5 – quite musters the same visceral feel of the nostalgia-fueled anticipation when that StarTAC box arrived on my desk.

A Motorola StarTAC saved me is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Google IO opened with a bang last week, spilling Jelly Beans, cheap tablets, augmented reality and more, but for all the search giant knows we’re looking for, is it still out of touch? After the buzz of Google Glass and its base jumping entrance – thoroughly milked the following day by Sergey “Iron Man” Brin – attendees have been adding up what was demonstrated and questioning Google’s understanding of exactly how people use technology. Geeks getting carried away with “what can we do” rather than “why would we do it” is the common refrain, but make no mistake, everything Google showed us is rooted in solid business strategy.

Gizmodo has led the charge in questioning Google’s social skills, wondering out loud whether Googlers are in fact “still building for robots” and demonstrate “a gaping disconnect between the way data geeks and the rest of us see the world.” I’ll admit, watching the live stream of the IO opening keynote, I caught myself wondering exactly how much of what was being shown I’d ever actually use myself.

There were, by general consensus, three questionable areas: Google+ Events, the Nexus Q, and Google Glass.

Events are, certainly, only useful to you if your social network is also on Google+. The platform’s popularity among geeks and early-adopters of a certain inclination – usually orbiting around disliking Facebook and showing various degrees of Twitter apathy – has meant it’s a good place to make new friends (as long as you like, well, geeks and early-adopters of a certain inclination) but not generally a place to find existing ones.

That’s something Google needs to address, and adding Events is a relatively easy, low-cost way of doing. Think about it: if you get an email notification saying that someone you know has invited you to a party, and you need to sign into Google+ in order to read and respond to it, you’re probably more likely to do so than if you simply see “+You” at the top of the Google homepage. It’s evidence of an existing relationship: you won’t just be wandering into a room full of strangers.

On top of that, you have the contentious – and awfully named – Party Mode, something that perhaps most won’t use but which might find a little favor among the geekier users. Again, the key part is that you don’t have to use Party Mode in order to get value out of Google+ Events; Google just added it in so that, if you want, you can better document your gathering in the same place you organized it beforehand.

Then there’s the Nexus Q. Google’s launch demonstration for the Android-based streaming orb was an awkward low-point of the keynote, spending too long on the obvious – okay, it gives you a shared playlist on multiple devices, we get it – and not enough time putting it into context with Google’s future plans and other platforms like Google TV. Again, though, it’s a first step in a process, that process being the journey of a perfectly standard home streamer and Sonos alternative.

On that level, there are some advantages. Yes, you might not necessarily sit around with friends each tapping at your Nexus 7 to put together the very best playlist ever created, but if it’s a lot better set up to handle impromptu control than, say, Sonos is. Communal control with Sonos is a difficult one: do you ask everyone to download the Sonos controller app, then pair them with your network, or do you leave your iPad or iPhone unlocked (complete with access to your email, bookmarks, documents, etc…) so that they can dip into your music collection? Or, do you have a special device solely for party controller use?

“The Nexus Q is Google’s gateway to your TV screen”

In the longer term, though, Google’s motivation is the Nexus Q as a gateway to your TV screen. That’s what, if you recall, Google TV was meant to be – a way to expand Google’s advertising visibility from the desktop browser, smartphones and tablets, to the big-screen in your lounge – but stumbles and hiccups scuppered those plans. One of the most common complaints of first-gen Google TV was simply how complex it was; in contrast, the Nexus Q looks stunning, and concentrates on doing (at the moment) just a little. But, as a headless Android phone, there’s huge potential for what it could be next – console, video streamer for Netflix and Hulu, video conferencing system – after Google has got its collective hands on your HDMI input.

Of the three, though, it’s Google Glass that’s the hardest sell to the regular user. That’s not because it’s difficult to envisage uses for, but because of the price. Still, it’s not for the end-user yet: Google has given itself eighteen months or more to reach that audience, and who knows what battery, processor, wireless and design advantages we’ll have by then?

Aspects developed on Glass will undoubtedly show up in Android on phones, and again, the mass market benefits. There are certainly elements of persistent connection and mediated reality that apply even in devices without wearable displays. If anything, Glass is the clearest demonstration of Google’s two-tier structure: one level for regular people, and another for the geeks and tinkerers. The regular crowd eventually benefit from what the geeks come up with, as it filters down, has its rough edges polished away, and becomes refined for the mass-market.

“Google is a monolithic company, sure, but it’s filled with geniuses who want to make your life easier through technology” is how Gizmodo sees the IO announcements: having intentions that are fundamentally altruistic but misguided. In reality, everything Google showed has its roots in business and platform extension.

Google isn’t Apple, it doesn’t push a one-size-fits-all agenda. That’s not necessarily a bad approach, mind; Apple’s software is consistent and approachable, doesn’t suffer the same fragmentation issues as, say, Android does, and means that iOS devices generally do what’s promised on the tin. What Google knows is its audience or, more accurately, audiences, and so everything at IO was stacked in different levels to suit those varying needs. Some people don’t want to be limited by the ingredients on the side, they want to mix up their own meal, and IO is all about fueling that. Sometimes it takes a little more time to think through the consequences – and sometimes Google does a shoddy job of helping explain them – but there’s most definitely a market out there for them.

Don’t Doubt Google’s People Skills is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

When Google sent BASE jumpers hurtling from a blimp as part of the first day Google I/O Keynote presentation, I was barely impressed. The jumpers were demonstrating the Project Glass wearable computer that Google is developing, and which I and just about all of my friends are lusting over. I had seen plenty of skydivers jumping with wearable cameras strapped to them. Then the Googlers landed, and another team started riding BMX bikes on the roof of the Moscone center, where the conference is being held. Yawn. Finally, climbers rappelled down the side of the building. Ho-hum. The point seemed to be that Google Glass was real, and that the glasses would not fall off your face as you fell onto San Francisco from a zeppelin. But then Google showed something that blew my mind.

It was a simple statement. Something to the effect of ‘Don’t you hate it when you see something cute that your kids are doing and you say to yourself: I wish I had a camera.’ Sounds innocuous enough, but that one phrase changed everything, and it may shape more than the future of computing. It may shape memory as we know it.

Until now, I had imagined Project Glass as a sort of wearable cell phone. Where phones have fallen short of delivering a great augmented reality experience, a head-mounted display with a translucent screen might fare much better. Augmented reality improves navigation, local search, and even social functions almost exponentially. Project Glass seems like the first product in a broad future of wearable computing products.

But even as I have drooled over Glass in the past, it never truly occurred to me that Google might mean for Project Glass to record everything. EVERYTHING. Your entire life. Before we think about the implications, let’s discuss why this is completely possible.

How much data would it take to record a life? That depends on a lot of variables. Are you recording in 1080p? 4K? What audio bitrate? Audio and video, or location data, too? Do you record the moments when you are watching your own recordings? When you’re driving on your commute? Watching a movie or TV?

Let me offer a ballpark figure. 4.5 Petabytes. That’s my educated guess for the storage it would take to record every waking moment of my life. Forty-five Terabytes a year for 80 years. That’s based on a ‘high-profile’ video recording rate of 15 Mbps, and 6 hours of sleep every night.

Is that an insane amount of storage for anyone to possess? Not for long. I have on the tip of my finger right now a tiny microSD card with a 64GB capacity. Yesterday, this card did not exist, and a 32GB card would have cost a couple hundred dollars. Today, a 32GB card can be had for about $1 per Gigabyte. Tomorrow, we’ll have 128GB cards, and I believe the microSDXC standard tops out at 2TB or more. Within 10 years, I would bet that a Petabyte of storage, which is a million Gigabytes, will be completely affordable, either in a compact form or via a remote (cloud) storage host.

So, by the time my 3 year old is in High School, he’ll have access to the technology to record his entire life. I cannot begin to fathom the perspective he would have. It would change everything.

“When we can review a video of every memory, will that destroy nostalgia?”

Of course there are privacy concerns, and legal issues. But what has me curious at the moment are the ways such technology will shape nostalgia. I love nostalgia. I’m a big fan. Nostalgia is one of the most fun games we can play with our own lives. When we can reference a first-person video of every memory we have, will that destroy the value of nostalgia? Will the term become meaningless?

Think of your earliest memory. In your mind, how do you see yourself? Do you see your arms and hands reaching out in front of you? Or do you imagine yourself fully formed, in the third person? It’s a strange phenomenon that we remember ourselves from outside our own bodies. But technology like Project Glass may change the way we approach even our own memory storage. Is there a biological imperative, a psychological reason why we imagine ourselves this way? Is the disconnect necessary? I don’t know. But if I’m forced to imagine myself only in the first person, I know it will change the way I remember my entire life.

I’ve also heard the question raised of whether we will continue to remember at all. Certainly memory is an evolutionary trait. We are not likely to cease all memory function in a few decades simply because a technology helps us record everything we see and hear. But memory is also a learned skill. We learn to categorize and associate our memories. We learn what is useful for long-term storage, and what is best forgotten. Our mind has defense mechanisms in place to protect us from painful memories, and emotional triggers to spotlight and gild our best moments. What happens when we reduce all of these moments to a high-definition video played back on a computer screen?

One of my favorite moments from my youth is the night I met my first long-term girlfriend. We were at a party, but outside on the street, sitting on the spoiler of my car. It had just started to rain, and we were covering ourselves with a small foam floor mat that my father used in the aerobics classes he took. We talked for a few hours and really hit it off. I don’t remember anything we said, but I remember that my friends inside were impressed that I had done so well.

I hope that I will always have in my mind the feelings associated with that night. But if I played back the conversation, I’m sure it would destroy the memory. It was drivel, and melodramatic high school prattling, and the most obvious flirting nonsense. Outside of my own head, it would be embarrassing and cringe-inducing. It would be evidence against me.

Isn’t that adolescence in a nutshell? And early adulthood? And, well, all of life? Life is embarrassing. That’s why embarrassment makes us laugh so hard, because we can relate. We’re all horrible actors on our own stage. While I love the idea of Project Glass, and I can certainly see the advantage of having a camera recording all of those lost moments, there are too many moments that should stay lost. I would rather have them rattling around in my head than on my TV screen. I’d rather see myself from the outside, or remember the event from deep within, than have an accurate depiction of what my arms were doing, and how I sounded as the words spilled out of my gullet. I hope we don’t lose the ability to get it wrong, somehow, because memory is so much more interesting when it’s imperfect.

Will Google Glass Help Us Remember Too Well? is written by Philip Berne & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.