Hasta La Gadget!

If you, like us, are tired of the so-called browser wars trying to woo us with barely identifiable, context-dependent speed differences, this might be of interest. Firefox is about to get a whole lot more sentient on us — at least those of us with accelerometers in our hardware — courtesy of a new device API that is capable of maintaining a webpage’s vertical orientation relative to the ground, no matter what sort of salto mortale the underlying machine (Mac or otherwise) might be doing. Think of it as the cherry atop your Windows 7 multitouch tablet cake. Originally intended for mobile platforms only, this software will make its way into version 3.6 of the full-fledged browser — and you can find an early demo of what it can do just past the break.

Continue reading Firefox 3.6 will support accelerometers, make the internet seasick (video)

Filed under: Software

Firefox 3.6 will support accelerometers, make the internet seasick (video) originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:01:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Remember net neutrality? Over a year after Comcast’s torrent-killing ways turned it into a rallying cry for chest-slapping geek solidarity, it’s back. But this time, it’s got AT&T and Verizon scared shitless—and it might actually screw us over.

A quick refresher: Net neutrality is, simply, the principle that all data gets treated the same by an ISP or service, whether it’s incoming email or HD videos of dudes getting socked in the nuts by a 4-year-old on YouTube. A real-world example of very non-neutral behavior would be what got Comcast slapped by the FCC: specifically sabotaging torrents.

Theoretically, this could go beyond policing piracy, for instance if, say, Time Warner competitively blocked or slowed down Hulu, or if Verizon struck a deal with Google to give its data priority over traffic from Bing, so people using Google would get a way better experience than people using Bing. Streaming video is a not-so-coincidental theoretical example, since the explosion of video traffic is what the ISPs say is swallowing up all of the internet.

The end result of the threat of government-mandated net neutrality regulations for ISPs was a mixed “win” for consumers: AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner all responded with monthly data caps on their internet service in at least some of their markets. (Comcast limited it in all markets.)

As for the FCC telling ISPs to be more explicit about network management practices, Comcast started straight-up telling people heavy internet users would have their entire connections slowed down. While they suck for consumers, these are all “net neutral” practices, since no particular kind of data is discriminated against. The net neutrality debate fizzled down, though in some ways people were worse off than before.

With a new president, comes a new FCC chair, Julian Genachowski. Unlike his predecessor, who regularly reamed the cable industry but was a little too snuggly with the telecoms and against “hard and fast” net-neutrality rules, Genachowski is all about rules for everybody. Including the wireless carriers.

As you’re probably well aware, mobile broadband is treated way differently than the internet that’s piped into your house. It’s considered fragile. There’s far less of it to go around, with a less developed infrastructure and limited wireless spectrum to use. The rules for using it are tighter, like dating a nun. Restrictions abound, like no p2p. You don’t want the network to break, after all. That’s why, for instance, AT&T previously blocked Skype and SlingPlayer from running on 3G on the iPhone—and continues to block Sling—and why Apple rejects every torrent app that even tries to cross into the App Store.

In the past weeks, Genachowski has made it clear that he thinks that should change, that openness should “apply to the Internet however accessed.” He’s not saying they shouldn’t be able to manage the network to make sure it runs smoothly, to be clear. But if you were scratching your head about why AT&T conceded and opened their network up to VoIP on the iPhone, look no further than this nugget from Genachowski, from a speech he gave three weeks ago:

We’ve already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet’s historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks)…”

AT&T very much does not want the government to tell it how to run its networks, particularly the mobile one. AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega this week responded pretty clearly to the FCC’s plans:

“Before we begin ‘fixing’ what isn’t broken, we need to be thoughtful about the consequences. We believe the marketplace today is vibrant, and there is no need to burden the mobile Internet with onerous new regulations.”

So what’s going to happen?

Well, the FCC is clear about what it thinks. This week, at a wireless telecom conference, Genachowski reiterated that net neutrality should apply to mobile broadband too. If those regulations pass, we’ll likely see the same thing we saw with the landline providers: Caps (not just on 3G cards like there are now) and “transparent” network management. Goodbye unlimited mobile broadband like the iPhone has. You will pay for every ounce of data that you use. And if you’re “crowding” the network by downloading a bunch of stuff, you’re gonna get slowed down because that’s the easy “net neutral” way to keep users in check. How much better is that, really?

So iPhone users, enjoy your “unlimited” wireless connections now. Pay-per-byte data—for both wired and wireless broadband networks—may well be the road we’re going down. Verizon is the last major landline broadband provider who has held back from capping or throttling its services (looove my FiOS), but even its CTO says that eventually, “we are going to reach a point where we will sell packages of bytes.”

Hopefully those packages will come cheap.

I only watch a handful of the 200+ DirecTV channels I pay for. To see whether I could survive without the pricey service, I simply went without it. I soon wondered why we all don’t just turn off traditional TV.

As illustrated in a few of our surveys, many of you have already made the jump, catching fresh TV via broadband instead of actual channels or even DVR. But the vast majority of us are still watching TV the old fashioned way—paying for packages from cable or satellite providers. But from what I’ve seen in my own house lately, I suspect that it won’t be long before this practice is as archaic as owning a landline. Many of you refuse to pay for a phone twice, so why are you paying for two or three different ways to see your favorite TV shows?

There are, of course, drawbacks to a life without a broadcaster-friendly set-top box, so I spent a month trying to find out whether or not these drawbacks were significant enough to justify the huge additional cost.

The Experiment

Since this is Prof. Dealzmodo, you already know the impetus for this experiment was money. In particular my 12-month introductory package runs out soon, and the same channels will soon cost me nearly $80 per month. But why? The channel lineups are bloated and padded with filler—a veritable hot dog of entertainment where the real meat is mixed in with a lot of hooves and snouts. I mean, 70 music channels? Really? Isn’t that what services like Pandora—and about 100 others—are for? Speaking of services, I decided to play it straight. I didn’t get shows via BitTorrent. For a month, I simply used easily accessible, generally legal alternatives like Netflix, Hulu Desktop and network websites, plus Windows Media Center, which comes “free” with most PCs these days. The idea here is to prove that you don’t need to spend tons of money, use complicated software or go to extreme measures to watch what you want.

Hardware

First let’s talk about hardware. I don’t see the point in spending money on niche players like Apple TV , Vudu, and Roku to get internet content onto your television. These players only handle a fraction of what any home theater PC can deliver. Also, sticking with a computer makes it easier to roll with new services and software platforms as they’re released. (Hulu isn’t on any set-top box yet, but it’s available to every Mac and PC, in several ways.)

You don’t need something elaborate here—an HTPC’s main purpose is to browse the web and stream video. Just about any computer will do—including the old laptop you’re thinking about replacing anyway. Back in the day, I used to attach my laptop to the TV with a simple S-video connection, but a lot of today’s laptops and home-theater PCs make things extremely easy with an HDMI port.

If you don’t have an HDMI port, there are simple workarounds. For older computers in general, there are DVI-to-HDMI (video only) and VGA-to-component cables are also doable for older PCs, and if you already have some video cables, there are adapters out there that might do the trick for less money. Owners of new Macs have to fudge a bit with Mini DisplayPort-to-HDMI converters, but even those, from Monoprice and others, are getting better.

There are plenty of products out there designed for the home-theater market that cost less than $500—including the Asus’ EEEBox line and the Lenovo IdeaCenter Q700. Plus, there is always the option of buying refurbished or upgrading a cheap PC yourself to control costs.

If you want to cheat and record broadcast shows, you still don’t have to pay for cable—you can get an over-the-air HD TV tuner. Generally, a USB dongle TV tuner or PCI card like those from Hauppage will cost $100 or so, and they work reasonably well, though you may need an external antenna for best results. You don’t have to pay for service, and you can be assured of local news and other local programming, if that’s important to you. Just don’t come crying to us if you can’t get your rabbit ears into just the right position.

No matter what computer and accessories you use, the added cost will probably pay for itself pretty quickly when you start canceling all those expensive subscriptions. As I mentioned earlier, going broadband-only will save me about $80 a month in satellite fees—in 8 months, I will have recouped my $600 home-theater PC investment.

In the end, my entire monthly TV entertainment budget runs about $60—that’s $50 for basic broadband plus $10 for Netflix. Compare that to the $140 I would have paid starting in February for the combination of all that plus DirecTV. (As a sports fan, there are online programs that I do pay extra for, but you get what you pay for—as you’ll see below.)

How To Manage and Control Your TV Content

You will have to sacrifice the basic (if not exactly pretty) UI you are used to. Fortunately, things are getting better. Hulu Desktop looks more like what you would find with a broadcast set-top box, and with Windows Media Center, having Netflix and other plug-ins makes finding and watching on-demand shows a whole lot easier. And there’s at least one new website, Clicker that is taking a crack at organizing internet content into an easy-to-use programming guide.

Fortunately, I managed to keep the number of remotes on my coffee table to a minimum. I have a Windows Media Center remote to handle Netflix, DVDs, Hulu Desktop and downloads. Mac users have their own little white remote which handles much of this functionality, too. (A wireless keyboard and mouse are essential for more intricate navigation and many PC functions, but those can stay out of sight for the most part.)

iPhone/iPod Touch apps like Air Mouse and iTunes Remote have made my iPhone an all-in-one solution for controlling my computer and its software.

Watching Your Favorite Shows

I’m not a TV addict by a long shot, but there are shows that I watch religiously. These shows include 30 Rock, Lost, Family Guy, Californication and Dexter. The following graph illustrates the pluses and minuses of viewing a handful of different shows—not just my favorites—from popular networks.

The newest episodes of many of these shows are on Hulu, which mostly hosts fresh content—there isn’t a huge back catalog of shows. The catch with new shows, on Hulu or on network websites, is that you usually have to wait a day to see them. (For many DVR devotees, that’s not a big deal anyway.)

It’s also important to point out that certain networks tease their new seasons in many locations online—NBC has been offering free HD downloads of many new shows on iTunes, in hopes you’ll buy the season pass for $40 or more.

Netflix is another place where networks promote new shows: I was able to see the first episode of Californication and Dexter on Netflix during their limited time Watch Instantly preview. Speaking of that, Showtime shows, if available at all, do tend to appear on Netflix, but mostly only in re-runs.

As you can see, not everything streams in HD quality, although this appears to be changing. ABC is already streaming in HD, and others like Hulu and Netflix are dabbling, so it’s only a matter of time before HD content is widely available for streaming online.

What’s Not Online

CBS, HBO and Discovery: I’m talkin’ to you. I couldn’t care less about CBS programming—though it’s the #1 rated network, so clearly somebody does. CBS.com (and TV.com) offers a handful of full episodes (CSI and NCIS), and some of those show up in Netflix too, but until CBS decides their agenda, you may have to wait for new seasons of Big Bang Theory to show up on DVD, or try to record over-the-air broadcasts (see above).

I love History Channel and Discovery Channel, and these guys are also reluctant to accept reality, move away from old revenue models and look towards the future. Nonetheless, I still get my fix though Netflix. Early seasons of some of my favorite shows (Deadlest Catch, Man vs Wild) are available for streaming via Watch Instantly, and more recent seasons are available for rental. I have the patience to wait for some of my favorite shows to arrive on DVD or Blu-ray—it’s a virtue that could save you lots of money.

Let’s Talk Live Sports

Traditionally, one of the major drawbacks of internet TV is a lack of live sports. Again, I don’t know what sports and teams you are interested in, but for me it is all about football. For example, a few days ago I checked out the Steelers/Chargers game on NBC Sunday Night Football online. The streaming content is “HD” quality (at least it’s in the realm of HD) and the service offers a viewing experience that is actually deeper than a standard broadcast. Users have access to DVR style controls, four separate camera angles, highlights and live analysis.

I also have the privilege of access to my beloved out-of-market NY Giants games each week with DirecTV’s online Supercast service. It broadcasts all of the Sunday Ticket NFL games over the internet, but access to the online content requires DirecTV service and the full SuperFan package that runs a ridiculous $400 per year (Manhattan residents can access Supercast without DirecTV service). However, if you know someone with a Supercast account, you can piggyback.

If baseball is your thing, MLB.com offers a service similar to Supercast for around $100 per year depending on the package—although it only includes out-of-market games. Live golf can be viewed for free on PGATour.com; college sports, baseball, tennis, soccer and more is free on ESPN360 (if you are affiliated with an ESPN-approved broadband provider) and streaming sites like Justin.tv offer plenty of free sports viewing options, including live ESPN. Windows Media Center owners can also get SportsLounge, with Fox Sports.

The Future?

This is still the wild west, and things are apt to keep changing. I already mentioned services like DirecTV’s Supercast and streaming games from MLB.com. Little by little, you will start to see primetime shows or packages offered a la carte online too. I hope we don’t get to a point where we are paying more for access to online content than we now pay for cable content, but there has been serious talk by executives from Time Warner (HBO), CBS and Hulu (Fox, NBC, Disney) about that very thing: Either charge subscribers for premium content on demand, or simply verify that they are already paying customers of cable and satellite, and grant them access to stuff others can’t see.

If the broadcasters have their way, you’ll pay for it one way, or you’ll pay for it another. Still, technology has a way of keeping pace with the dreams of media execs, and the experiments conducted by YouTube and Hulu and others with advertising may lead to some kind of compromise, too. It is really all up in the air, but for now…

What You Should Think About

When all was said and done, I found my experience without standard cable television to be more liberating than anything else. Sure, streaming video isn’t always HD quality, not all of my favorite shows are readily available, and I have to search around a bit more for the things I want to watch—but I didn’t suffer and I didn’t feel like I was missing out. The added expense was not justifiable—especially when I was paying for a bunch of things I never watched. The best part is that I was able to get pretty much everything I needed with a basic set of tools that anyone with a computer can take advantage of right away.

Not everyone shares my taste in television but, at the very least, you should take a good look at your cable or satellite bill and ask yourself if it’s really worth all that money.

In the gory, never-ending war for book store supremacy, Borders has just tapped Verizon in order to match Barnes & Noble’s summer efforts to bring gratis WiFi to all who enter. Details of the arrangement are scant, but the takeaway is this: in “virtually all” of its more than 500 stores nationwide, Borders is hooking up with Verizon to bring free internet to anyone who sashays in (note: you literally have to dance upon entering) with a WiFi-enabled device. The service is expected to be fully rolled out by mid-October, giving you plenty of time to select the scarf and skinny jeans you’d like to be seen in by your fellow hipsters.

Filed under: Wireless, Networking

Borders pulls a B&N, offers free WiFi to all patrons originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:07:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Finally, a product that might finally make this whole internet thing worthwhile by allowing someone to copy a file over it. Amazing, right? Okay, facetiousness aside, it’s a little hard to get too excited about a product that will obviously cost something yet replicates a task easily performed for free, but the iTwin does make the process even more easy. It’s basically a double-sided thumb drive that splits apart in the middle; plug one half into one computer and the other into the second and instantly you can drag and drop files from place to place. An absolute computer novice could handle this, but we have to wonder: how many computer novices are swapping files anyway? If this also allowed remote terminal control so that you could fix problems on your mother’s computer while beaming over the latest pictures of the kids (and their illegally downloaded music) we might be a little more optimistic. No mention of price or availability, but there is a video demonstration below proving the tech works — even if the demo touchpad apparently doesn’t.

[Via TechCrunch]

Continue reading iTwin lets you share files over the internet

Filed under: Misc. Gadgets

iTwin lets you share files over the internet originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:02:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments