News Common PC Linux Mac CUCUG
The next CUCUG meeting will be held on our regular third Thursday of the month: Thursday, June 19th, at 7:00 pm, at the First Baptist Church of Champaign in Savoy. Directions to the FBC-CS are at the end of this newsletter.
The June 19 gathering will be one of our split SIG meetings. The Macintosh and PC SIGs are open for anything anyone wants to bring in.
ToC
We'd like to welcome back renewing member Jim Huls for joining us again last month.
We welcome any kind of input or feedback from members. Run across an interesting item or tidbit on the net? Just send the link to the editor. Have an article or review you'd like to submit? Send it in. Have a comment? Email any officer you like. Involvement is the driving force of any user group. Welcome to the group.
ToC
By Erika Morphy
E-Commerce Times
05/16/08 3:18 PM PT
URL: <http://www.ecommercetimes.com/edpick/63049.html?welcome=1211120688>
Last year, Jammie Thomas became the example the RIAA held up as a warning to file-sharers. A federal judge ordered her to pay more than $220,0000 for making a handful of copyrighted songs available online. Now, the judge says he made a mistake, which could mean a new trial for Thomas and a serious setback for the RIAA.
For the past five years, the Recording Industry Association of America Latest News about Recording Industry Association of America has been prosecuting people -- and threatening to prosecute many more -- for sharing copyrighted content online without authorization. Its lawsuits have been based primarily on two legal arguments:
1. downloading copyrighted content from unauthorized sources such as peer-to-peer (P2P) networks is illegal; and
2. so is placing that content online.
An admission by the federal judge presiding over the Jammie Thomas case that he made a "manifest error" during the trial has effectively put a fork in theory No. 2 -- and it's just about done.
Jammie Thomas, of course, was the defendant in the first file-sharing lawsuit ever to go to trial. Last year, a jury found the Minnesota woman liable for swapping two dozen songs, and the judge ordered her to pay US$222,000 to Capitol Records.
The verdict was a huge symbolic victory for the recording studios. After years of collecting $3,000 settlements that amounted to fines from people it accused of copyright infringement, the Thomas case actually provided validation from the judicial system.
Plus, the specter of a $222,000 judgment no doubt made an impression on people engaged in trading music files online -- as well as those thinking of mounting a challenge to the industry's arguably heavy-handed legal tactics.
"If the court vacates its earlier judgment, it removes the largest victory the RIAA has on the books to date -- a victory that is certainly making people think twice about downloading music online without paying for it," Douglas Panzer, an intellectual property attorney at Caesar, Rivise, Bernstein, Cohen & Pokotilow, told the E-Commerce Times.
Now, though, it looks like Thomas will get another day in court.
The judge in the Thomas case, Michael Davis, said he made a "manifest error of law" in giving his instructions to the jury. He told them "the act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners' exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."
A pre-existing case in the Eight Circuit -- which was not cited in the Thomas trial -- conflicts with this theory. In that case, National Car Rental System v. Computer Associates, the court found that infringement "requires an actual dissemination."
The judge's admission in the Thomas case is an important setback for the RIAA, Charles Baker, a partner with Porter & Hedges, told the E-Commerce Times. "It makes its burden of proof that much more difficult. Now they have to undertake the extra step of actually proving that content was downloaded."
Judges do not admit to making mistakes very often, he added, which also underscores the importance of this new development.
Furthermore, with several courts making similar findings, it appears as though a consensus is developing.
The most recent challenge to the RIAA's opinion on this matter took place last month, when a federal judge ruled against the industry in Atlantic v. Howell.
<http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/62822.html>
In 2006, the RIAA sued husband and wife Jeffrey and Pamela Howell for copyright infringement, alleging that the couple had made protected music available for peer-to-peer file-sharing through Kazaa. The RIAA asked U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake for a summary judgment, citing the presence of the content in a shared folder.
Wake denied the RIAA's request on grounds that it was unclear whether the husband or wife had put the content in the folder -- and he left open the question of whether its presence there constituted copyright infringement in the first place.
True, only the Supreme Court can render a final decision when several circuit courts disagree on a matter, and it may be that the industry will decide to push its argument all the way to the highest chamber.
That said, the legal arguments supporting a narrow definition of distribution are very strong, Dave O'Neil, a partner with O'Neil & McConnell, told the E-Commerce Times.
A brief filed by the Electronic Freedom Foundation "argues that the Copyright Act is supposed to be narrowly defined," he pointed out, "and that a judge should not expand the definition to meet a 'gut' feeling he or she has about a case."
The EFF also argues that Congress has had opportunities to expand the Copyright Act and has chosen not to do so, O'Neil added.
"The troubling aspect of these cases is that you have a perfect storm with the RIAA trying to squeeze in a loosey goosey definition of what is distribution -- and then they don't have to prove damages," O'Neil concluded.
In the event Thomas does get a new trial and is once again found liable for damages, they could well amount to less than the $222,000 she is currently supposed to pay, said Randy M. Friedberg, a partner with Olshan Grundman Frome Rosenzweig & Wolosky.
Thomas knowingly posted 24 songs on the file-sharing network, the jury determined, and was ordered to pay $9,250 per song. "The standard that the judge is now applying in the case means that the RIAA has to show how many people downloaded those songs," Friedberg said.
Practically speaking, the number of downloads could be very difficult to prove at this point, he noted.
The judge's admission could well neutralize a potent weapon the RIAA had been yielding, said attorney Panzer of Caesar, Rivise et al.
"There's no doubt that the RIAA is hoping to accumulate more large monetary judgments for their deterrent effect," he commented. "Having the $222,000 Thomas judgment thrown out in favor of a new trial would put that strategy back to square one for the RIAA."
Even worse, returning to court for a new trial will allow Thomas to raise the issue of the constitutionality of such a huge award, noted Panzer.
"According to Thomas' lawyers, the actual damages suffered by the record labels may be 70 cents per song file. If the court were to find the damage award unconstitutional -- or to limit the award to 10 times actual damages, as some courts have done in other areas of the law, that would prove absolutely devastating to the RIAA," he said.
"Imagine...a user could be found liable for infringing the copyright in 1,000 songs. At 70 cents per song, with a limit on damages of ten times actual damages, you're looking at a maximum award of $7,000. It doesn't take a finance degree to understand that although it's still a lot of money for the average person, the deterrent effect of $7,000 is nowhere near that of $222,000," Panzer concluded.
ToC
"The Federal Trade Commission has launched an antitrust investigation against Intel. This marks a remarkably quick change in the FTC's stance vis-ˆ-vis Intel; former FTC chairwoman Deborah P. Majoras refused to open a formal inquiry into Intel's behavior as recently as October 2007. Marjoras has since left the FTC, and her successor, William E. Kovacic, obviously views the matter differently.
This is good news for AMD, which has long lobbied for a formal investigation of Intel's behavior and alleged abuses."
ToC
Posted by Declan McCullagh
June 10, 2008 12:09 PM PDT
URL: <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html?tag=nefd.lede>
[Update 6/12 11:40 a.m. Verizon has offered more details on what
newsgroups will be removed.
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9967119-38.html> And here's
background on whether or not Usenet is being blocked.
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9967004-38.html>]
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced on Tuesday that Verizon Communications, Time Warner Cable, and Sprint would "shut down major sources of online child pornography."
What Cuomo didn't say is that his agreement with broadband providers means that they will broadly curb customers' access to Usenet--the venerable pre-Web home of some 100,000 discussion groups, only a handful of which contain illegal material.
Time Warner Cable said it will cease to offer customers access to any Usenet newsgroups, a decision that will affect customers nationwide. Sprint said it would no longer offer any of the tens of thousands of alt.* Usenet newsgroups. Verizon's plan is to eliminate some "fairly broad newsgroup areas."
It's not quite the death of Usenet (which has been predicted, incorrectly, countless times). But if a politician can pressure three of the largest Internet providers into censorial acquiescence, it may only be a matter of time before smaller ones like Supernews, Giganews, and Usenet.com feel the squeeze.
Cuomo's office said it had "reviewed millions of pictures over several months" and found only "88 different newsgroups" containing child pornography.
"We are attacking this problem by working with Internet service providers to ensure they do not play host to this immoral business," Cuomo said in a statement released after a press conference in New York. "I call on all Internet service providers to follow their example and help deter the spread of online child porn."
That amounts to an odd claim: stopping the spread of child porn on a total of 88 newsgroups necessarily means coercing broadband providers to pull the plug on thousands of innocuous ones. Usenet's sprawling set of hierarchically arranged discussion areas include ones that go by names like sci.math, rec.motorcycles, and comp.os.linux.admin. It has been partially succeeded by mailing lists, message boards, and blogs; AOL stopped carrying Usenet in 2005, but AT&T still does.
Many of Usenet's discussion groups are scarcely different from discussions you might find on the Web at, say, Yahoo Groups. Because there's no central authority, however--Usenet servers exchange messages in a cooperative, peer-to-peer manner--politicians are more likely to look askance at the concept. (For that matter, so is the Recording Industry Association of America.)
It's true that of the three broadband providers Cuomo singled out, only Time Warner Cable will cease to offer Usenet. Sprint is cutting off the alt.* hierarchy, Usenet's largest, which will primarily affect its business customers. A Verizon spokesman said he didn't know details, saying "newsgroups that deal with scientific endeavors" will stick around but admitted that all of the alt.* hierarchy could be toast.
Yet Usenet's sprawling alt.* hierarchy contains tens of thousands of discussion groups--one count says there are 18,408 of them--including alt.adoption, alt.atheism, alt.gothic, and alt.tv.simpsons. Ditching all of those means eliminating perfectly legitimate conversations.
"The Internet service providers should not be blocking whole sections of the Internet, all Usenet groups, because there may be some illegal material buried somewhere," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's technology and liberty program. "That's taking a sledgehammer to an ant."
For their part, the three broadband providers that Cuomo singled out on Tuesday said that it makes sense for them to curb Usenet.
"We're going to stop offering our subscribers newsgroups," said Alex Dudley, a spokesman for Time Warner Cable. "Some of the early press on this indicated we were going to block certain Web sites. We're not going to do that."
That was a reference to a New York Times article with the headline: "Net Providers to Block Sites With Child Sex." It said "the providers will also cut off access to Web sites that traffic in child pornography."
That is common practice in some countries. The French government and broadband providers have reportedly inked a deal to block Web sites with child porn, terrorist, and hate speech, for instance.
What Time Warner Cable will do, Dudley said, is remove illegal content on its network when alerted by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (This is already required by law, has been standard business practice for many years, and is not a change in policy.)
Verizon spokesman Eric Rabe said much the same thing: "We're not blocking any access to Web sites."
In the United States, the idea of blocking Web sites is not new. The state of Pennsylvania came up with that idea five years ago, and Internet providers took issue with it through a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Democracy and Technology.
The Pennsylvania statute said "an Internet service provider shall remove or disable access to child pornography...accessible through its service" within five business days after the attorney general notified them of its existence.
A federal judge in Philadelphia overturned that law on First Amendment grounds, ruling that it constituted a "prior restraint on protected expression" and that its "extraterritorial effect violates the dormant Commerce Clause" of the U.S. Constitution.
New York's attorney general surely knows about that precedent. That is probably why he settled for strong-arming broadband providers into curbing Usenet--perhaps with the threat of a press conference that would all but accuse the providers of trafficking in child porn--instead of the far more difficult process of defending a law requiring them to curb Usenet.
ToC
MINNEAPOLIS -- On June 6-8, a broad array of policymakers, scholars, media producers, grassroots activists and concerned citizens numbering well over 3500 gathered at the Minneapolis Convention Center for the 2008 National Conference for Media Reform. This landmark event, the fourth in a series hosted by Free Press, brought together the core of the growing movement to create a more accountable, democratic and diverse media.
"Decisions in the next few years will result in profound changes to the media landscape," said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press. "The National Conference for Media Reform takes these critical media policy debates out from behind closed doors in Washington -- and puts them into the public arena where they belong. This event highlights the movers and shakers in independent journalism, media accountability and the fight for the free and open Internet."
More than 250 presenters were featured at the Conference. Among them:
- Legendary journalists and modern-day muckrakers like PBS broadcaster Bill Moyers, former CBS News anchor Dan Rather, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! and author Naomi Klein.
- Political leaders and policymakers including Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Reps. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), and FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein
- Internet visionaries and new media innovators like Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law, Tim Wu of Columbia Law, Arianna Huffington of HuffingtonPost.com, and Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com.
- Civil rights leaders and social justice activists like Kim Gandy of the National Organization for Women, Van Jones from the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Alex Nogales of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and Rev. Lennox Yearwood from the Hip Hop Caucus.
- Music, film, and independent media makers like radio host Davey D, Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films and Greg Watkins of AllHipHop.com.
Sessions covered a diverse range of key media and technology policies including: media ownership, the future of the Internet, war coverage, public broadcasting, media and elections, copyright, the First Amendment, online activism, ethnic media, and dozens more.
The full schedule of events -- including more than 75 panels, workshops and films -- is available at <http://www.freepress.net/conference/program>.
Video archives of these events are available. Just browse the program,
http://freepress.net/conference/program?filter0=**ALL**&filter1=**ALL**&filter2=plenary&filter3=
click on the event you'd like to see and click on the video link.
Audio archives are also available of all the conference sessions and panels. Just browse the program,
<http://freepress.net/conference/program>
click on the panel or workshop you'd like to listen to, and click on the audio link.
Two particular highlights of the conference were the keynote speeches of Bill Moyers and Dan Rather delivered on Saturday.
ToCBill Moyers addresses NCMR 2008
Dan Rather addresses the 2008 NCMR
by Gary Anthes
URL: <http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9090978>
June 05, 2008 (Computerworld) Thirty years ago, on June 8, 1978, Intel Corp. introduced its first 16-bit microprocessor, the 8086, with a splashy ad heralding "the dawn of a new era." Overblown? Sure, but also prophetic. While the 8086 was slow to take off, its underlying architecture -- later referred to as x86 -- would become one of technology's most impressive success stories.
"X86" refers to the set of machine language instructions that certain microprocessors from Intel and a few other companies execute. It essentially defines the vocabulary and usage rules for the chip. X86 processors -- from the 8086 through the 80186, 80286, 80386, 80486 and various Pentium models, right down to today's multicore chips and processors for mobile applications -- have over time incorporated a growing x86 instruction set, but each has offered backward compatibility with earlier members of the family.
In the three decades since the introduction of the 8086, the x86 family has systematically progressed from desktop PCs to servers to portable computers to supercomputers. Along the way, it has killed or held at bay a host of competing architectures and chip makers. Even some markets that had seemed locked up by competitors, such as Apple's use of Motorola PowerPCs in the Macintosh computer, have yielded to x86 in recent years.
How did Intel's architecture come to dominate so much of the computing world? Let's take a look.
Intel's first microprocessor was the 4-bit 4004, which was made for a Japanese calculator in 1971. That was quickly followed by the 8-bit 8008 and in 1975 by the 8-bit 8080 chip. The 8080 went into the Altair 8800 PC, which was sold as a mail-order kit. (Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Microsoft Corp. to sell their version of Basic for the Altair 8800.)
Intel, memory maker?
Intel made its first microprocessor in 1971 in response to a request from Busicom, a Japanese calculator maker. But Intel's founders in 1968 had semiconductor memory foremost in mind, and such a chip became the company's first product, in 1969.
For almost 20 years, Intel focused on memory products. But by 1984, according to Albert Yu, a retired Intel senior vice president, the company was getting killed by the Japanese memory makers. It was deriving 100% of its profits from microprocessors but spending 80% of its R&D budget on memory. "Our strategy and investments were completely out of line with reality," Yu recalls in his book, Creating the Digital Future. The following year, Intel reluctantly exited the memory business.
Yu recalls: "We finally overcame the emotional burden of letting go of a failing business that we had invented and focused all our energy on the business we would build our future on. It was tough. It was gut-wrenching. But it was right." The following year, Intel's sales dropped from $1.6 billion to $1.2 billion, and the company lost $250
Three years later, the 16-bit 8086 made its debut. IBM's selection of the 8088, an 8086 variant, to power its PC in the early '80s gave the x86 architecture tremendous momentum and helped it become an industry standard that persists today.
Patrick Gelsinger, electrical engineer, chip designer and now executive vice president at Intel, says the critical turning point for the PC industry -- the thing that really sent the industry into overdrive -- was the introduction of the 32-bit 80386 in 1985. It was not obvious at the time that the x86 needed to be upgraded from the 16-bit address space of the earlier models, he says. "People said, 'What do you mean 32 bits? That's for minicomputers and mainframes.' They derided us at the time for being extravagant."
At about the same time, Compaq Computer Corp. announced a 386-based PC, which lessened IBM's death-grip control of the personal computer market. The IBM PC at the time ran the 16-bit 80286, which was more than three times slower than the 386.
According to Intel, IBM spurned the 386 because there was not yet any 32-bit software to take advantage of it. IBM was also developing a proprietary 16-bit operating system called OS/2.
"IBM owned the architecture from top to bottom. It was their applications, their operating system and their hardware design," says Gelsinger, who was a member of the 386 design team. "When they went to the next generation, they would be the only company able to offer the top-to-bottom solution, with no guarantee of compatibility from one generation to the next."
All that changed with the advent of the 386, Gelsinger says. "We moved from a vertical industry to a horizontal industry, and that really opened up the world."
The 386 was followed by the 486 in 1989. Finding that it couldn't trademark numbers, however, Intel broke from its earlier naming convention in 1993, when it named its fifth-generation processor the Pentium rather than the 586. Numerous generations of chips have carried on the Pentium brand (e.g., Pentium Pro, Pentium II and Pentium D), and Intel has since added the low-end Celeron and the high-end Core 2 brands to its x86 offerings.
Despite the name changes -- not to mention design improvements that led to exponential increases in speed, power and efficiency -- all of these chips are based on the x86 instruction set that began with the 8086 and continues to expand today.
Why has the x86 been so successful for so long, beating back and in some cases completely vanquishing competing microprocessor architectures? For starters, the x86 came along at just the right time. By 1978, computing had been migrating from huge, expensive mainframes to smaller, cheaper minicomputers for several years. The desktop was the logical next frontier.
Moreover, the x86 demonstrated a property that had been predicted in 1965 by Gordon Moore, who would one day become Intel's chairman and CEO. Moore said, in essence, that microprocessors would double in performance every two years at no increase in cost. His prediction, later dubbed Moore's Law, proved to be correct, and the x86 went on to dominate large swaths of computing, from the data center to the workplaces and homes of end users.
And the 8086 and its successors continued to cement the relationship between two early giants of the desktop computer industry. Bill Gates and Paul Allen had tried but failed to develop their Basic programming language for the wimpy 8008 processor in 1972. But they made it work on the more powerful 8080 that they soldered into the Altair microcomputer in 1975.
That marked the beginning of a de facto partnership between Intel and Microsoft that would create a gargantuan base of software that continues to drive the industry today. Of all the factors that have led to the success of the x86 architecture, probably none is so important as that software inventory -- and no example better demonstrates this fact than the RISC processor scare.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a serious threat to the x86 arose in the form of reduced instruction set computing (RISC) processors such as the Sun Sparc, the IBM/Apple/Motorola PowerPC and the MIPS processors. The idea was that a processor could be made to run blindingly fast if it worked on very simple instructions, with one instruction executed each clock cycle, rather than with the elaborate, multicycle instructions used in complex instruction set computing (CISC) processors like the x86.
The software spiral
At the time the 80486 processor debuted, Intel CEO Andy Grove developed a kind of corollary to Moore's Law called the "software spiral." Patrick Gelsinger, lead architect for the 486, explains:
"The idea of the spiral was we'd introduce hardware that was faster than the existing software and then allow the software to catch up, which requires the hardware to jump ahead again. So software begets hardware, hardware enables software, and that spiral is really what's been driving the industry for many, many years."
Indeed, the spiral effect is very much in evidence today, with multicore chips available but with little software that can really take advantage of them by running on multiple processors at once. It's why Intel is spending millions of dollars internally and at universities to develop tools and techniques for parallel programming.
Pundits, the press and Intel competitors widely predicted the demise of CISC at the time. "It was a difficult time for us," Gelsinger acknowledges. Indeed, Intel rushed to develop its own RISC workstation processor, the i860. But neither the 860 nor any other RISC processor came close to dislodging the hegemony of the x86.
Here's why, according to Gelsinger, who was the lead architect for the 80486 processor: "The day before the 486 was announced [April 10, 1989], there was already billions of dollars of software waiting to run on the chip. Even though the [x86 CISC] architecture was a little bit slower, by the time you could develop software for the RISC machine, we could make the [x86] machine that much faster. We had an overwhelming economic advantage because we had so much of an installed base and so many people developing. The RISC machine could never catch up."
Ironically, the lack of software for RISC machines -- plus big performance gains on the 80486 and Pentium processors -- doomed Intel's i860 along with other RISC processors. Trying to introduce a second major microprocessor architecture was a mistake, Intel would later admit.
But RISC spurred much innovation, says David Patterson, a computer science professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the key RISC innovators in the 1980s. "The [Digital Equipment Corp.] VAX architecture, for example, could not keep up with RISC, and it more or less disappeared. But Intel was able to incorporate the ideas that were becoming popular in RISC while maintaining their old architecture with its large software base. And they did that in part with their superior manufacturing."
Perhaps as gut-wrenching as the RISC threat was a crisis that began in the summer of 1994, when Intel test engineers discovered a tiny flaw in the floating-point division circuitry of its new Pentium chip. The flaw occurred so rarely and was so minor in its impact that Intel elected to just fix it and put the chip back into production without recalling the flawed chips.
But a few months later, Thomas Nicely, a math professor at Lynchburg College in Virginia, discovered the flaw in his PC. He was unable, Intel was to admit later, to find anyone at Intel who would even listen to his complaint. So he posted his findings on the Internet, and before long, Intel was engulfed in a firestorm of criticism that would ultimately lead to a public relations disaster and a $475 million recall of the chip.
"It was a painful rite of passage, but we finally learned to behave like a consumer company," recalls Albert Yu, a former Intel senior vice president, in his book, Creating the Digital Future.
Another defining moment in x86 history occurred in 1995, says Todd Mowry, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University and an Intel research consultant. That's when Intel introduced the Pentium Pro, a microprocessor with some radical new features, such as the ability to look ahead in a stream of instructions, guess which ones would be needed and then execute them out of order. That kept the processor busy a larger percentage of time and, combined with a new, extremely fast on-chip cache, it offered huge performance gains in some applications.
"The thing that was radically different," Mowry says, "was that they used the benefits of RISC without changing the instruction set. They did that by translating the x86 instructions into micro-operations that are more like RISC instructions. So what you had was a RISC machine inside an x86 machine, and overnight, that eliminated the performance gap."
Mowry says the Pentium Pro resulted from a top-down design process. "They started out with the design of a fast machine and then figured out how to make the x86 run on it," he says.
That approach -- finding good ideas in non-x86 architectures and working backward from them -- was just how it worked, Gelsinger says. "The Pentium was a dramatic architectural leap. We took the best ideas from minis and mainframes and just implemented them better, because we had a superior canvas to paint them on, called silicon."
Unlike a mainframe, which spreads processing components over a wide area inside the box, putting everything on a single, tiny, tightly integrated chip gives microprocessor designers more flexibility and their designs more power, he says. Indeed, over the years, the performance of silicon chips has marched smartly along according to Moore's Law, while systems of interconnected components have not improved as fast.
Microprocessor for a parallel universe
Intel introduced the 8-bit 8080 microprocessor in 1975, and immediately CEO Gordon Moore began to worry about what would come next. He wanted it to be an architecture that would carry the company forward for decades. Many at Intel favored extending the 8080 architecture to 16 bits while others, including ultimately Moore, favored developing a brand new and much more advanced architecture.
So while engineers in Santa Clara, Calif., plugged along with the x86 architecture (the 16-bit successor to the 8080 architecture), Moore hired some bright engineers and started a lab in Portland, Ore., to design a processor that would become known as the iAPX 432 "micro-mainframe." But the design was so advanced -- for example, it included features for fault tolerance and for multicore chips, which wouldn't be needed for 25 years -- that the processor became too big and complex.
Introduced finally as a three-chip 32-bit processor in 1981, the 432 was expensive and slow, and it didn't sell. Customers for the time being seemed happy with the 16-bit 8088 and 80286 models.
"The Santa Clara and Portland efforts were rivals; they were competitors," says UC Berkeley professor David Patterson. Although the x86 designers were able to borrow some ideas from the 432 -- such as its floating-point math operations -- the x86 designs at the time lacked the elegance of the 432 architecture, he says.
In 1985, Intel made another stab with the 432, forming a joint partnership with Siemens, called BiiN, to build a fault-tolerant computer. But that didn't go anywhere, either.
What if the 432 had succeeded back in the late 1970s? "The x86 wouldn't have been invented," Patterson says. "Had the group that built the 432 built something less ambitious, but which was out in the market ready to go, that's what we would be celebrating today. In some parallel universe, that's what Intel would be shipping today."
Intel has not enjoyed immunity from competition even on its x86 home turf. For example, Taiwan-based VIA Technologies was founded in Silicon Valley in 1987 to sell core logic chip sets, some using x86 technology, for use in motherboards and other electronic components. VIA now makes a wide variety of products and aims its x86 processors at low-power mobile and embedded markets.
Advanced Micro Devices Inc., the world's No. 2 maker of microprocessors, has become a competitive thorn in Intel's side since about 2000. Throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s, AMD had been a me-too maker of x86 chips and was hardly any concern to Intel. (It still has only about 15% of the x86-compatible desktop and mobile market, according to Mercury Research.)
But AMD scored a technical and public relations coup in 2003 with its introduction of x86-64, a 64-bit superset of the x86 instruction set. As a superset, it meant that users of new x86-64 machines could use them to natively run their old 32-bit software.
At the time, Intel's 64-bit offering was Itanium, an architecture developed by Intel and Hewlett-Packard Co. for superscalar execution on big iron, and it was not directly compatible with 32-bit x86-based software. Intel responded to the AMD threat with its own 64-bit x86 instruction superset, the EM64T, in 2004. AMD, and the press, made much of the fact that the company had beaten Intel to the 64-bit market that mattered most.
"It's an example of where the flexibility of the x86 instruction set was used against Intel," says Patterson. "So even though Intel dominates the market, another company can change directions for the x86."
Today, Intel's x86 is chipping away at the extremes in computing. On April 28, the company announced it would team with Cray Inc. to develop new supercomputers based on Intel x86-based processors. (Cray already uses AMD's x86-based 64-bit Opteron processors.)
And at a Shanghai developer conference on April 2, Intel announced the Atom x86-based processor, the company's smallest. It draws less than 2.5 watts of power, compared with about 35 W for a typical laptop processor. The company shipped two new Atom chips for small laptops and desktops just this week.
So can the x86 thrive, or even survive, another 30 years? There are forces in play that will fundamentally transform microprocessor designs, even in the near term (see "What's next for the x86?"). But few are predicting the demise of the venerable x86. Says Carnegie Mellon's Mowry, "It's difficult to see any reason why another instruction set would take over, because there is so much valuable software that runs on [the x86]."
Read more:
ToC
- Happy birthday, x86! An industry standard turns 30
- <http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9090978>
- What's next for the x86?
- <http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9091038>
- Timeline: A brief history of the x86 microprocessor
- <http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9091018>
- Q&A: Patrick Gelsinger, x86 pioneer
- <http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9091319>
June 06, 2008
URL: <http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/6/robert_mcchesney_and_josh_silver_of>
Guests:
Robert McChesney, Co-founder of Free Press. Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the author of several books, including his latest, The Political Economy of Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas. He is widely regarded as one of the nation's foremost media historians.
Josh Silver, Executive Director of Free Press
AMY GOODMAN: We're broadcasting from Minneapolis, Minnesota on the convention floor of the National Conference for Media Reform. I'm Amy Goodman. Nearly 3,000 people have come from across the nation for what's become known as the most important gathering of the growing movement for media reform. Participants will hear lectures, take workshops, strategize on efforts to fight media consolidation and democratize the airwaves. Speakers will include Dan Rather, Bill Moyers, Arianna Huffington, Van Jones, Naomi Klein and dozens more. The media reform group Free Press formed six years ago. This is the fourth National Conference for Media Reform.
We're beginning our coverage today with the two co-founders of Free Press. Josh Silver is the executive director of Free Press. Robert McChesney is a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and author of several books, including his latest, The Political Economy of Media: Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas. He's widely regarded as one of the nation's foremost media historians.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Josh Silver, let's begin with you. Talk about the conference.
JOSH SILVER: Well, the conference is an amazing coming together of people from across the country who are really concerned about what's happening with the media. I mean, we've got this problem where we see celebrity fluff, instead of hard news on the news programs on commercial media, sound bite election coverage. It's all about the horserace analysis. There's propaganda that we see in these pundits on the air, fake news releases posing as news, the Pentagon spending millions to get seventy-five military analysts who are getting briefed by the Pentagon that you reported on. And people have had it, and they've started to realize more and more that there are ways that we can actually fix the system, not just stopping media consolidation, but actually taking control of the future of the internet, which is increasingly going to be delivered through a high-speed internet connection.
A lot of people don't realize that all of television, radio, phone service, movies are all going to be delivered by high-speed internet. So we have a moment right now in this country where the policies that are going to determine the future of virtually all media are being decided in Washington, and that's going to be a big topic here this weekend.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Bob McChesney, you started out, well, being a professor, writing books-your latest, Communication Revolution: Critical Junctures and the Future of Media. How did it turn into this?
ROBERT McCHESNEY: Well, you know, my work was always about, as a
scholar: how did we end up with a media system like this? In a democratic society with a wonderful Constitution, with a great tradition of liberty, how did we end up with a media system that does all the stuff Josh was talking about? And it's done it for a long time, which has denigrated local coverage, which has given us a lot of fluff and hyper-commercialism. How did we end up with a media system controlled by a handful of corporations driven by commercial values?And when I started researching American history, it became clear this was not intended by the founders. There's nothing in the Constitution authorizing this. And it's not a free-market system. It was clear that it was a system set up by the government with direct and indirect subsidies made in the public's name but without its consent, going back to the foundation of broadcasting, when really powerful interests pushed through the commercial system with very little public support.
And so, when you write research like that, people say, "Well, OK, it doesn't have to be that way. What do we do now?" The problem is just as severe now. In fact, it's getting worse. And that leads instantly for a professor to say, "Well, yeah, what do we do now?" And it's really a wonderful opportunity for a scholar to take their research and have it then be applied and used. And so, I was very privileged to be at a moment in history where my work suddenly became relevant, and I've enjoyed it.
AMY GOODMAN: Why do you say "communication revolution"?
ROBERT McCHESNEY: Well, I think one of the reasons why Free Press and the media reform movement exploded in the last five years is that we're in a unique period historically, one that doesn't come along all the time, where we have a combination, a confluence, of two crucial events and possibly a third.
The first one is a technological revolution, that was just really changing the business pattern for all media industries. And because of that, a lot of the rules and regulations and the way industries are structured are up in the air, and we're in a position now-we can change the rules and regulations to make our media system vastly better, or if we don't do anything, the corporate community will do a good job to make sure it suits their interests in what emerges in the digital era.
Secondly, we're in a period in which journalism, as we know it, is in freefall. It's disintegrating. And people are aware of this. It's not just the content of journalism, the fluff that we talk about, but it's the actual resources that the corporate community is devoting to journalism. I mean, there's been a sharp drop-off in the number of working journalists who cover communities in every community in this country. I mean, there are communities of decent size now that barely have any journalism covering them, so if you live in a town, you won't know what's going on there anymore. And you also see this in terms of foreign coverage in the United States, where despite the globalization, despite the US role in the world, there are far fewer reporters covering the world for the United States than there were twenty or twenty-five years ago.
This is a deep crisis, and Americans understand that this is not acceptable. So you put those two things together, and people say, "We've got to do something about it." And that's the basis of this movement.
...
JOSH SILVER: It's an epic battle that's happening right now, and essentially what it is is the cable and phone companies, they control 98 percent of internet connections in the country, high-speed. They are trying to pass legislation that would allow them to block content, so they can decide which websites move fast and which move slow. This actually really is the question of: will the internet become like cable TV, where they, the phone and cable companies, determine what's on, how fast it goes and how much it costs? Or will it be open and democratic, the way it is today? This is not a conspiracy theory. Comcast, the cable giant, was just recently caught blocking content of movie downloads that competed with their own products.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, wait. Explain. How did they do that?
JOSH SILVER: They actually were caught stopping their customers, their high-speed internet customers, from receiving downloads of movies with an application called BitTorrent, which not coincidentally is a product that competes with Comcast's own service of movies.
But what's really important, getting back to the bigger picture here, it's millions and millions of people are understanding that these rather technical arcane issues are really about whether or not the American people are going to have access to the facts, whether they're going to have access to critical journalism that they need to be participants in a democracy. So that's, I think, why here in Memphis-Memphis, that was our last conference-Minneapolis, we're seeing-
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Minneapolis, Josh.
JOSH SILVER: -thousands and thousands of people, and they are really jazzed, and they understand that whatever issue they care about, whether it's the environment, healthcare, war and peace, if we don't figure out this media problem and make it better, we are not going to advance any issue that we care about.
...
AMY GOODMAN: And in terms of the corporations that are controlling a lot of-not the overall discussion, because media activists are doing a good job of inserting themselves into it, but the legislation, the writing of the legislation, how do you stop the corporations from writing the laws?
JOSH SILVER: Well, that's what this is all about. I mean, it's about getting the public a place at the table when those laws are being made. For the last eighty years, unfortunately, every time a major decision has been made about media in this country, it's only been the corporations at the table. It's only been in the last few years that the public has asserted itself at that table. And the only way we're going to win is if we have millions of people continue to get involved, to raise their voices and to demand better media, because if we don't, we're going to lose, and the corporations will seize control of the internet and the future of the media for generations.
Related link:
ToCInterview with Michael Copps, FCC Commissioner, and Robert McChesney, Co-founder of Free Press, Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and author.
<http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/6/fcc_urged_to_probe_pentagon_propaganda>
by Adam C. Engst <ace@tidbits.com>
TidBITS#931/02-Jun-08
article link: <http://db.tidbits.com/article/9628>
It has been about a year and a half since my last review of a car navigation GPS, a consumer electronics field of which I'm inordinately fond, because the little buggers are so darn useful when driving in unfamiliar environs. See our "Find Yourself with GPS" series for the full set of reviews of different devices.
<http://db.tidbits.com/series/1264>
Although I'm sure progress has been made by Garmin and Magellan, I've been wanting to check out devices from TomTom. TomTom's GPSes are generally regarded as being as good as or better than those from the better-known Garmin and Magellan. But perhaps more important, TomTom has long provided Macintosh software for downloading new maps, voices, and other customizations to the device.
Until now in these reviews, I've barely mentioned the idea that you'd want to connect one of these devices to your Mac because, quite frankly, I don't see much point in it beyond basic geekery. (And yes, I'm aware that it's possible to come up with examples of such use, like sharing of trip routes or route planning on the computer, but I've never felt any desire for such things.) The attraction of the class of devices I've been reviewing is that they provide a simple-to-use and complete package, with all the maps you generally need stored internally, and with nearly everything the device can do accessible from its own touch-screen interface. The "nearly" comes into play should you wish to download updated maps, something that may be worth doing every 12 to 18 months, depending on how quickly the roads change in the areas where you drive. Since map updates are often not free, useful only to a subset of users, and necessary only infrequently, the fact that you couldn't connect the devices I have previously reviewed to the Mac (as opposed to Windows) didn't seem like a major problem.
But readers disagreed, and took me to task for not making a bigger deal of the lack of Mac compatibility. So in choosing the $399.95 TomTom Go 720 to review, I am capitulating to reader wishes, and I can now say, from hard-won experience, that the capability to connect a standalone car navigation GPS to the Mac is indeed as annoying and distracting as I thought it would be. But before I get into that...
<http://www.tomtom.com/products/product.php?ID=383>
Physically, the TomTom Go 720 is nice and simple, without extraneous buttons to get in the way during normal usage. In fact, it has only a single power button, although it takes some getting used to, since powering up the unit requires holding the button down for 4 to 6 seconds, whereas powering it down happens immediately. As a result, I would sometimes find myself thinking I hadn't pressed the button properly to turn it on, then let up and press down again, only to discover that it was in fact powering up and my second press had turned it off. I presume the delay in turning on is aimed at preventing the unit from being turned on accidentally when in a pocket or suitcase.
That's potentially important because the 720 has a lithium-ion battery, so you can use it outside the car while walking or biking. Although TomTom claims a 5 hour battery life, it lasted barely half that in my testing. Around town you might be able to get by on the battery, but for trips, you'll certainly need to keep it plugged into your car's power outlet via the included USB car charger. It also charges from its dock when connected to your Mac via USB, so you may be able to get away with treating it more like a cell phone if you don't want to plug it in when in the car.
Normally, keeping a GPS plugged in while in the car isn't a big deal, but the stubby suction cup mount that ships with the 720 has a sufficiently small range of motion that I was forced to mount it fairly high on the windshield, right under the rear view mirror, thus draping the power cable through my field of vision. With previous units, I've been able to mount the GPS much lower, so that it's right above the dashboard. This is likely to affect only cars with slanted windshields, and if it bothers you, TomTom sells several alternative mounting options that provide for greater flexibility.
<http://www.tomtom.com/products/accessories/accessories_tab.php?Product=383>
The TomTom Go 720 has a 4.3-inch widescreen (16:9) color LCD that shows 480 by 272 pixels. The display is clear and attractive, and you can choose from a wide variety of color schemes or even customize one to your liking. Although we don't have another model with which to compare, both Tonya and I noticed independently that bright sunlight tended to wash out the screen, and the stubby window mount caused it to be closer to us, making it harder for Tonya to watch the display from the passenger seat than if it had been mounted lower and further away.
<http://www.tidbits.com/resources/2008-05/tomtom-go-720.jpg>
A variety of accessories extend the 720's capabilities significantly, although I didn't receive any of these to test. A Bluetooth-based remote control ($59.95) lets you control the device without reaching out to use the touch-screen. An iPod Connect & Audio Cable ($29.95) enables you to control your iPod through the 720's touchscreen, and to play the audio through its internal speaker, automatically pausing the music for spoken directions. The RDS-TMC Traffic Receiver ($129.95) receives information about traffic incidents via FM (in cities with the appropriate service) and integrates them into its routing calculations. These last two accessories use the same jack on the 720, so they can't be used simultaneously. After the first 12 months, getting traffic information requires a $59.95-per-year subscription.
Speaking of Bluetooth and FM, the 720 uses Bluetooth to enable hands-free calling via a Bluetooth-capable cell phone (it wouldn't talk to the Mac via Bluetooth), and an integrated FM transmitter lets you route sounds through your car stereo. Since the 720 has its own player for MP3 music and audiobooks, that may be welcome.
In basic usage, the TomTom Go 720 proved quick, accurate, and as useful as any of the previous devices I've used. Its main interface is based around a navigation screen with up to six buttons, one of which is an arrow to cycle forward through additional screens. The single arrow approach is entirely functional, but back and forward arrows might have made for faster navigation.
The only problem with this approach is that there are so many screens that it can take some time to find key functions, such as Clear Route (necessary if you change your mind about where you're going and don't need new directions). TomTom is clearly aware that this is a concern, and in fact, buried deep in the preferences (on the eighth and final preference screen) is an option for showing fewer options, shades of Microsoft Word's Short Menus interface of yesteryear. There's even a QuickMenu option that puts a permanent icon on the screen that lets you access the TomTom Jukebox, report a traffic enforcement camera, mark the location of a map error, add the position to your favorites, call a phone number, and a number of other features.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_enforcement_camera>
Entering addresses and finding points of interest is extremely easy, with the 720 guessing at what you're typing as you go. You can even switch between an ABCDE keyboard and a QWERTY keyboard, the latter of which I found much easier to use.
Once you start navigating, the 720 acts like all other GPSes, warning you about upcoming turns several times before the actual turn, and, if you've chosen a computer voice, speaking the street names as well. One particularly nice feature was that it tells you, when navigating complicated intersections, to keep left or keep right, which is often necessary for getting onto the right road.
I found the voices somewhat frustrating, since one of TomTom's major selling points is that you can download and switch among different voices (some, such as John Cleese's, cost a few dollars). You can even record your own voice and submit it to TomTom's Web site for others to use. But these are all sampled voices, and as such cannot read street names to you, as can the synthesized computer voices. There's nothing wrong with the computer voices, but it's a crying shame that you can't have John Cleese reading you most of the directions, with a computer voice co-anchor chiming in with street names. Interestingly, if you record your own voice, you can mix it with a computer voice for reading street names.
There was one other problem with the sampled voices. Because they don't speak street names, I found it was easier, if I was having a conversation and not paying attention to the map, to miss an instruction. The 720 of course took my error in stride and rerouted me instantly, but had I been using a computer voice that alerted me to the street name, or if it had something like the tones that Magellan GPSes play when you're supposed to turn, I might not have missed those turns. On the plus side, the 720 recalculated new routes nearly instantly, and without obscuring the main map, as did the Magellan RoadMate 6000T.
The map display is three-dimensional (you can switch to 2-D as well) and extremely easy to interpret, and you can set not only the color schemes, as I mentioned earlier, but also the level of detail, which points of interest are shown, and more. Similarly, the data displays that tell you how far to the next turn, how far you have left to go in the trip, how long you have left, the estimated arrival time, and your speed, are customizable. Two minor nits with the display. First, the time remaining is shown as "0:28 hrs" rather than "28 min" until the minutes are single digits. And second, although the distance remaining is shown in decimal miles (like ".5 miles"), short distances to the next turn are given in yards, and all the built-in voices give their directions in yards as well. Perhaps it's a British sensibility or something that's easier for American football fans, but I found myself translating 800 yards into .5 miles each time I heard it, rather than just envisioning the distance in my head, something that didn't trouble me with either decimal miles or, for shorter distances, feet.
In real-world usage on several trips to unfamiliar areas, the 720 navigated admirably, routing us accurately and without confusion. Only once did we take a local shortcut that it disagreed with initially, though it later admitted (via reduced distance and time estimates) that our route was better. We were also able to use its point-of-interest database to find restaurants and gas stations as necessary while on trips, and although its knowledge of the many fine Ithaca-area points of interest wasn't impressive, it's easy to add you own points of interest. Oddly, it lacks the trip computer feature of Garmin GPSes that tracks your total distance, travel time, and average speed. It's not essential, but on long trips to visit relatives, the question of how long it took and what route we took always comes up.
Most of my initial usage came before I ever tried to connect the TomTom Go 720 to my Mac. Aside from a few quibbles here and there - I once tried playing an audiobook, and from then on, the 720 insisted on starting an audiobook every time I turned it on - it was a largely positive experience. Then I decided to see what the TomTom Home software would do for me.
The installation process was horrid. The CD's Finder window displayed all sorts of inscrutably named files, and when I found and double-clicked Install TomTom Home, I was presented with this delightful dialog. Who knew being asked if you live in the United States or Canada was a Yes/No question?
<http://www.tidbits.com/resources/2008-05/TomTom-Home-installer.png>
Immediately after launch, TomTom Home informed me that an update to TomTom Home itself was available, but when I clicked the underlined text (it seemed to be mixing application and browser metaphors), TomTom Home opened a window that displayed the TomTom Web site's user registration page. I dutifully registered, and was shown yet another pseudo-Web page from which I could theoretically download the update. Each time I tried, TomTom Home went into a tight loop and had to be force quit. Luckily, I was able to visit the TomTom Web site in a normal browser and download the update with no trouble.
Once launched, TomTom Home immediately displayed various map and GPS updates that I supposedly needed, so I let it download and install them. Once it was done, it told me to disconnect my device from the computer without giving any hint that this might be an action to perform carefully. This seemed wrong, and indeed, when I removed the 720 from its dock, Mac OS X promptly chided me for removing a device without ejecting it first. Oops! Such an improper eject has never actually caused a problem for me before, but in this case, the 720 refused to start up normally. I could put it back in the dock and use it via TomTom Home, but it would no longer work otherwise. This was indisputably my fault - I should have known better even if the software didn't make it clear and the fact isn't mentioned in the PDF-based manual accessed via the Web. But if I can make this mistake, someone less familiar with Mac OS X would likely make it as well.
Some searches turned up discussions from other users who had experienced this problem too, but the steps for reviving the unit didn't work for me (in essence, they suggested deleting the main application from the device, then reinstalling it, with each step punctuated with a 15-second pressing of the reset button with a paperclip). Finally, I called TomTom, and after the first guy lost me while researching the problem, I spoke to a woman who was sufficiently knowledgeable to walk me through the steps of copying the maps off the 720, reformatting its 2 GB flash drive using Disk Utility, reinstalling the software via TomTom Home, and copying the maps back on. (She actually had me run a TomTom ClearFlash utility first, which she said solved all sorts of wacky problems, but it didn't help me.)
Although I recovered basic functionality with this reformat-and-reinstall approach (and the problem that caused an audiobook to play every time I turned on the unit went away), it took me a while to find where to reload (one at a time) the computer voices and startup/shutdown screens via TomTom Home. TomTom Home also made it possible to download new voices, new car icons, new points of interest (including a list of all Apple Stores), and more. Most items were free, having been submitted by other TomTom users, but a few, such as the locations of traffic enforcement cameras in Europe and Australia, cost a few dollars.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Although it is a Macintosh application, TomTom Home attempts to mimic the on-screen interface of the TomTom GPSes, with the same multiple screens of six navigation buttons, one of which is an arrow that takes you to the next screen. It's easy to use, but clumsy - it's basically a Web interface, with the main useful menu item being Device > Disconnect, which properly ejects the unit so you can disconnect it. Many of its functions involve connecting to the Web to download data, something that failed at least 10 percent of the time (the support technician said that TomTom had just released new maps, so their servers were overloaded). Sometimes it gives up on actually displaying information itself and instead loads a page in your default Web browser, but what usually happened is that my Web browser would come to the front and load the page, and when I returned to TomTom Home, there would be a weird dialog telling me that it was going to load the page in my Web browser. The application itself crashed four times, although it didn't seem to cause any problems when it did.
To give you a better feel for the TomTom Home application, I've created a 5-minute screencast about it.
<http://www.tidbits.com/resources/2008-05/TomTom-Home-screencast.mov>
I'm having trouble summarizing my thoughts about the TomTom Go 720. On the one hand, it performed admirably when used out of the box, and although I had a few quibbles with its interface, it was generally easy and enjoyable to use, particularly after I had spent some time going through all of the screens and setting a wide variety of preferences. And most important, it navigated with aplomb, guiding me to previously unknown destinations with no stress.
Where my stress level rose significantly was in connecting the 720 to my Mac and using TomTom Home. Although it was a frustrating experience, I freely admit that it was my mistake in disconnecting without dismounting that caused most of the trouble. Still, the application is clumsy and fussy, and not the sort of thing I would use regularly.
Where the TomTom Go 720 stands out from the crowd (and this is likely true of other models from TomTom as well) is in its customizability. No other GPS I've used provides anywhere near the same breadth of options (remember those eight screens of preferences?). But the marquee customization feature of TomTom's GPSes is the capability to download new voices, and for that, along with map updates, regular GPS satellite location tweaks, and more, you need to run TomTom Home and treat your GPS like a computer peripheral.
And that's where we come to the crux of the matter. The TomTom Go 720 offers a higher level of customization than any other GPS I've used so far, but for that, you must be willing to put up with lousy Mac software. If you just want your GPS to get you where you're going, you will either want to ignore TomTom Home most of the time, or stick with a simpler unit.
ToC
Paul Thurrott
URL: <http://www.wininformant.com/>
Analysts from both Gartner and IDC say that PC sales will grow faster this year than previously expected, due mostly to stronger-than-expected sales of portable computers. Gartner now says that PC sales will grow 12.5 percent year-over-year to 297 million units in 2008, while IDC says we can expect growth of 15 percent YOY with total unit sales of 310 million units. Low-cost portable machines like the so-called Ultra Low Cost PCs (ULCPCs) or Netbooks are expected to make a bit of a contribution to this jump, as are traditional notebook computers. Interestingly, the picture in the US retail market specifically isn't changing much, the companies say, so much of the added growth is coming from emerging markets and other overseas markets.
Mozilla Corporation will unleash the third major version of its Web browser, Firefox 3, on Tuesday, June 13, 2008. Firefox 3 is a major, high quality upgrade, and I recommend that everyone reading this upgrade as soon as possible. In fact, make sure you download it on Tuesday: Mozilla is sponsoring a contest to beat the Guinness World Record for most software downloads in a single day. Come people, you can help make this happen.
<http://www.spreadfirefox.com/>
Microsoft this week issued a white paper that outlines its reasons that businesses should deploy Windows Vista now and not wait for Windows 7, which is due by 2010. Key among these reasons is that upgrading from XP to Windows 7 won't be any less difficult than upgrading to Vista, because Windows 7 and Vista offer the same application and device compatibility profiles. To be fair to Microsoft, however, Vista actually does present a number of advances over XP, including far better security, especially for mobile workers and executives. And Microsoft can of course point to various cost savings related to energy usage (power management) and total cost of ownership (TCO). Will this be enough to turn the tide on Vista's undeserved negative press? No, of course not. Maybe it's time for Microsoft to make a few "Switcher" ads of their own.
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/enterprise/datasheets.mspx>
I can't help but think that if this were Apple, the headlines would be seen 'round the world. But in reality, Dell's gains this quarter are all the more impressive than anything Apple can accomplish with the Mac because Dell sells dramatically more computers than does Apple, making such huge quarterly gains all the more difficult. This week, Dell posted income of $7894 million on revenues of $16.1 billion for the quarter ending May 2, better than analyst expectations. But the big news was that Dell's notebook sales surged 43 percent year-over-year; overall, product shipments were up 22 percent for the company (much higher than the industry average). Though the world's second largest PC maker--first when measured by revenues--Dell has had its share of troubles lately. These results suggest that things, finally, are starting to turn around.
Just in case you thought Microsoft's Sysinternals tools were already too hard to use, the company has found a way to make them even more inscrutable: Put them on the Web, organized by file name. Seriously, you have to see this one to believe it. It's called Sysinternals Live and you can see the site here: <http://live.sysinternals.com/>. Now, to be fair to the technically-minded, the tools are designed to be run via the Start Menu's Run or Start Menu Search items: Just enter the name of a tool using syntax like http://live.sysinternals.com\tools\tool-name, where tool-name is of course the name of the tool. (To run Process Explorer, use http://live.sysinternals.com\tools\procexp.exe .). Um, right. If you have access to the Web anyway, how is this easier than just going to the normal Sysinternals Web site? And is there a Sysinternals user on earth that doesn't have at least a second PC nearby?
PC giant Dell announced this week that it would enter the ultra-mobile PC (UMPC) market with a new "Mini Inspiron" (not its real name) that will compete with such products as the Asus Eee PC and the HP Mini-Note. A Dell spokesperson describes the upcoming device as "the perfect device for the next billion users," but didn't provide any details about the cute-looking mini-notebook computer. According to Dell's customer feedback site, IdeaStorm, customers have asked for a UMPC with 1 GB of RAM, a 60 GB hard drive, and Windows Vista. But we won't know what's really in there until Dell spills the beans. My guess is that the company will announce availability before the end of the summer.
ToC
Paul Thurrott
URL: <http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2008/06/05/microsoft-will-not-extend-xp-lifecycle-again-here-s-what-s-really-happening.aspx>
You may have read a news story--a rumor, really--recently claiming that Microsoft has logging calls to its support lines to determine whether it should extend the lifecycle of Windows XP, which is set to disappear from retail shelves and from consumer PCs after June 30. The rumor--which originated at a tech enthusiast blog--is completely untrue, Microsoft says. But it's just part of a wider range of misinformation that is muddying the waters for Windows users. It's time to send in the cleaner.
Here's what's really happening.
First of all, Microsoft's official lifecycle policy for operating systems states that the company will ship each Windows version for four years after it becomes generally available. In the case of Windows XP, which became generally available in October 2001, Microsoft would normally have stopped shipping XP to customers in late 2005, but that was a year before its successor, Windows Vista, shipped. So Microsoft extended the sales deadline on XP to occur one year after the general availability of Vista, or in January 2008. You may have noticed that that date, too, has passed: That's because Microsoft had extended XP's availability again, this time to June 30, 2008.
On that last day of June, a few things are going to happen. But many things are not going to happen. For example, Microsoft isn't going to "turn off" product activation on July 1, 2009, forcing XP users to upgrade to Vista. In fact, the company told me this week that it has not plans, whatsoever, to turn off XP product activation at any date in the future.
Also, you may have heard that Microsoft will "end support" of XP after June 30. That claim was shocking to Microsoft corporate vice president Mike Nash, who told me this week that the company just shipped XP Service Pack 3 (SP3), and didn't intend to only support that major update for seven weeks. "We're going to support XP through April 2014," he said, laughing. "That's a twelve-and-a-half year life cycle!" Nash noted that few companies provide this kind of support for their software products. "If you look at the life cycle of XP compared to that of a person, XP would just be entering the 7th grade now."
Windows XP isn't disappearing this year either. When June 30 comes and goes, Microsoft's customers will still be able to get XP if they really want it. But this isn't some special concession that was made specifically for this Windows version, nor is it a new policy: Microsoft has allowed its customers to buy a license to the current Windows version and "downgrade" to one of the previous versions for several years now. In fact, if a customer was "really feeling nostalgic," Nash said, they could downgrade to Windows 2000 if they wanted.
Here's how downgrading works. Through a process offered to its enterprise and small business customers, Microsoft will sell you a license to Windows Vista Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate and allow you to install Windows XP Professional instead. The downgrade option is typically used by businesses that are buying a few new PCs and don't want a mix of new and old Windows versions, and they can "upgrade" to the Vista version they originally purchased at any time. Downgrading is available to consumers as well, however. Because Microsoft's PC maker partners qualify for the business-oriented downgrade, they can pass along the downgrade to their own customers too.
"Some people have positioned downgrading as a loophole or 'secret'," Nash told me. "It's neither. It's a well-documented and known policy that's been in place for a long, long time. This is not a new issue: Some people just want the old version. But that's always been true."
Finally, the recent emergence of a growing but niche market for ultra-low-cost PCs (ULCPCs), including portable machines sometimes called Netbooks and desktop machines sometimes called Nettops, has caused Microsoft to extend the licensing of Windows XP Home Edition only, and only on these devices, for one more year. The iCabal--vocal and fanatical Apple followers who cheer the company's anti-Vista "Switcher" ads--have claimed that XP's continued use on these types of devices is yet another signal that Vista has failed. That's ridiculous, Nash says, noting that Microsoft is just being pragmatic. "These are low-performance and low-capability machines aimed at first-time PC buyers in emerging markets, not a way to continue getting XP," he said. As Microsoft had argued to me previously, the fact that their latest OS won't run well on the minimal resources of an ULCPC says more about those machines than it does about Vista.
Put simply, if you really want XP, you'll be able to get it after June 30, and it will be supported by Microsoft through April 2014. By that time, of course, Microsoft will probably have already shipped Windows 8, a Windows version three times removed from XP. Perhaps by that time, misguided calls for XP's continuation will have faded into the murky past, where they belong.
ToC
From the Microsoft web site
URL: <http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/future.mspx>
Last year you told us you weren't quite ready to say goodbye to Windows XP. We listened. That's why we delayed our plan to stop selling it until June 30, 2008.
We love that you love Windows XP. We've seen it on our website, in e-mails, and through independent online petition drives. Our engineers work hard to build innovative software that empowers our customers. It's nice when you tell us we've made a difference.
But our commitment to innovation sometimes means making tough choices. This is one of them.
After careful consultation with our customers and industry partners, we've decided to proceed with our plan to phase out Windows XP in June. It'll be a long goodbye. We plan to provide support for Windows XP until 2014.
We know there have been lots of questions—and some confusion—about our plans. Some key things you should know:
Top questions we hear about Windows XP Collapse All
Why do you have to stop selling Windows XP?
Microsoft was founded on a commitment to innovate and to provide our customers with the best software. That's part of our corporate DNA, and occasionally it means tough decisions.
We don't make them lightly.
The lifespan of every Microsoft product is carefully mapped from launch to retirement. Windows XP is no exception. We do this to ensure you always get the most out of your PC experience. (Read about Windows lifecycle policy.)
We've spent more than a year consulting with our customers and industry partners to ensure that we're doing the right thing. We understand that not everyone may agree with our decision—just as not everyone was happy to see Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows ME retire (OK, perhaps not ME).
But we think the time is right.
We also want to underscore that we're not, as some people have asserted, "pulling the plug" on our popular operating system. Let us be clear: Although Windows XP won't be sold in stores, Microsoft and its partners will continue to offer technical support for Windows XP for months and years to come. In fact, Microsoft plans to support Windows XP until 2014.
We're proud of Windows XP, a product that has empowered and entertained hundreds of millions of people in the last eight years. But technology doesn't stand still. And neither can we.
What'll happen to Windows XP after June 30? I'm confused.
In industry speak, this is called "end-of-sales." On June 30, Microsoft will stop distributing Windows XP as a stand-alone product that you can buy shrink-wrapped in the store. We'll also stop sending it to Dell, HP, Lenovo and all the other major PC manufacturers to sell on their PCs.
That said, Windows XP isn't going to disappear overnight.
You may still see copies of the software—or computers pre-loaded with it—for months, as stores and PC makers work through their inventory. Also, smaller local PC makers—known in the industry as "system builders"—can continue to sell PCs with Windows XP until January 2009.
Finally, Microsoft recently announced that computers with limited hardware capabilities—devices sometimes called Netbooks or ultra-low cost PCs (ULCPC)—can carry Windows XP Home until June 2010. (Read about the ULCPC program on Microsoft Presspass.)
I've heard I can get Windows XP for my small business past the June 30th deadline through something called "downgrade rights." What are those exactly?
If your business relies on Windows XP, there's still a way to get it.
When you buy the Windows Vista Business or Windows Vista Ultimate, you're automatically entitled to move back to Windows XP Professional via what we call "downgrade rights."
We've been working closely with our industry partners to develop new programs for small business customers interested in exercising these rights.
If you're interested in learning more about downgrade rights, contact your favorite PC maker.
My business relies on Windows XP. What'll happen after June 30 if I have technical problems?
We understand some of our customers aren't ready to upgrade their PCs to Windows Vista.
Although Windows XP will disappear from stores, we'll continue to offer Extended Support for the operating system for six more years, until April 2014.
Your PC maker can also provide technical support for your PC. Please contact them for more information.
I've heard about two types of Windows XP support—"mainstream" and "extended." What's the difference?
Mainstream support delivers complimentary as well as paid support, free security updates and bug fixes to all Windows customers who purchase a retail copy of Windows XP (i.e. a shrink-wrapped, not pre-installed, copy). Mainstream support for Windows XP will continue through April 2009.
Extended support delivers free security updates to all Windows customers. Customers can also pay for support on a per-incident basis. Extended support for Windows XP will continue until April 2014. New bug fixes require the Extended Hotfix Support program.
ToC
By Associated Press
URL: <http://www.wdel.com/story.php?id=259379275749>
The University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index says Philadelphia-based Comcast Corp. has its lowest rating ever.
Comcast is tied with Charter Communications for last place among cable and satellite firms. Comcast rated 54 points out of 100.
Rick Germano, Comcast's customer operations chief, says he's not happy about the rating but the company is improving. He says Comcast has improved its internal processes and stepped up training of its customer service employees and technicians. Germano says Comcast has hired 15,000 of these "front-line" workers in the past 18 months.
The industry as a whole is tied with the newspaper industry for second-to-last in customer satisfaction. Only airlines score lower.
ToC
[Editor's Note: My thanks to Kevin Hisel for submitting all the articles above in this section of the newsletter.]
ToC
from Jon Bjerke
[Editor's Note: Below are the items of interest sent in by Jon Bjerke this month. Thanks, Jon.]
by Peter Varhol
May 20, 2008
URL: <http://redmondmag.com/reports/article.asp?EditorialsID=718>
It seems that every time Microsoft releases a significant patch or service pack, something doesn't go right. As we mentioned in yesterday's Redmond Report, the problem this time is that XP Service Pack 3 causes an endless reboot of systems using an AMD processor.
According to this Microsoft blog post, the problem apparently applies to an OEM image that was created on an Intel box, and the OS tries to load a driver that causes the reboot problem. Microsoft has responded by blocking SP3 updates for systems with AMD processors, according to the blog.
It seems to me that Windows is so complex and the combinations of OS, processor, drivers and applications are so close to infinite, that making a successful launch of any new software is just another opportunity for disaster.
---by Paul Thurrott
June 02, 2008 - InstantDoc #99342
URL: <http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/99342/microsoft-warns-on-safari-carpet-bombing-flaw.html>
As if Windows users didn't already have enough good reasons to avoid Apple's Safari Web browser, Microsoft this week provided another, more important one: Malicious entities can use the browser to trigger a so-called "carpet bombing" attack on users' PCs and running applications and gain control of the machines.
According to the search researcher who discovered the problem, the Safari carpet-bombing flaw is actually one of three separate security concerns he found in the browser in mid-May. Nitesh Dhanjani said he reported the flaws to Apple at that time, and Apple pledged to fix one of the other flaws he discovered but didn't think the carpet-bombing flaw was "security related."
Dhanjani disagreed. "It is possible for a rogue Web site to litter the user's desktop [with executable applications]," Dhanjani wrote in a blog post describing the flaw. "This can happen because the Safari browser cannot be configured to obtain the user's permission before it downloads a resource. Safari downloads the resource without the user's consent and places it in a default location. The implication of this is obvious: malware downloaded to the user's desktop without the user's consent."
Apple's response to Dhanjani suggests that the company isn't interested in tackling this problem anytime soon. "We can file that as an enhancement request for the Safari team," Apple told him. "Please note that we are not treating this as a security issue but a further measure to raise the bar against unwanted downloads. This will require a review with the Human Interface team. We want to set your expectations that this could take quite a while, if it ever gets incorporated."
On Friday, Microsoft announced that it was taking the flaw more seriously because it's a "blended threat" that combines a Safari flaw with the way the Windows desktop handles executables. "Microsoft will take the appropriate measures to protect our customers," a Microsoft security advisory reads. "This may include providing a solution through a service pack, the monthly update process, or an out-of-cycle security update, depending on customers' needs."
Microsoft recommends a workaround while it works on a solution: Reconfigure the default location to which Safari downloads content to the local drive, as doing so will prevent the flaw from being exploited. I have a more elegant solution: Simply avoid Safari altogether and use a browser that's written by developers who better understand the security nuances of Windows. I recommend Mozilla Firefox, but Internet Explorer (IE) 7.0 is also acceptable.
---
Taking a page from the doctors at Moses Taylor Hospital, IT staffers at the facility in Scranton, Pa., last year diagnosed their messaging system and came up with an effective treatment that has turned out to be a lifesaver.
The patient in this case was an aging Microsoft Exchange 5.5 environment that couldn't support increased message loads and was going to cost a bundle to upgrade.
After conducting an evaluation of alternatives, the hospital decided not to upgrade to a newer version of Exchange. Instead, it went with a Linux-based Exchange clone that it felt could meet the needs of its 700 users without forcing them and IT to learn a whole new system.
ToC
by Adam C. Engst <ace@tidbits.com>
TidBITS#932/09-Jun-08
article link: <http://db.tidbits.com/article/9651>
At the beginning of the Worldwide Developers Conference keynote, Apple announced it would provide information about the next version of Mac OS X - code-named Snow Leopard - after the keynote. Since all the content at WWDC other than the keynote is covered by non-disclosure agreements, it seemed that Apple didn't plan to talk in public about what we could expect.
However, a press release about Snow Leopard appeared late in the day revealing some details. Instead of adding marquee features like Time Machine and Spaces, Snow Leopard will instead focus on enhancing performance and reliability and lay the foundation for future features. In particular, Snow Leopard will be optimized for multi-core processors, be able to tap into the computing power of modern graphic processing units (GPUs), make it possible to address up to 16 TB of RAM, ship with QuickTime X, and provide out-of-the-box support for Microsoft Exchange 2007 in Mail, iCal, and Address Book.
<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/06/09snowleopard.html>
A new technology code-named "Grand Central" will make it easier for developers to create applications that make the most of multi-core Macs, which should let people get more from those 8-core Mac Pros. Additional performance gains will come from support for Open Computing Language (OpenCL), a new language from Apple that supposedly lets any application access the gigaflops of computing power previously available only to graphics applications. Apple says that OpenCL is based on the C programming language and has been proposed as an open standard; the only hints about it up to now came in an interview with the Nvidia CEO.
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9962117-37.html>
QuickTime X will reportedly optimize support for modern audio and video formats for more-efficient media playback. It seems likely that QuickTime is due for a major rewrite, given how long it has been around. Finally, Safari will receive JavaScript performance enhancements that are intended to provide an enhanced user experience for Web applications, perhaps due to a new JavaScript engine called SquirrelFish that's recently seen the light of day.
<http://webkit.org/blog/189/announcing-squirrelfish>
The press release said that Snow Leopard is slated to ship "in about a year," and I'm sure more details will start leaking out as developers receive seeds. Overall, my initial reaction is that Snow Leopard is a very good move for Apple, because the focus on adding features in favor of performance has meant that Mac OS X has become increasingly poky for many users. And I suspect that people are no longer responding as favorably to long lists of features that they may or may not use - although I use them happily, none of the new features in Tiger or Leopard have radically changed the way I use my Mac. Apple touts Mac OS X as being rock-solid and easy to use (especially compared to Windows), so enhancing the engine under Leopard's hood could be just what many people are looking for in the next update.
It can be difficult to convince users to pay for better performance and more efficient workings under the hood, but perhaps Apple will charge less than the usual $129. Or, perhaps Apple will give Snow Leopard away for free, in preparation for a Mac App Store that will give Apple a cut of every Mac application sold. But that's just crazy talk... or is it?
ToC
by Adam C. Engst <ace@tidbits.com>
TidBITS#932/09-Jun-08
article link: <http://db.tidbits.com/article/9647>
Ending months of speculation and rumor, Steve Jobs today announced that the first major revision to the iPhone, dubbed the iPhone 3G, will ship on 11-Jul-08 for $199 (8 GB) or $299 (16 GB). The iPhone 2.0 software, which will be a free upgrade for all current iPhone owners, will also debut on that date. iPod touch owners will be able to upgrade to the new software for $9.95.
<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/06/09iphone.html>
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/>
The iPhone 3G will launch initially in 22 countries, with Apple aiming for availability in more than 70 countries by the end of 2008. To illustrate the complexity in such a device, Apple said in a briefing that the iPhone 3G has 10 radios, 7 of them covering the various spectrum slices used around the world.
As you might expect from the name, the iPhone 3G supports third-generation cellular data networking that operates over eight times faster than the EDGE data support in the first iPhone model. Apple claims just a factor of 2 to 3 times faster Web-page loading and email-attachment downloading. AT&T's flavor of 3G also makes it possible to use data-based services while you're talking on the phone.
The iPhone 3G's enhanced networking capabilities don't come at the expense of previous capabilities, and the device can switch among 3G, EDGE, and Wi-Fi as needed. The iPhone 3G can be set to use only 2G networks when that's necessary, which might be the case in reducing roaming charges outside of one's home carrier network.
The other major hardware enhancement in the iPhone 3G is a GPS receiver, which enhances the current iPhone's cell tower triangulation and nearby Wi-Fi network sniffing to provide more accurate position and real-time location mapping and tracking over time. In the keynote, Jobs demonstrated a drive the company "recorded" down San Francisco's famous curvy Lombard Street, with the Maps application playing back the progress over the same time duration, pulsating a ring of blue as a blue dot moved.
A GPS receiver can drain power from a mobile device quite rapidly - that's why they're often used while plugged in to an automobile. But in a briefing, Apple explained that the GPS receiver was engaged only while Maps was active, or when a program that called on Core Location features in the iPhone 2.0 software was using the GPS. The iPhone will ask your permission before allowing an application to use the location hardware, too.
It remains to be seen if Apple or another developer will add spoken directions. Technically speaking, the iPhone 3G supports Assisted GPS, or A-GPS, which increases accuracy and improves performance by offloading some processing to a remote server. The GPS capabilities also enable photo geotagging, although the iPhone's built-in camera remains stuck at a mere 2 megapixels.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGPS>
Less sexy but equally useful is the iPhone 3G's improved battery life in standby and talk time. Apple provides the following estimates, although our experience with all vendor battery life estimates is that they're optimistic and seldom reflect real-world usage (since, for instance, you would likely perform a variety of these actions over the course of a normal day of iPhone usage).
The iPhone 3G uses 3G for talk when connected to 3G networks, and that reduces talk time by half, as you can see. With a switch in Settings, you can force the iPhone to use 2G networks to extend talk time or reduce data roaming bills when you're roaming away from home.
Physically, the iPhone 3G is almost identical to the original iPhone. Apple's specs page shows it increasing in depth by .02 inches (.7 mm) and decreasing in weight by .1 ounces (2 grams), not something we can imagine anyone but a dock manufacturer noticing or caring about.
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html>
TidBITS editor Glenn Fleishman spent a few minutes with an iPhone 3G during an Apple briefing, and found that despite the tiny changes in weight and size that it was noticeably lighter - he compared by holding his 2G iPhone in one hand and an iPhone 3G in the other - and nicer to hold.
However, the original iPhone's easily scratched chrome back has been replaced with plastic - black by default, although there's an option for white in the 16 GB model. And the headphone jack is now flush with the case, something that garnered big applause from the WWDC audience. (The original model's recessed jack meant some third-party headsets wouldn't fit without use of an adapter.) Jobs claimed that the iPhone 3G also boasts dramatically better audio quality thanks to better built-in speakers.
<http://images.apple.com/iphone/images/specs_colors20080609.jpg>
Current iPhone and iPod touch owners won't have to buy an iPhone 3G to take advantage of other new features, however, since the iPhone 2.0 software that drives the iPhone 3G is also available to the earlier devices. The iPhone 2.0 software will enable users to move and delete multiple email messages at once, search for contacts, use a new scientific calculator (merely by flipping the iPhone to landscape orientation when displaying the current calculator), turn on parental controls to restrict specified content, and save images directly from a Web page or send them to your iPhone via email (from which they can then be transferred back to the Mac).
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/softwareupdate/>
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/calculator.html>
Some users will particularly appreciate the capability to view (but not edit) email-attached documents from the iWork suite within the Mail program: Keynote, Pages, and Numbers, along with Microsoft PowerPoint (joining the existing support for Word and Excel documents). And, finally, the iPhone's Calendar app now supports multiple iCal calendars, instead of grouping every event into one calendar.
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/calendar.html>
There's a subtle change that Apple discussed in a briefing when asked about the ability to enable Wi-Fi and disable cell radios in aircraft, since many airlines in the United States will be launching on-board Internet access using Wi-Fi in the next few months. An existing Airplane Mode in Settings turns off all radios when enabled; Apple said that the iPhone 2.0 software would allow Wi-Fi to be switched back on after Airplane Mode was engaged. This would also let you extend battery life by disabling 9 of the 10 on-board radios if you didn't need voice calling. (Like cell radios, GPS receivers are illegal to use in flight.)
Of course, we anticipate that the most interesting applications will come from third-party developers who have now been using the iPhone SDK (software development kit) for three months to create a wide range of programs. 250,000 people downloaded the free iPhone SDK, and 25,000 applied for the paid developer program, but only 4,000 have been admitted to the developer program so far.
During the WWDC keynote, Apple brought a number of developers on stage to show their applications and make the expected platitudes about how wonderful it was to develop for the iPhone. Sega, Pangea Software, and Digital Legends Entertainment showed off games that took advantage of the built-in accelerometer and gestures; eBay demoed a native application for bidding in auctions; two companies presented medical applications; the Associated Press and MLB.com showed news-related programs; and the social-networking site Loopt used the iPhone 3G's location capabilities to show the location of your friends. The developer who garnered the most applause, however, was a lone developer named Mark Terry from Moo Cow Music, whose Band program lets iPhone users mix songs using a variety of instruments.
<http://moocowmusic.com/Band/>
All iPhone applications, free or commercial, will be available via the new App Store; see "More iPhone App Store Details Revealed" (2008-06-09) for more.
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/appstore/>
<http://db.tidbits.com/9646>
Jobs acknowledged that one of the major challenges Apple faced with the original iPhone was the price, which started out at $599 for an 8 GB model. The first price cut dropped that to $399 (see the details at the end of "Apple Introduces iPod touch, Wi-Fi iTunes Store, and New iPods," 2007-09-10), and Apple has now reduced the price yet again, cutting it in half to $199 in the United States, and he said it would cost the same or less worldwide. That's for a black 8 GB model; for 16 GB of RAM, you'll pay $299, and you'll get the choice of a black or white back.
<http://db.tidbits.com/article/9152>
Although it's hard to argue with Apple dropping the iPhone's price by $200, a fact that came out only after the keynote is that 3G service plans will increase by $10 per month for personal plans, and $25 per month for business plans. That makes the cheapest package $70 per month. Historically, Apple has received a share of revenue, but Ars Technica is reporting that the revenue-sharing deal hasn't been extended to the new model, along with the fact that current iPhone users who want to upgrade will be able to do so by starting a new 2-year contract, not adding another 2 years on top of the remaining contract commitment. Instead of the revenue sharing deal, AT&T is subsidizing the price of iPhones, according to the Associated Press, a standard cellular-phone pricing arrangement.
<http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/06/09/att-remains-sole-iphone-carrier-in-us-revenue-sharing-axed>
<http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hHJEtMffp-_0zKP9QU7QkBMhuOXgD916PAOO5>
(Don't cry for AT&T: with the cheapest personal service plan, they'll realize about $500 more in revenue over two years with the higher fee and no revenue sharing than they did with the 2G iPhone.)
The iPhone 3G will be available in 22 countries on 11-Jul-08. Interestingly, the online Apple Store is not accepting pre-orders; it merely points to retail Apple Store and AT&T locations where the iPhone will be available.
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/buy/>
This product announcement was perhaps the least-well-kept of Apple's secrets since Steve Jobs returned to the company many years ago. Both the 3G and GPS additions have been discussed for ages, and Apple itself raised the curtain on the iPhone SDK and App Store months ago. So in some sense, despite the massive amount of anticipation, there's a slight letdown in not being wowed by entirely unanticipated features or in Apple not delivering on every rumored feature, such as a forward-facing video camera for iChat video chatting. (Damn those rumors for raising our hopes!) That does leave room for a third-generation iPhone to appear next year, though who knows what Apple will call it, given that the second-generation is the iPhone 3G.
ToC
by Jeff Carlson <jeffc@tidbits.com>
TidBITS#932/09-Jun-08
article link: <http://db.tidbits.com/article/9646>
When Apple opened up iPhone development with the iPhone software development kit (SDK) in March 2008, the company also announced the App Store, the exclusive online storefront for buying and downloading the expected flood of iPhone applications to come. In today's keynote at the Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple provided more details about how App Store will work when it goes live in early July.
<http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/appstore.html>
The pricing model remains the same as previously reported. Developers can set whatever price they choose for their applications, with 70 percent of each sale pocketed by the author and 30 percent going to Apple for overhead; free applications require no fee to Apple (see "Apple Announces iPhone 2.0, Releases SDK," 2007-09-07). Still up in the air is how the App Store will handle trial software, where a fully functional version of a program is available for free for a set time period (such as 30 days). Also unanswered are questions surrounding Apple's opinion about selling content used by iPhone apps, such as ebooks, maps, game levels, and more. Plus, as software reviewers, it's unclear to us how developers will be able to provide review copies to media.
<http://db.tidbits.com/article/9489>
Steve Jobs also provided more detail about how applications will be downloaded. Following the same model as the iTunes Store, users will be able to purchase and download applications via iTunes on a Mac or Windows PC, and then sync downloaded applications to the iPhone or touch. An App Store icon also appears on the Home screen of the device itself for direct purchase and download. Unlike the iTunes Store, however, the App Store allows applications weighing in at 10 MB or smaller to be transferred over the 3G cellular connection to an iPhone, as well as over Wi-Fi or sync via iTunes. Programs larger than 10 GB will be restricted to Wi-Fi or iTunes.
And, enterprise customers will be able distribute their own applications to their employees via intranet or iTunes. Security options will enable the applications to run only on the employees' devices.
A new distribution method, Ad Hoc, requires developers to register for a certificate that enables them to seed software on up to 100 iPhones. As an example, Jobs cited a computer science professor who could distribute an application to students.
Jobs announced that the App Store will have a greater scope that coincides with the broader worldwide rollout of the iPhone 3G, serving 62 countries (out of over 70 countries anticipated to carry the iPhone by the end of the year; Apple has not yet signed deals with China or Russia).
ToC
by Rich Mogull <rich@tidbits.com>
TidBITS#932/09-Jun-08
article link: <http://db.tidbits.com/article/9648>
With the release of the iPhone 2.0 software on 11-Jul-08, Apple is introducing the first device that could finally erode the dominance of Research In Motion's ubiquitous BlackBerry. The iPhone not only represents Apple's first major foray into the enterprise in many years, but could also offer Microsoft an opportunity to regain control of mobile messaging and drive adoption of Microsoft's Exchange Server's mobile features.
When the iPhone was initially released, it was essentially unsuitable for most enterprises larger than a small business. Without support for full Exchange (or Lotus Notes) synchronization, and lacking crucial security features, the iPhone was limited to one-off adoptions that often run counter to corporate policy. To access email you had to open up remote Internet access to the IMAP mail service in Exchange, and contact and calendar synchronization required docking an iPhone with a computer. It was even worse from a security standpoint, since there was no way to enforce remote policies nor to remotely wipe a lost iPhone full of sensitive corporate data. Finally, although enterprises could write rich, Web 2.0-style enterprise applications for remote access, the iPhone was incompatible with major VPN gateways.
Much of this will change with the release of the iPhone 2.0 software (and the iPhone 3G). While most of the features were previously announced, Steve Jobs's keynote at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference today provided additional information about what we can expect.
The most significant enhancement is the inclusion of Microsoft's ActiveSync technology for iPhone device management and synchronization. By including full support for ActiveSync, Apple gained compatibility with every organization running Microsoft's Exchange Server, which is by far the most dominant corporate email platform. ActiveSync for Exchange includes all the major features required for enterprise mobile messaging, including full, over-the-air synchronization of contacts, calendars, and email; remote policy enforcement for device configuration and security; and remote wipe.
For remote access, Apple announced greater support for VPN protocols, with Cisco VPN gateway compatibility being especially important, as it's the most widely deployed platform in the market. While full details aren't yet available, it also appears that Apple will provide full support for credentials-based network access over Wi-Fi using digital certificates and the 802.1X port-based access control protocol with WPA2's more robust Wi-Fi encryption. 802.1X requires that a user provide some identity information before being given any network access beyond a sequestered area on a Wi-Fi access point; this can include two-factor authentication, a simple user name and password combination, or a personal digital certificate installed individually on each computer or device. (WPA2 plus 802.1X is commonly called WPA2 Enterprise, as Apple labels it in their enterprise marketing pages.)
Enterprises will also be able to develop and deploy in-house applications to their iPhone users, perhaps allowing a multi-platform basis for support for companies that choose to allow multiple smartphone platforms, or that migrate from other platforms to the iPhone universe. Some companies have extensive in-house development departments for desktop and mobile applications. Jobs said during the keynote that enterprises will be able to distribute applications within a company, and then those applications can be installed via iTunes. A separate enterprise developer license is required; other details aren't yet available about the mechanics.
The combination of secure remote access, full Exchange integration, remote management, and application development support will make the iPhone as viable in the enterprise as any other mobile platform, but the iPhone includes features that may enhance its enterprise appeal over alternatives.
With a fully functional Web browser, rich attachment viewing (including all Microsoft Office and iWork formats), and robust custom applications, the iPhone will provide a slick mobile workplace experience, likely to be far more appealing than other current options - in my experience, most mobile devices and applications are practically unusable due to user interface limitations. Even viewing basic documents, like spreadsheets or PDF files, is usually painful.
With pricing in the same range as competing products, full support for all core mobile features, and a superior user experience, the iPhone could even chip away at the darling of the corporate executive - RIM's BlackBerry. This will actually benefit Microsoft by reducing reliance on the expensive BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES) required for corporate messaging.
Most people don't realize that all BlackBerry devices rely on BES servers for push email and remote management. For consumers, these servers are hosted by RIM for wireless providers. Enterprises must purchase enough BES servers to layer on top of their email servers to support connectivity (that's why a consumer BlackBerry can't synchronize calendars or contacts over the air, but enterprise versions can). Exchange itself added over-the-air synchronization in recent versions, but only after BES had become entrenched in the enterprise. Microsoft's goal was to drive more users off competing server platforms, like Lotus Notes, and mobile devices, like the Blackberry, and to give Microsoft greater control over the mobile experience.
Although the iPhone won't increase Microsoft's market share in mobile devices, it positions Exchange as the only email server that directly supports the iPhone, Microsoft's own mobile devices, and pretty much anything other than the BlackBerry. This could increase their lucrative server sales.
On the negative side, the iPhone will (as far as we're aware) still lack copy-and-paste and the capability to edit Microsoft Office and iWork documents. Also, RIM still has a major advantage in international data roaming due to its highly efficient use of bandwidth and global infrastructure that eliminates most roaming data fees. Finally, the continued reliance on iTunes, still essentially a music management tool, for configuration and application installation and management, may irk corporate IT departments.
With the impending release of the iPhone 2.0 software, the iPhone is finally positioned to enter the enterprise market to the benefit of Apple, and possibly of Microsoft, but likely to the chagrin of Research in Motion. Let the enterprise games begin!
ToC
by Jeff Carlson <jeffc@tidbits.com>
TidBITS#932/09-Jun-08
article link: <http://db.tidbit
