Nokia Getting Killed In The Smartphone Market... So Of Course It Sues For Patent Infringement

from the if-you-can't-innovate,-litigate dept

Funny how this works, right? Just a week or so after it's first ever quarterly loss and an admission that it totally screwed up in the smartphone market, Nokia suddenly sues Apple for patent infringement over the iPhone. It looks like the old adage is true again: if you can't innovate, litigate! It's the same story all over again. A company that was a leader in the market but got complacent and lazy, suddenly finds that it lost its lead to a more innovative upstart. Since it's so far behind, even scrambling around doesn't help it to catch up, so it just starts suing over patents.

This story nicely highlights a few other points as well. We keep hearing from patent system supporters how the patent system is necessary because, without it, the market leader would always just immediately copy the upstart and "steal" their idea. Of course, Nokia has had two plus years to "steal" Apple's idea, and where is it in the smartphone market? It's not so easy to just copy someone else's idea -- especially if you're a huge player like Nokia, who will often view the disruptive innovator as not being worthy of paying attention to (which basically was Nokia's reaction to the iPhone).

Separately, remember how confused we were when Steve Jobs proudly hyped up the fact that Apple had over 200 patents on the iPhone concept? We've pointed out that it's hardly done anything to stop lawsuits. Apple has been sued over and over and over and over and over and over again for patent infringement. Welcome to the tragedy of the anti-commons, where it becomes impossible to do pretty much anything innovative without facing massive legal costs. Basically, if you build anything even remotely innovative these days, you're going to get sued for patent infringement, probably multiple times. It's become a massive tax on innovation, rather than a lever for innovation.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Evidence Suggests That iPhone App Store Doesn't Really Sell That Much...

from the ain't-looking-so-good dept

Among people who really, really want to believe that there's a huge market out there for selling content directly, the iPhone App Store has recently become "Exhibit A." The thinking is that all you have to do is slap together that perfect Steve Jobsian user interface that just makes it so easy to buy, and people will start forking over their money. It was part of David Carr's argument when we debated newspaper micropayments. Except... there really isn't that much evidence to support even the claim that the iPhone App Store really sells that much. We were a bit skeptical of the early reports that people claimed offered "proof" that people would buy all sorts of apps. Then, earlier this year, we suggested that it was an early warning sign that so many apps on iPhones were never used at all or were used once and abandoned. Basically, that meant that people would test stuff out when they first got the phone, but sales would likely dwindle after that. More evidence was provided by an analyst firm that figured out how little money Apple was making from app sales (which is fine -- Apple is in it just to sell hardware, but it suggested that app sales weren't quite as amazing as people were claiming).

Newsweek is presenting some more evidence -- albeit anecdotal -- that the iPhone App Store isn't making very many people very much money at all. There are, certainly, a few folks at the top who are doing okay, but for most people there just aren't that many sales -- or the cost of getting those sales greatly outweighs the revenue that came in from them.

This isn't to say that the iPhone App Store is a failure. In fact, I'd argue it's been a huge success in making the iPhone significantly more valuable. But as evidence that there's a huge market out there of people willing to pay for content if it's just packaged up nicely? There's just not enough there to be convincing.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

iPhone To Be Offered From Multiple Carriers, eh

from the in-God-Phone-We-Anti-Trust dept

Given all the talk in DC lately about anti-competitive exclusive cellphone distribution arrangements, it's very interesting to see a rumor broken by the Globe and Mail about the iPhone in Canada. According to The Globe, Rogers will soon lose its iPhone exclusive as both TELUS and Bell Mobility add the iconic device to their Christmas line-up. Bell and TELUS are migrating away from the CDMA technology they have used up to 3G, towards the more globally compatible GSM evolutions. To minimize costs, the two carriers are building a single shared-infrastructure network, on which they will both sell services. While Rogers, the long-time GSM user, will have the wider network footprint and offer iPhones fall-back to their 2G data networks when out of 3G coverage, that advantage is countered by TELUS and Bell offering 3.5G HSPA+ speeds to Rogers' 3G. Under current coverage conditions, iPhone urbanites might prefer the new entrants, while sub-urbanites may prefer Rogers.

What is most interesting here is the break from Apple's conventional one-country-one-carrier strategy, which has attracted the attention of more than a few countries' regulators. The Canadian case will be the first market where competing carriers offer the iPhone, without a regulator forcing Apple's hand. Perhaps Germany will follow Canada: there are rumors that T-Mobile will lose their exclusive deal with Apple by year's end, and British/Spanish carrier O2 will enter the market with preferable iPhone plans. In the USA, most of the hot water Apple is swimming in is because the FTC isn't happy with the iPhone app approval process, which nixed the Google voice app. But while the FTC branch is focused on the App Store, some Congressional Reps are voicing their displeasure at the exclusive iPhone deal with AT&T. Governments around the world aren't sure what to make of exclusive phone distribution deals - which, strangely, never seemed to raise an eyebrow until the iPhone. In France, the Orange-Apple 5-yr exclusive was smacked down by the feds who argued that an exclusive arrangement would add "a new element of rigidity in the sector which is already suffering from a lack of competition." But here's where I'm not so clear.

I agree that exclusives, when examined in isolation, are anti-competitive. But overall, I'm not clear on how a 2007 new entrant (Apple), with a disruptive device that lit a fire under the incumbent vendors, could be perceived as "anti-competitive" in terms of net results. In fact, the exclusivity has undeniably forced the competing carriers to work their butts off to come up with a comparable device, seeking it from the likes of Nokia, Samsung (which are scrambling to respond, though they'd never admit it), or newer players like HTC or INQ. The exclusive deals seem to be spurring competition. In contrast, in a world where every telco carries the iPhone, the telcos actually can worry less about offering something else that's equal or better. I suppose someday it could make sense to go after Apple exclusives, but why not wait until the net effect on society is actually negative in some measurable way? A good rule for government should be, "When in doubt, leave it alone."

Meanwhile, the Canadian case will certainly offer Canadians more choice among iPhone providers, and most notably iPhone plans. Canadians tasted the bitter flavor of inadequate competition when iPhone data plans were first announced there in mid 2008. Three-year contracts, no unlimited data plan, high per-MB pricing, and a triple lock-in. Yes, Canada may soon see more service competition around the iPhone -- but will Canada see more or less device competition?

Derek Kerton is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Derek Kerton and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

53 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes

from the stop-complaining dept

We've mentioned in the past how silly it is that Apple blocks the Palm Pre and other devices from accessing iTunes. Plenty of people responded, pointing out that Apple really makes its money on the hardware, and thus it makes no sense to allow other hardware products to connect to iTunes. While I agree that Apple makes its money off the hardware, I still disagree that Apple should block others out. In doing so, it makes me and many others less likely to purchase an Apple product, because I don't want to get trapped into Apple hardware. I'd much rather a more open solution.

Over at Slate, Farhad Manjoo has written up a wonderful explanation of why Apple should not just allow the Palm Pre and others to connect to iTunes, but it should encourage it. The whole thing is worth reading, but here's a snippet:

I hope the company continues to search for ways to sync with iTunes, because the fight--silly as it seems--is important, and Palm is clearly in the right. Apple may have the USB-IF on its side, and it may also be protected by copyright law. But by blocking non-Apple devices from its music app, Apple is violating a more fundamental principle of computing--that unalike devices should be able to connect to one another freely. The principle underlies everything we take for granted in tech today: It's why the Internet, your home network, and the PC function at all. And it's why Palm should keep storming the iTunes fortress.

I am not claiming that Palm has the legal right to hack into Apple's software, nor am I calling on any authorities to compel Apple to let Palm in; if the cat-and-mouse game turns into a courtroom brawl, it's very likely that Apple would win the fight. Instead, I'm calling on Apple to stand down. Even better: It should create a legal pathway for Palm and every other company to sync with iTunes. Why? The most obvious reason is that it's good for iTunes users. Nobody other than Apple benefits from locked-down software. Apple frequently extols the wonders of digital music--the convenience, the flexibility, the environmental friendliness. But how flexible can it be if you're allowed to sync your tunes only with devices made by a single company?

What's more, the iTunes block is hypocritical. Like every other tech company, Apple has benefited enormously from the spirit of interconnectedness that pervades the tech industry. The iPod would have fizzled if Microsoft had blocked it from hooking up to Windows PCs. Or look at the iPhone--Apple is proud that it can sync with Outlook, Microsoft Exchange, Gmail, Yahoo, and just about everything else. Indeed, you could argue that Apple, once left for dead on the periphery of the tech industry, managed to come back only because it skillfully marketed Macs as the most promiscuous computers you could buy.

Indeed. While it's unlikely that Apple will actually do this, it would be a smart move. No one's buying Apple hardware because it syncs with iTunes. They're buying it for many other reasons, and Apple can continue to compete on those. Blocking the Pre and other devices from accessing iTunes is petty and unnecessary.

109 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Did Apple Approve Spotify?

from the not-that-tough-to-figure-out dept

AdAge has a long article trying to puzzle out why Apple potentially "sacrificed iTunes" in approving Spotify's streaming music app. Oddly, while the article touches on a few of the reasons, I don't think it clearly highlights what seems like the most obvious reasons:

1. As we noted when the app was approved, Apple appears to be somewhat gunshy, following the FCC inquiry into why it "blocked" Google Voice on the iPhone (and, yes, Apple still insists it didn't actually block the app, but Google says otherwise). Given the scrutiny, Apple probably realized that it was in for some serious political trouble if it blocked an app like Spotify, which would have received a lot of press attention. Oddly, the AdAge article doesn't mention this at all.
2. Apple has always viewed iTunes as something of a loss leader to help it sell more iPods and iPhones. If someone else can help sell more of the devices, then more power to them. Though, the fear, of course, is that something like Spotify works on other devices too.
3. But this brings up the final reason: I would bet that the folks at Apple are pretty damn sure that they can outlast and out-innovate Spotify. Spotify hasn't shown much ability to make money, and while it has become a press darling as a music app, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apple's quietly been working on its own version of a Spotify-like offering built directly into iTunes. And, given Apple's standard operating procedure, if that's the case, there's a good chance that the Spotify-like iTunes will be even better than Spotify itself.

So, I don't think it's that confusing why Apple approved Spotify (and Rhapsody). I'd argue that the first reason was the biggest driver. Without the FCC investigation, it wouldn't have shocked me if Apple had denied the app if only to buy itself time. But, I would expect that sooner or later, Apple will come out with its own streaming version of iTunes with very strong integration into the iPhone, and suddenly Spotify won't look quite as interesting.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple's Google Voice Rejection Wakes Up A Dormant FCC; Investigation Begins

from the whoops dept

We've had a bunch of stories about Apple's rather arbitrary nature in rejecting iPhone apps it doesn't like -- including ones where it claims that they're not allowed because they compete with Apple. However, Apple's recent decision to reject Google's Voice application didn't just attract general public interest in Apple's policies, it appears to have awoken the latest crop of FCC bosses. Yes, the FCC has requested more info from Apple, AT&T and Google concerning Apple's rejection of the Google app. I wonder how the random Apple drone who made that decision is feeling right now?

Either way, this isn't good for anyone. The FCC's reasoning is that it:

"has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment."

That's actually a bit of a stretch on the FCC's actual mandate. And as ridiculous as I think Apple's actions are here, having the FCC get involved doesn't seem good for anyone either. The FCC shouldn't be involved in deciding what applications get put on phones. Apple's decision has angered a bunch of people, with some swearing off the iPhone because of it. In those cases, those people have other options and other phones to go to. The situation doesn't require the FCC to get involved. It should just require Apple coming to its senses and getting rid of its silly policy of outright rejections of apps it doesn't like.

77 Comments | Leave a Comment..

iPhone Haters Are Stick-Shifters In An Automatic World

from the P-R-N-D-iii--ii--iPhone dept

Every time we post a story at Techdirt about the iPhone, we see the comments rapidly bifurcating into a religious battle between the "fanboy idiots who make excuses for the useless little iPhone like a beaten wife just because it's trendy and shiny" and the guys who "whine because [the iPhone doesn't do] everything and cost nothing" (this is what the two sides are saying, not us). It's sad to see such an interesting, seminal device be reduced to "nyah, nyah" levels of discourse. Our position on the iPhone is hopefully more objective. No, it's not perfect, lists of gripes are frequently made, but overall it's the phone to beat.

Recently, we've decried Apple's autocratic governance of their App Store. But don't let that mislead you into thinking we're down on the whole product. The iPhone is a turning-point device, which changed the usability level of the mobile Internet. All of a sudden, the mass market - who until then had no interest in muddling with clumsy mobile data services - was able to connect to the web on their phone, browse sites, download apps, and truly realize the promise of "anytime, anyplace, any info". The phone also revolutionized the mobile phone UI. While the other handset vendors developed each application and hardware in its own silo, Apple designed it all as a single whole experience, also sketching-in the content and application ecosystem. And it's been no shock that good user experience matters a whole lot! Lastly, the iPhone shattered the iron grip carriers had on handset vendors, and the phones their customer's eventually owned. Apple yanked some of that control away, and their more open (than carriers) approach has blown open the barn doors of developer creativity. The iPhone sales figures and data usage stats are in. Its a success. So if you are one of the people that says the iPhone is nothing more than a shiny toy, you need to come back to reality.

So why do so many criticize the iPhone, if it's so great? I think it's because they make the classic marketing mistake of thinking "It's all about ME." It isn't. The iPhone haters see the limitations (hard keys, cut/paste, tethering...) of the phone, and they focus on how the phone doesn't have any tech breakthrough or meet THEIR specific needs. But the mass market is what really matters in business. Is the mass market even aware of the limitations of their iPhone? If you told one of them, would they care? They would tell you that, on the contrary, their iPhone has not limited them, it has empowered them to access the mobile services and networks that have been "available" since 2000, but were blocked by poor user experiences and walled gardens.

I liken the whole debate to the stick-shift versus automatic transmission debate decades ago (still in the EU). True motoring aficionados could not accept the dumbed-down, lazy automatic transmission. They insisted on doing the work themselves. It was harder, but it was "the only way to truly 'drive' the automobile". Tough luck if it put driving out of the reach of some. By now, the mass market has decided that "easier" trumps a religious argument about "real feel for the road". Good products take people to their destination as easily as possible. The market has spoken: Getting there is not half the fun.

Derek Kerton is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Derek Kerton and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

140 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Says No To Google Voice On The iPhone

from the shameless dept

As we wait to hear if Spotify's mobile app gets approved (I heard a rumor that it was, but have seen no proof yet), we hear of another questionable Apple iPhone rejection: the Google Voice iPhone app has been forbidden from the iPhone, though the reasons aren't entirely clear. Still, it does show that Apple doesn't care who you are, or how big a name. If it doesn't like your app, too bad. Once again, this seems like an argument for why more open solutions will win out in the end. Not only do users not have to worry about arbitrary rejections like this, but innovation will happen much faster on open platforms where each innovation doesn't need to be approved by a mercurial secret cabal.

64 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Apple Allow Spotify On The iPhone?

from the one-to-watch dept

Having used Spotify a bit, I can definitely see how some people think it could potentially replace iTunes completely. It basically acts like an iTunes that has access to millions of songs at no additional cost (and, yes, it's all licensed and legal). The songs are streamed, but you almost never notice it. It really does feel just like iTunes, while also having "Pandora-like" features for creating specialized stations or sharing others' playlists. Unfortunately, it's only available in the UK for now, though the rumor is it will be available in the US before the end of the year. However, where things could get really impressive is with Spotify's mobile app. For a few months, there's been a YouTube video of Spotify Mobile on Android:

The demo highlights the fact that you can sync any playlist for "offline" play, solving the biggest question about weak mobile signals on the go, or how you use it on a plane or somewhere without wireless access. With offline syncing, it's basically everything that an iPod can do -- with access to 6 million songs without having to pay for each individual song. But, of course, Android is still a limited platform. The big fish these days is the iPhone App Store, and Spotify has now submitted an iPhone app for approval, which raises all sorts of questions. With Apple's history of rather arbitrary rejections -- including ones for things Apple has deemed "competitive" -- will it block Spotify as a rather direct competitor to iTunes? That would be very unfortunate, and again demonstrate the risk of a closed platform.

That said, the initial reviews of the iPhone app seem quite strong. Eliot Van Buskirk at Wired loves the syncing feature, and warns that "you'd have to pry it out of my cold, dead iPhone before I'll delete it from my phone." Meanwhile Music Ally points out that Spotify has uploaded a video of the iPhone app as well: It really does look pretty slick. So now the ball's in Apple's court. I have no idea if Spotify can survive as a business (and I suspect that the royalty rates the music industry wants will make that difficult), but it is great to see more innovation in the space. Now we get to see how Apple feels about that sort of innovation.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Warns Palm Pre Users: We're Going To Break Your iTunes Syncing

from the shot-across-the-bow dept

I have to admit that I've never really understood Apple's ongoing efforts to block any sort of compatibility with both iPod devices and iTunes. You may recall a few years back the big fight between Apple and RealNetworks when Real tried to let its software connect to iPods, which Apple treated as a gross injustice. Now Palm is doing the opposite, by letting the Pre connect and sync with iTunes software by making the device pretend it's an iPod when connected to a computer. Apple, however, has responded with a neat little message that never actually mentions Palm, even if it's entirely transparent who it's about, warning people that Apple can easily break syncing when it updates its software. Of course, Apple did it in a way that it can claim wasn't meant nefariously at all. All the company really meant was to make people understand that it has no control over how the Pre syncs with iTunes, and it's possible that an update could break that syncing. Sure. Right. Except most people assume this means Apple intends to break it.

But I don't understand why. For people who bought the Palm Pre, that's only going to piss them off and drive them to use other software, taking them away from Apple's products. Why does that help Apple? Having Palm Pre syncing with iTunes increases the value of iTunes. What's wrong with that, other than being the latest example of Apple's dislike of anyone doing anything not invented in Cupertino?

57 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Drops Another Arbitrary Rejection On An E-Book App, Because Somebody Might Read The Kama Sutra With It

from the know-it-when-i-see-it dept

Apple's double standards in deciding which iPhone apps to reject have hit plenty of developers. Apparently it's fine to access any sort of content through the device's web browser, but if you have an app that accesses anything Apple deems objectionable, it's obscene and therefore blocked. The latest rejection along these lines is of an e-book reader which lets people download and read books from Project Gutenberg, a trove of digitized public-domain works. One book in its collection is the ancient Indian sex guide The Kama Sutra; in Apple's eyes, the ability to access the book from the app is grounds enough to reject it. The app is simply designed to access Project Gutenberg, and users select which titles they want to read. The developer says he wasn't even aware that The Kama Sutra was in Gutenberg's archives, but he also points out that several other e-book apps can access it, while, of course, it's also available on the web. The guy has now created a version of the app that specifically blocks access to The Kama Sutra, in hopes Apple will deem it acceptable. Fair enough, since he just wants to get the app out there. But it doesn't make Apple's arbitrary approval process -- and the stupidity it regularly displays -- any better. Update: And, once again, following a bit of press coverage, Apple caves. Still, it really shouldn't take press coverage to force Apple to fix situations like this.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

62 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Apple's Low Revenues Slow Down The App Store Phenomenon?

from the loss-leader-redux dept

Apple triumphantly announced a little while back that iPhone and iPod Touch users had downloaded more than a billion applications from its App Store in under nine months. But a research firm said last week that it estimated Apple had only earned a maximum of $45 million for itself from all those downloads. The figure was extrapolated from research into the pricing of apps, and isn't based on anything Apple has disclosed about App Store revenues, but it does illustrate how Apple's using the App Store: just like the iTunes Music Store, as a means to drive hardware sales rather than generate significant direct revenues. The App Store adds value to iPhones and iPod Touch devices, making the hardware more desirable, just like iTunes does for other iPod devices. That's the real value for Apple, and is measured in strong device sales, rather than direct revenues.

Will these figures and their implication put the brakes on the app store craze that's tearing through the mobile industry? If Apple's already garnered more than a billion applications, and only has a max of $45 million to show for it, it would seem to call into question the widely held belief among mobile operators and other device vendors that app stores offer a valuable new direct revenue stream. Perhaps Apple's experience demonstrates that the real value of app stores is in extending the capabilities of hardware with new software and services, and using this to make the hardware more attractive, and in turn driving sales. But will the other players see app stores in the same way, or try to exploit them as revenue streams? Apple's shown with the iTunes Music Store that it is willing to use loss leaders as a tool to sell hardware. Will operators and other vendors be prepared to do the same?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Pre-Brief Of The Upcoming CTIA Conference

from the Too-Soon-For-A-De-Brief dept

With the US mobile phone industry's leading conference kicking off in Las Vegas, I thought it might be fun to write a small "pre-brief" of the trends to expect from the show. This CTIA Show comes close on the heels of the huge, Europe-based Mobile World Congress, and I would have dropped a blog post from there...if my Netbook hadn't been stolen! Here's what to expect from the CTIA show:

App Stores: What was innovative about Apple's App Store? It is a single point of sales, it's trusted, compatible, it offers tested apps, and it gives a large (70%) revenue share to the application developer. Nothing new there, but damn, what a success. Once again, Apple succeeded by (not doing anything revolutionary, but) using a simple recipe that makes sense and motivates all stakeholders. Sadly, a similar 'imode' app store has been done by DoCoMo in Japan since 2000, but North American carrier imitations usually neglect being remotely 'open' and don't offer a large revenue share to developers. Turns out, this is fairly important if you want to stimulate a large, diverse offering of useful, high-quality applications. Anyway, all those companies that didn't copy imode are now copying Apple, so expect to see more news around Microsoft's store, RIM Blackberry's store, the Android store, and more. The trend is good, since it will get more money in developers' hands, and should help some phone owners find applications that make their devices more valuable.

Mobile Broadband/Embedded Broadband: There will be lots of talk and probably a bunch of announcements about mobile broadband access at the show. I am referring specifically to the use of cellular broadband modems in devices that are not phones, such as Netbooks, Laptops, cameras, readers, media players, etc. I am moderating a panel on this subject at the CTIA show, and I'm thrilled to be doing it, because it is such a major trend. The two driving forces to this trend are the 3G networks that are already in place, and carrier willingness to sell new kinds of service plans. Carriers have been somewhat stuck in a rut of thinking of mobile access as "one phone, one contract, $60/mo." But recently, their thinking has been changing, and the notion of wholesale businesses of selling connections to devices like Amazon's Kindle is gaining steam. Expect to see more news of daily connection plans for laptops (like Wi-Fi Hotspots), and wireless data bundled in the price of other consumer electronics. 

Femtocells: A femtocell is a small box that looks like a Wi-Fi router, and similarly plugs in at your home or small office. But instead or routing laptops to the Internet, a femtocell routes telephone calls from your mobile phone to your carrier. Put one of these in a home or office with poor cell reception, and instantly get four bars. That's good for you and the carrier, who gets to keep you as a customer. But what also benefits the carrier is that your phone's traffic is now carried over your broadband connection, saving their towers from having to allocate capacity to you. Sprint has it, T-Mobile uses a special variant, Verizon has recently launched it, and AT&T is piloting these devices. I expect femtocells to successfully creep into the marketplace, and we'll hear a fair bit about femtocells at the show, but also other new ways of delivering cellular service like Distributed Antenna Systems, Repeaters, and such.

Backhaul: Wireless data use is taking off. Driven by flat rates, popular and easy to use phones like iPhone, and supplemented by growing use of cellular modems to laptops and Netbooks, people are finally exchanging significant amounts of data traffic from cell towers. But these towers were initially put in place for highly compressed, narrowband voice traffic. As such, each tower was often connected by a meager T1 line. The connection that the towers have to the core network is called "backhaul," and yesterday's backhaul is woefully inadequate for tomorrow's data traffic loads. The short-term solution was to just add more T1s...but the costs of this rapidly become prohibitive. So the long-term solutions that will be discussed at length in Las Vegas are point-to-point microwave wireless relays, metro Ethernet, and fiber optic connections.

The Palm Pre: I'm not sure when the bandwagon is going to hit the trail for this device, but I'm saddling up right now. I've been negative on Palm for a while, but I saw the Pre at CES in January and was pleasantly surprised, but unfortunately didn't allocate much time to Palm. Subsequently, I spent some time with the Pre at MWC in February, and was very impressed. Of all the phones I have seen since the iPhone came out, this is the first one that I think may be better -- and I am very fond of the iPhone. I use a very powerful HTC Windows phone, and when I see the Pre in action, I find myself repeatedly saying "I wish my phone could do that." 'Synergy,' the Pre's ability to pull together your contacts, emails, calendars into one consolidated view, is a favorite element. But what really struck me was the User Interface, which is very visual, very touch, and very intuitive. I felt the same way I felt when I first saw the iPhone in action. The Pre is not an evolution of previous Palms. It is a new starting point, and like the iPhone, it seems devoid of classic silo thinking and lousy UI baggage. I can't predict whether the developer community will rally around the Pre, or whether Sprint and Palm will be successful in selling big volumes, but I want to call this one early: the Pre is a great smartphone.

More iPhone "killers": We've seen handset vendors offer so-called iPhone Killers at every turn since June 2007. I have found almost every such claim to be unfounded over the past 2 years. I have written that a touch screen and square icons do not an iPhone Killer make. But quarter-by-quarter, the competitors' claims get more and more credible. While HTC, Nokia, RIM, Samsung, and LG make incremental progress to matching the iconic device, I think Palm has the real bomb to drop, if they manage to get the Pre to market on time.

Android: The past year was almost devoid of Android handset announcements. Barcelona was strangely silent on that front. In fact, we haven't heard much about new Android handhelds since the T-Mo G1 was announced early in 2008! But there's enough rumors floating around to suspect a batch of Android announcements this week. Let's wait and see. 

Google Voice: Google recently announced their Google Voice service, and it has created quite a stir in the industry. The fixed carriers have long felt threatened by Google, although the search giant had yet to fire a shot across the mobile carriers' bow. So long as it stayed in search, email, web VoIP, advertising, and location services, Google was only a thorn in the cellcos' side. But with the addition of Google Voice (GV), Google is now going straight at the heart of the carrier's core service. GV is essentially a disintermediation play, where users will use just one phone number, provided by Google, and can intelligently route and manage their phone calls to desk, cellphone, voicemail, email, etc., by using a web dashboard interface. By using a Google phone number, users needn't even tell anyone their cellular or landline numbers -- the carriers become pipes for the Google Voice customer. Expect to see and hear some responses, which have already started from other newcomers like Skype, or classic solution vendors like AlcaLu.

Meet Huawei: If you are not familiar with this company yet, better learn how to pronounce the name. Huawei is the leading example of the next generation of telecom infrastructure providers out of China. They have been selling competitive equipment for years, but carriers in Western countries have been reluctant to adopt their products based on a perceived quality gap with leading vendors like Ericsson, Nortel, Motorola, and Alcatel-Lucent. But the winds are shifting. Tougher economic times, paired with some successful Huawei reference cases in Leap Wireless, Cox cable, and Canadian telcos, prove that Huawei can compete on quality and price. Huawei is growing its presence in the US, recently opening offices here in Silicon Valley. Could a major US carrier deal be in the making?

Derek Kerton is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Derek Kerton and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Sued For Patent Infringement Because Others Have Turned iPhone Into Ebook Reader

from the how-does-that-make-sense dept

Despite Steve Jobs' proud promotion of the 200 patents Apple has around the iPhone, there's been no shortage of patent infringement lawsuits filed against the company. The latest (sent in by Jon) involves a company suing Apple for daring to promote the iPhone as an ebook reader, noting it holds a patent on An Electronic device, preferably an electronic book. So apparently the fact that others, by creating software to do the rather obvious thing of allowing people to read digital ebooks on their iPhones, Apple is now getting sued?

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Making Developers Pay Up For Any Refunded iPhone Apps?

from the restocking-fees dept

Lucretious points to a Kotaku post claiming that Apple is changing the terms for iPhone developers, such that when users ask for refunds, Apple gives them back the full amount but still demands a 30% fee from the developers. For obvious reasons, this is upsetting developers who worry about getting hit with huge chargeback fees. I would imagine that Apple's response is that if developers make a good enough app, they shouldn't have to worry about refund requests. But, in the meantime, it certainly increases the liability of being an iPhone developer.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Yet Another Patent Infringement Lawsuit Over The iPhone

from the keep-'em-coming dept

Remember back when the iPhone was launched, and Steve Jobs hyped up the 200 patents the company had filed around the concepts in the iPhone? We found that pretty odd, since most of the technology had been seen elsewhere before -- Apple just put it together in a consumer package. And, indeed, all of those patents certainly haven't stopped plenty of other companies from claiming that the iPhone was violating some other patent. And, now we've got another one, as two (related) Scottish companies, Picsel Research and Picsel Technologies, are claiming that Apple violates their patents, and (of course) are whining about the millions of dollars they invested in the technology.

Of course, if Apple had really "stolen" their ideas, don't you think they would have spoken up, say, two years ago when the iPhone was first announced? Now, one of the ridiculous aspects of patent law is that independent invention isn't a defense -- meaning that even though it's quite clear Apple developed its technology independent of Picsel, it doesn't really matter for the sake of the case. But, at the same time, that also means that it's equally meaningless how much Picsel invested in the technology. So, unless they want to allow Apple to point out how much it invested in the same tech (perhaps long before Picsel ever did), it might want to stop the whining about money spent.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Up Next, The Subaru App Store

from the click-click-vroom dept

Mobile-phone makers and operators are falling over themselves trying to launch their own application storefronts following the success of Apple's iPhone App Store. But they're not the only ones: Hughes Telematics, which makes in-car communications and computing systems, says the next generation of its technology, scheduled for release in 2010, will let people install apps in their cars. Ideas being kicked around now include a carbon-footprint calculator and remote-starting and monitoring software. There are lots of interesting possibilities here, but there's one stumbling block: most cars don't come with any ability to connect to the internet, making distribution difficult and limiting the apps' utility. Solving that issue would be huge, and open up a enormous opportunity for all sorts of new apps and features: streaming audio, traffic information, in-car music downloads and so on. Just as other platforms like mobile phones and computers have benefited from the addition of mobile data connectivity, so too will cars.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple Claims Jailbreaking An iPhone Is Copyright Infringement

from the jailbreak-this dept

Apple has remained pretty quiet, on the whole, concerning the fact that people "jailbreak" their iPhones to allow them to run non-Apple-approved software on the devices (or to use them on other mobile carriers). However, in responding to an attempt by the EFF to get jailbreaking (and other phone unlocking efforts) declared clear of any potential copyright claims, Apple has now officially said they believe that jailbreaking the iPhone is infringing on their copyright. This is troubling for a number of reasons. It's the same sort of argument that has been used by garage door opener makers and printer makers to prevent competition and interoperability -- which has been struck down repeatedly in the courts.

As the EFF notes, if jailbreaking is determined to be copyright infringement, it opens up a whole host of problems. Automakers could, conceivably create "software" in their cars that only lets you fill up at their approved stations. Breaking that "software" to allow for "interoperability" would then be seen as infringement. Hopefully the Copyright Office sees through this claim and makes it official that jailbreaking is perfectly legal. It's almost ridiculous that we even need to have this discussion. If you buy the device, it should be yours -- to do with it what you want, including putting "unapproved" software on the device.

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Did Google Leave Multi-Touch Out Of Android At Apple's Behest?

from the chilling dept

Apple's made a lot of noise lately about the strength of its patents covering the iPhone's multi-touch interface and the lengths to which it will go to defend them. Most recently its harsh talk was aimed at Palm, whose new Pre device also features multi-touch. VentureBeat is now reporting that Google left support for multi-touch out of its Android OS -- because Apple asked it to, and Google didn't want to jeopardize its relationship with the company. VentureBeat sources the claim to an anonymous "Android team member", while a recent multi-touch hack for the G1 device was made by uncommenting several lines of code. This would indicate the capability was in the OS, but later "commented out", meaning it was left in the code, but preceded with an instruction for it to be ignored by the device. If this is true, it's scary to think that companies would make these sorts of arrangements in which one competitor gets to determine the features of another's products. Competition benefits everyone: consumers get the benefit of innovative new products, while companies get spurred on to continue development and continue raising the bar. Setting up an environment in which people need permission to innovate really doesn't help anybody -- even Apple, who apparently now believes it's got more to gain by keeping competition out of the market, rather than by focusing on innovation of its own. Is multi-touch really so important that Apple needs to make all of these defensive moves? Or has the company run out of the sorts of ideas that have kept it a step ahead of its rivals?

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Analyst Says What We Already Knew: Apple's Multi-Touch Patent Fight Won't Help Its Business

from the in-case-you-didn't-get-it-yet dept

After Palm showed off its new Pre smartphone, including the device's multitouch interface, at the Consumer Electronics Show last month, Apple made some threatening noises about how it would go after anybody who "ripped off" its intellectual property. As always, we didn't see how this would benefit anybody in the marketplace, since competition pays benefits to consumers, and drives participants, even Apple, to continually innovate and improve their products. Now, a wireless industry analyst has called Apple's threats into question. He makes the point that a long, drawn out IP fight won't help Apple's business in the long run: "Building on the company's legacy as one of the greatest innovators in the technology industry may be a smarter business model than taking on the rest of the industry in a battle that may be impossible to win."

His reasoning is twofold: first and most obviously, Apple stands to gain more by competing in the market than competing in the courts. Second, he says that if Apple went ahead with patent suits, it may not be able to win them. He says that it appears that much of Apple's multitouch IP portfolio is based on work from a couple of its employees -- who also were granted a number of multitouch patents while they were employed by the University of Delaware. The University holds those patents, while the analyst also found a lot of potential prior art he says could threaten the Apple patents' validity if they're reviewed. So if Apple realizes the patents may not stand up to a review, it could explain the bluster; but once it's clear the threats are empty, they hold no value. The question now seems to be how long Apple will try to play out the show, and how many resources it will throw at it that would be better spent on developing its products.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..