Seems to me that Apple is the one crippling the experience.

There are jailbreaks that address the shortcomings of iOS that the author identifies, such as a one that integrates Google Voice into the SMS app. I really see it as being Apple's lack of flexibility that is ruining the experience. As people come to expect more from their phones, Apple is going to lose out if they don't make a change. One size does not fit all. And that's how Apple seems compared with the competition.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/11/23/why-apples-customers-cripple...

AT&The Quit T-Mobile - Oh Glory Day

http://mobile.theverge.com/2011/11/24/2584536/at-t-withdraws-t-mobile-takeove...

Ice Cream Sandwich Keyboard is Available for Download

Ice Cream Sandwich Keyboard johntanmi

(97) Install

via market.android.com

The new keyboard works really well. Ironically, I bought SwiftkeyX yesterday at around 4pm - ugh!

Occupy HTML movement rises up to oppose Occupy Flash zealots | The Verge

The Occupy Flash insurrection is only just getting started, but already we have an Occupy HTML nemesis to put it up against. The first of these sites advocates actively uninstalling Flash Player from your machines so as to encourage web developers to move with the times and to transition to more modern, probably HTML5-based technologies. Now, in response, Occupy HTML seeks to restore some sanity to the discussion and to encourage users, on both sides of the creator / consumer divide, to simply use the best technologies available. Flash, argues the upstart Occupier, is a mature web plugin that's been put to good use all over the web and "powers some amazing experiences." We needn't be so hasty to flush it while it's still delivering rich web content that cannot be easily replicated through other means.

via theverge.com

These Occupy Flash people really need to find something relevant to think about. Flash is still widely used on services throughout the Internet. The charts in Google Finance are just one example. Also, Developers will surely migrate to another platform on their own over time as demand dwindles. Their 'protest' is like protesting against using the radio because it is and old tech that is limiting freedoom of choice. Just plain silly.

Time to Buy Apple Stock? Not for Me.

Forbes posted the question, is it "Time to Buy" Apple since it has dropped 5% in 2 days?  My answer is - not for me.  The recently released iPhone 4S has sold like gangbusters out of the gate due to pent up demand here in the US and abroad, where it will be available for the first time in many areas.  In the short term, I suspect Apple will sell record numbers of iPhone 4Ss.  In the long term, however, things do not seem so rosy.  Let's be Frank here, the advances of the iPhone 4S over the iPhone 4 were a faster processor for a phone that wasn't all that slow, a better camera for a phone that had one of the best cameras around, new innards that let them manufacture fewer different iPhone versions with no direct consumer benefit, a new antenna design which is a fix and not a feature, and Siri - which is software and could work on the iPhone 4, except for being able to activate it by raising it to our faces, apparently.  After about 16 months of no new significant iPhone hardware, Apple delivered practically the most minor update they could in terms of end user experience.

Admittedly, I do not have any special insight into Apple's future plans, but I do see a rapid evolution of the mobile marketplace where Apple's business model, and Steve Job's DNA that they say is infused everywhere, may not thrive as it has in the past.  In a nutshell, the iPhone and iPad are the core of their business and are largely responsible for the rise in the adoption of their other products due to brand loyalty and users wanting to remain within Apple's ecosystem, recently expanded by iCloud.  The problem is that Apple's greatest strength in the iDevices is what could be its greatest shortcoming.  Apple's greatest strength has been platform's simplicity - in only providing the features that the majority of people have needed and leaving out the 'fringe' features because they make the iDevices overly complex and more prone to problems from user-error and from complexity in programming.  When the iPhone got its start, this strategy worked spectacularly well because people were new to the platform.  But as mobile devices evolve, people will (and have) become more savvy and will want more of the 'fringe' features to satisfy their personal use, which will vary widely.  This applies to both hardware and software.

Apple's iDevice competition on the other hand, primarily Android devices, have hardware vendors producing phones and tablets with a wide range of progressively superior features and a progressively wider range of features practically every month.  Google is making significant changes to the Android operating system to keep up with the evolving needs of mobile technology users and Android itself is open to interactions with the operating system while iOS is basically an Apple communicator plus an App Launcher with apps fundamentally operating in their own independent space.  In summary, Google's Android is evolving towards being a desktop replacement while Apple's iOS has mostly remained very much the same.

By no means am I saying that Apple is out of the game - far from it.  In the blink of an eye they could reclaim their obvious dominance.  I am simply illustrating why my answer to Forbes's question as to whether it is time to buy Apple stock or not is a no.   want to see something come out of the company that at least measures up to the competition.  Namely options.  Bigger screen, 4G LTE, and Flash would be a great start, except Adobe gave up on it the other day due largely to Apple's refusal to allow it on their iDevices.  Hopefully Apple has just taken a pause in advancing their hardware while creating their new mega-office/HQ and iCould, which they needed desperately to 'lock' people onto their platform, especially since the competition fundamentally already had it (branded email, calendaring, contacts, document sharing, picture syncing, etc.), and they will be back on track in 6 months or less.  After the let down of not delivering the iPhone 5 after 16 months, I am not buying stock on any rumors either.

One more thing... Just before the first Droid launched on Verizon in 2009, I could clearly see that within Apple's grasp was the ability to reinvent the Internet - where Apps were used instead of web pages and Apple was at the center of it all and in control of app publication.  But Apple's refusal to put iPhones on all carriers left the door open for the Motorola Droid to be launched on Verizon in 2009 which changed everything in mobile technology, again.  Apple has since gone from having the #1 smartphone platform, by far, to the #2 smartphone platform - and was reportedly surpassed in sales for the first time by 2 individual Android phone manufactures last quarter.  Apple, in my opinion, is overly focused on profit - which ironically is something Steve Jobs said was what went wrong with Apple in the 80's and 90's.  Apple has let money lead them into making highly profitable and exclusive deals with carriers while opening the door to competition, they provide few options for their customers which makes for lower manufacturing costs, but further opens the door to competition, and they continue to price their other hardware at a premium which restricts wider adoption and control of computing standards.  They have been immensely popular and have a big pile of cash, no doubt.  And their customer service and customer satisfaction have been at the top of their industry.  But they risk falling back into also-ran status like they did in the desktop space compared with Windows PCs.

I hope Tim Cook and crew have enough heart to adapt to the changing mobile technology landscape.  I give them a better than 60% chance they will, but there are stocks with better odds than that out there.

Logitech Reveals Poor Dedication to Customers and Quality in Criticism of Google TV

The Verge today (link below) is reporting that Logitech is not mincing words in their dissatisfaction with Google TV. As an owner of Logitec's Revue, I can say that Google TV does seem to be designed by an engineer and is overly complex - or it was rushed out the door, which seems to be Logitech's position.

I am a techie and can use my Logitech Revue fine, but I bought it primarily to stream movies and have had mediocre success - which is Logitech's app failure, not a shortcoming of Google TV. I also bought an Apple TV and a Boxee Box. The Apple TV was just plain useless since I haven't invested in Apple's content, but the Boxee Box plays every movie file I have, plus it does everything the Apple TV does - and then some (yea Boxee Box!).

Google TV hasn't been what it could have been, but I think Logitech is jointly responsible in their low sales by failing to deliver a decent media streaming app. And now that I think about it, I am fairly certain Logitech's media streaming app launched as a beta, presumably so the Revue could tout media streaming at launch in time for Christmas last year - and it has yet to be finished, a year later. So maybe Logitech should take some responsibility for their own disappointment. After all, Boxee Box has continued to advance their platform at a lower (initial) price point just fine.

Logitech's recent statement also speaks volumes about their dedication to quality. Instead of refusing to sell what they state now was a substandard product, they allowed people to buy it, presumably because they didn't want to lose money on what they had manufactured. In light of this, I will think twice about buying Logitech in the future. Fortunately I already knew of Google's frequent initial launch shortcomings and bought the Revue after it dropped to $99 and I don't feel that Google let me down with the Revue, though I could see how early adopters may have a different opinion.

I am just hoping that the Revue will still be upgraded to Honeycomb and Logitech hasn't thrown their hands up completely. Apparently a 3rd party developer has a media streaming app that delivers on what Logitech should have. If Logitech doesn't deliver Honeycomb, then they will be of my list for good because they will have shown a severe lack of customer dedication.

From The Verge:
To make the long story short, we thought we had invented [sliced] bread and we just made them. [We made a commitment to] just build a lot because we expected everybody to line up for Christmas and buy these boxes [at] $300 [...] that was a big mistake.

Link to The Verge Post:
Logitech CEO: Google TV 'cost us dearly,' no Revue replacement coming

Anti-Net Neutrality Resolution is Defeated!

From: http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/it-was-close-we-won-viva-net-neutrality

Today marked a great day for the Internet and Freedom of Speech in the United States as the Senate's resolution to strike down the FCC's Open Internet Rules was defeated.  In case you are unaware, the FCC's rules are intended to protect net neutrality which in real world basic terms means that Internet Service Provider's (ISPs) cannot charge more for certain kinds of Internet traffic.  For example, ISPs could charge more for video streaming or give preference to certain websites/businesses that pay more.  It would be akin to the electric company being able to charge more for the electricity of your TV than the electricity for your electric shaver - not based on the amount of electricity used, but the actual use itself.

The Internet's greatest asset is its freedom of information flow and also an equal opportunity for individuals, organizations, and business in competing for our attention.  If ISP's were to get their way, they could, for example. allow Amazon.com's network traffic to be delivered to your computer in an instant while restricting Joe Small Seller's website from even showing up or showing up very slowly because he couldn't afford the additional fee to your ISP.  The cost could also have been put back on us.  If you want to watch video streaming, that is an additional $20/month.  Can you see the cable companies doing this?  The very same ones that deliver our cable tv and Internet?  I sure can.  The really scary part about not having net-neutrality is that it gives ISPs the power to restrict free speech on the Internet.

The vote came down pretty much to party lines with Republicans being for it and Democrats being against it.  The Republican's perspective is that without the restrictions of the FCC's rules, the market and ISPs will be free to adapt their services to better serve their customers and advance their technology, which is a noble intention and a vote on their principals of a free and unrestricted market which I understand.  In practice, however, there is a severe lack of competition in the space and the opposite will likely happen.  To not have net neutrality would mean much higher prices and a slow-down in the progression of services because there would be little to no pressure for advancement.  Necessity is the mother of invention, right?  The best examples are in Europe where the government has required Cable Companies to license their services to many competing providers in every neighborhood which increases competition and brings prices down to as much as 1/5 what we pay here in the United States - where most people only have 1 or 2 cable providers to their homes.  Another great example is in the mobile phone space.  GigaOm.com recently published a list of the top 20 global mobile operators.  Verizon and AT&T are #'s 13 and 16 in number of connections but are numbers 3 and 4 in mobile revenue.  There are many factors that influence this, but I propose it is a lack of competition that is the driving force behind American mobile carrier higher revenues per user.  As a side note, this is also why the T-Mobile and AT&T merger should not happen.

But regardless, the resolution was defeated and it is a great day for the Internet in the United States!

Here is the chart from GigaOm.com

Motorola Mobility: Xoom, Atrix Both Duds, Pacific Crest Says - Eric Savitz - The Tech Trade - Forbes

Motorola Mobility: Xoom, Atrix Both Duds, Pacific Crest Says - Eric Savitz - The Tech Trade - Forbes

Pacific Crest analyst James Faucette asserts that the Motorola Xoom is not being bought and is a dud.

Most of us tech geeks predicted this and here's why. Competition in the tablet space is a multi-pronged battle which is primarily fought on hardware, operating system, software, awareness / marketing, and price. Let's assume that the Xoom is superior in terms of hardware and operating system, that still leaves software, awareness / marketing, and price. Apple's iPad had approximately 65,000 more applications than the Xoom when the Xoom launched, so Apple had it handily beat there. In other words, there were 65,000 more things that could be done with the iPad than the Xoom. As far as customer awareness and marketing, Apple's iPad had a year's start as one of the hottest selling technical gadgets ever so the Xoom would have needed an astronomically broad marketing push to get even close to the public awareness of the iPad, which frankly likely could not have been bought so the Xoom was beat there.

For me, and millions of others, the hardware and operating system are not enough to make the Xoom a more attractive alternative than the iPad at the same price when there are so fewer things that can be done with the Xoom because of the lack of applications. When inside of an application, which is mostly what is done with a tablet, all that matters is the screen and the interaction with the application. The operating system is irrelevant and to a large degree, so is the hardware (number buttons, location of buttons, expansion ports, etc.). So that leaves price as the only realistic variable that the Xoom had at its disposal and Motorola priced the Xoom fairly similar to the iPad. As far as I can tell, Motorola wanted to present itself as the Ferrari of tablets in doing so, and tried to take the luxury brand from Apple. The problem is, there is nothing its owners can do with it when compared with the 65,000+ applications that the iPad had available. In the old Mac vs Windows days, people considered the Mac, but many, many, MANY times their purchasing decision came down to that one, two, or host of programs that just couldn't be run on a Mac and they pretty much had to choose a Windows machine. The iPad is now the Windows machine in this scenario and although potential buyers of the Xoom really like the hardware and Google's Android Honeycomb OS, they have to face the fact that it is a relative one trick pony to the iPad, and there is no guarantee that the applications will come for the Xoom/Android Gingerbread - at least not before their hardware is obsolete.

Non-Apple tablets are in the unenviable position of having to dig themselves out of a hole to complete with the iPad. I liken it to Japanese automakers coming to America for the first time. They competed on price and function and were laughable by some for a while. Over time they built up their brands and now Toyota is the largest automaker in the world and Honda is known for its ultra-reliable cars.

I think that Motorola and the other tablet makers believe(d) that Android's phone momentum would carry Android tablets into the stratosphere. But I think they have failed to recognize that much of Android's success is due to Apple's (greed) deciding to be available on only one carrier in the United States for the iPhone which opened the door to competition on the other carriers. The iPad has not had these restrictions, leaving Android tablets without a foothold, except on price. Compounding this limitation to Android is that Apple's iPad and iPhone are now available on Verizon's network, the largest network in the United States.

I am pulling for you Android, but you have to recognize what you are up against and battle it accordingly.

Anonymous vows payback for case against PS3 hacker - Yahoo! News

Anonymous vows payback for case against PS3 hacker - Yahoo! News

In case you didn't know it, Sony is suing its Sony Playstation customers. It also has requested the right to view personally identifiable information of who has visited a hackers website, presumably to go after them as well.

Sony says the hackers have circumvented their game copy protection and should be held accountable for the actions of all of their customers who have illegally copied Sony Playstation games. What the hackers have done is circumvented the software restrictions on the Sony Playstation 3 so that 3rd party software can be run on it. Has this enabled the pirating of games? As far as I can tell, yes. But to me that is like saying that Ford should be held accountable for every car that goes over 75Mph. Ford enables that ability, although there is no where in the US I am aware of where more than 75Mph is legal.

Sony should worry more about making better products for better prices. Console makers take a loss on the consoles and make up for it on the licensing fees for the software. If people are using the consoles to do something other than play games then they may not be licensing games and the console makers take a bigger net loss on the boxes. The whole piracy argument is not the full story, and may not be the main story.

I will not be buying another Sony product unless they drop this lawsuit. They made the choice to sell the boxes for under-market prices and should deal with the consequences. There are already laws against software piracy. Fight to have the existing laws enforced better instead, Sony.

Please choose to buy from someone other than Sony when presented with a choice. Their actions seem excessively greedy. They are suing someone for doing what they will with a device they bought and Sony are fighting to invade the privacy of unsuspecting people who visited the hackers website to learn about it. Let me reiterate that these people may not have pirated anything, yet Sony belives they are entited to know who these people are.

This is all my opinion.... so don't come and sue me too Sony - please. I do not own a Sony Playstation, definitely have not 'hacked' one, and do not have skin in this lawsuit. Except that I care that Sony is invading the privacy of the visitors of the hacker's website... and the hacker's privacy too... and hate to see the consumer's right to do whatever they want with the device they bought being trampled on.