As soon as Apple announced iPhone OS 4 last Thursday, I was itching to get my hands on it–and it wasn’t long before I installed the Developer beta on my iPhone 3GS.
The beta is categorized as a major release, but most of the obvious new features are minor. It’s definitely buggy, with a few minor issues–although no real showstoppers–and there are applications I’ve come across that don’t function properly, or refuse to run at all.
Easily the line of the day from today’s presentation. Following a question from gdgt’s Ryan Block on why the iPhone will not allow the running of unsigned apps like both Palm and Android already offer, Steve Jobs comes back calling out Android’s “porn store: “There’s a porn store for Android … your kids can download them … that’s a place where we just don’t want to go, so we’re not going to go there.” That is NOT going to make Google very happy…
At the end of today’s presentation, Jobs said that the full benefits of iPhone OS 4.0 would be available only to customers owning the iPhone 3GS and 3rd generation iPod Touch. For customers with an iPhone 3G or 2nd generation iPod Touch, the update would still be available, however functionality (including multitasking) would not work.
Left out was any mention of the original iPhone and iPod Touch, now both coming up on their 3rd anniversary. Looks like this means its the end of the line for these two devices…
Pointing out that 80% of Fortune 500 companies use iPhones, Jobs demoed some new enterprise level functionality for the iPhone. iPhone OS 4.0 would build on this success by offering APIs for encryption, wireless distribution of applications, and mobile device management for large iPhone deployments.
However, Jobs quickly came back to the consumer with the Game Center, which would be a Xbox Live or PSN of the iPhone community. The functionality would allow developers to tap into a centralized network where gamers could play against each other. Apple says the functionality would be available later this year.
Another not-so-surprising feature is iAd, Apple’s foray into mobile advertising. Acknowledging that many apps in the App Store are free, and that current available ad programs “suck,” Jobs debuted Apple’s own advertising network. He said that the average user spends 30 minutes a day in apps, and that soon the iPhone would have the capability to serve a billion ad impressions a day soon, “an incredible demographic.”
The centerpiece of iAds would be their interactivity, and would ensure that clicking on an ad would keep the user in the app since it is done through the OS itself. Developers would get 60% percent of all revenue from ads within their applications.
Got too many applications on your iPhone? You will now be able to organize them into folders. These folders will also be able to be placed on the dock, making organization on the iPhone a lot easier.
Apple has also updated the Mail application allowing for multiple exchange accounts and a “unified inbox,” meaning all your accounts would appear in a single mailbox rather than separate ones. Although they might be not on the best terms with Google, they certainly are borrowing ideas: the new Mail app would allow threading of E-mails (a la Gmail, and to an extent the Desktop application as well), and attachments in e-mails could be opened by the corresponding application just like a desktop computer.
Not surprisingly Apple is bringing iBooks to the iPhone. The application looks quite similar to the iPad version, and truly puts the company in direct competition with Amazon. Better yet, if you own an iPad and iPhone, you can have the same book on either device. If you finish part of the book on the iPad, you can sync a bookmark to the iPhone and finish it from there, and vice versa.
Apple will ship the next major update to its iPhone operating system this summer, claiming over 100 new features. CEO Steve Jobs decided to focus on what he called seven “tentpole” features that will make the latest version the best yet. And yes folks, this list of features does include multitasking.
Saying “we weren’t the first to this party, but we’re going to be the best,” Jobs lamented that most multitasking functionality on smart devices both kills the battery as well as reduce the performance of the foreground app. By double clicking the home button within an application, a list of applications come up, similar to what currently happens with Apple-Tab now.
This is great for non-iPod music apps. Now for instance you will continue to be able to listen to Pandora or Rhapsody without having to stay in those apps. For VoIP, you will now be able to receive calls from services like Skype even when it is not currently running. Geolocation would also work through multitasking as well.
Push applications going through Apple’s servers also become unnecessary: this means they can be served locally right from the iPhone. In addition, functions such as uploading would even continue after you leave an application.
Steve Jobs has just took the stage at Cupertino for the iPhone OS 4.0 event and starts it off with iPad news: 450,000 have been sold to date. Jobs says Best Buy is out of stock, and that Apple is “making them as fast as we can.” A total of 600,000 iBooks have been downloaded to date, along with 3.5 million applications. Jobs reports that some 3,500 applications are now available that have been optimized for use on the device.
The Microsoft following media has been tripping over itself this week, seemingly discounting the iPad as too bulky, too clunky, too simple. Some have even pointed to HP’s Slate as the superior device. Lucky for us, details on the specifications have leaked out thanks to Engadget, so we’re able here at Technologizer to compare the two platforms based on what we know. From what has been disclosed so far, it still certainly seems to be advantage Apple, and here’s why.
1. Windows 7 is NOT a operating system made for touch-based devices. One of the most common criticisms of the iPad I’ve seen has been the operating system itself. While I tend to agree the user interface does need some tweaks, putting a full-on OS on these type of devices just doesn’t work. No matter how convenient it is to be able to run a full Windows app on a device like this, they aren’t built for the touch world. The interactivity gained through gestures and the like is lost on a mouse-based UI and no skin will correct that. Add to this the limitations of the hardware and such a feature becomes useless.
2. It’s not lighter (or much smaller) than the iPad. Paul Thurrott in his review criticized the iPad for its weight. Having actually picked up and played with the device myself, I believe this criticism is unwarranted. Yes, it has *a little* bit of weight to it, but this isn’t a handheld device necessarily. It’s meant to be cradled, put in your lap. Don’t look to the HP Slate to be lighter. The difference there is negligible, and its only slightly smaller and a bit thicker than the iPad. I sure hope the HP device gets the same treatment in its own review.
3. It’s not necessarily cheaper than Apple’s device. I must admit I chuckled here as I wrote this. When was the last time Apple actually competed on price? At least initially, they will beat HP here. At $499, Apple’s entry 16GB model will be cheaper, although HP’s low-end device will be 32GB at $549, $50 cheaper than Apple’s version. One has to assume however than running Windows 7 will certainly take up a good deal of space, so how much of an advantage will the space difference really be?
4. Battery life is half that of the iPad. We’ve seen confirmation out in the field that Apple’s claims of long battery life do seem pretty close to reality. Therefore, it should concern any prospective HP Slate owner that the company itself is only claiming battery life that is half of its Apple counterpart. Again, hate to harp on it but this is a desktop OS at work again. This software requires more processing and computing power, and thus more electrical power. It’s that simple, really.
5. HP does not have a solid stable of third-party applications for its device. Herein lies the beauty of the iPad. Apple has already lined up a cadre of developers behind its iPhone platform, and many of them are already rushing (or have out) applications built for the larger screen and added functionality of the iPad. To my knowledge, HP does not have anything near this, nor does it have plans to. The value proposition of the Slate seems especially lost here.
Does the Slate best Apple? Yes, in a few spots — notably the forward and outward facing cameras, and the memory expansion slot. But it seems more of a reaction to Apple’s latest move than an response. Reactionary devices rarely do well.
comScore’s latest numbers show that Google’s Android platform is really beginning to gain some traction in the smartphone market. From the November 2009 to February period, Android took 9 percent of the market, up sharply from 3.8 percent in the previous three month period.
Notable among comScore’s findings is the fact that Android seems to be attracting a different user base than either market-leading RIM or Apple. RIM managed to increase its share to 42.1 percent, while Apple maintained its 25.4 percent share. Instead, Android’s victims are Microsoft (who fell four percent to 15.1%) and Palm (7.2 to 5.4 percent).
Overall, smartphones have shown 21 percent year-over-year growth, verifying that there is still plenty of room for growth in this still somewhat nascent market.
I’ve long said since Verizon’s “iDont” commercials that the Android platform would for the most part not take market share from Apple, and this has proved that theory somewhat. Those on the platform are probably more likely new to smartphones overall, and the open nature of the OS means that the availability of Android phones is much broader (there is now at least one Android-powered phone on every major US cellular provider).
One thing can be said now, I think: Android is indeed a success.
President Obama has made broadband a key part of his telecommunications agenda. To get there, he has tasked the Federal Communications Commission with the responsibility to make changes to Internet regulations and promote his “National Broadband Plan,” an ambitious effort to reform the industry and expand broadband access across the country.
There’s an elephant in the room however, and it’s name is Comcast. The telecommunications company is challenging the FCC’s authority on Internet regulation in court, and if successful it could seriously inhibit the agency’s efforts to move its plans forward. Comcast’s beef goes back to 2008, when the FCC censured the company for its bandwidth-throttling efforts against BitTorrent and others.
If the court rules in Comcast’s favor, the FCC may lose the necessary powers it requires in order to shift spectrum from television companies to wireless providers in order to advance broadband access. The agency also has other options, including reclassifying Internet service under more tightly regulated telephone service laws, but even that isn’t fraught with trouble.
Telecommunications companies would no doubt be unhappy that they wouldd be required to share lines with their competitors, and we all know that probably means lawsuits. It would also mean Internet providers would have to accept quite a bit more regulation then they’ve been used to. More lawsuits. All in all, the Comcast case really seems to hold the key to Obama’s broadband plans.
Personally, I find it sad that it has come to this to decide whether this country really gets serious with high-speed Internet access. I know among the more conservative readers on here, government regulation is not very popular. But its a simple fact in this capitalist society that the almighty dollar is what companies are most interested in. Regulation does put a crimp on profits, and I believe nobody can really argue that.
We’re getting to the point where the Internet is no longer a luxury, but rather a necessity. At that point, regulation of the industry is necessary in order to ensure that it is accessible by all, rather than only where it is the most highly profitable. Of course, its not going to be as profitable for a company to offer Internet access in rural North Dakota as downtown Los Angeles.
But should access be determined by geographical location, or potential profit margins? Therein lies the argument. And now it appears a court case in Washington, DC could possibly set the course of broadband access for years to come.
