Man, these Copyright Office triennial DMCA hearings seem to be some kind of competition for media-industry lawyers to present ridiculous arguments — just a couple months after the MPAA tried to convince us that videotaping DVDs was an acceptable alternative to ripping, the RIAA’s claiming that consumers shouldn’t expect their DRM servers to stay online and allow them to play their music to play forever. No joke. The argument comes as the Copyright Office decides whether or not to allow a DMCA exemption for breaking DRM, and RIAA lawyer Steven Metalitz’s position is that copyright owners shouldn’t be required to “provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works,” since “no other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards.” Of course, that’s only partially true, since properly maintained physical media and DRM-free content theoretically can be played forever, but why acknowledge reality when you can jack up your legal bills making completely absurd arguments that make your porcine, slowly-decaying clients seem even more doomed than before?

by Nilay Patel via Engadget

Linus Torvalds

Last week, Microsoft contributed Hyper-V drivers to the Linux kernel in order to improve the performance of running virtualized Linux guests in a Windows host environment. Furthermore, Microsoft opened its Linux Hyper-V drivers under the GPL. There was a lot of controversy within the OSS community about Microsoft’s motives and opinions varied tremendously. Some thought Microsoft was finally changing its ways and others suggested the whole thing was all a marketing ploy to sell more licenses of the Hyper-V virtualization solution.

Nevertheless, one person’s opinion on the matter is worth quoting. Linus Torvalds, the man who initiated the development of the Linux kernel, hasn’t yet looked at the code but did give an interesting statement to Linux Mag:

I’m a big believer in “technology over politics”. I don’t care who it comes from, as long as there are solid reasons for the code, and as long as we don’t have to worry about licensing etc issues. I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease. I believe in open development, and that very much involves not just making the source open, but also not shutting other people and companies out. There are ‘extremists’ in the free software world, but that’s one major reason why I don’t call what I do ‘free software’ any more. I don’t want to be associated with the people for whom it’s about exclusion and hatred.

via arstechnica.com

Yahoo! and Microsoft announced an agreement that will improve the Web search experience for users and advertisers, and deliver sustained innovation to the industry. In simple terms, Microsoft will now power Yahoo! search while Yahoo! will become the exclusive worldwide relationship sales force for both companies’ premium search advertisers.

For Web users and advertisers, this deal will accelerate the pace and breadth of innovation by combining both companies’ complementary strengths and search platforms into a market competitor with the scale to fuel sustained development in search and search advertising. Users will find what they care about faster and with more personal relevance. Microsoft’s competitive search platforms will lead to more value for advertisers, better results for web publishers, and increased innovation and efficiency across the Internet.

Under this agreement, Yahoo! will focus on its core business of providing consumers with great experiences with the world’s favorite online destinations and Web products.

read the whole article @ TechCrunch

We have been tracking the Apple Tablet for longer than I want to remember. Here’s an update on the probability of it happening at all, and when we think it will launch if it does.

As far as I’m concerned, I’ve wanted a son of Newton since Jobs cancelled it, and I’ve been gagging for it since the iPhone. The latest solid rumor came from the Financial Times, which claimed that the entertainment industry “is hoping that Apple, which revolutionized the markets for music players and phones, can do it again with the new device.” Suggesting it will be more giant iPod touch (good—as the iPod touch could scale up into new form factors) than pure Mac OS X Tablet (bad—as pure Mac OS X will be hard to scale down). A project with the music industry—codenamed Cocktail—will be announced in September, according to this source. The same sources point that “the device could be launched alongside the new content deals.”

The Financial Times article is vague about this, however, mentioning Apple “racing” to have the tablet available for the holiday shopping season. That may mean an announcement in September, followed by availability after Thanksgiving. That’s four months away. Another article—this time from the China Times—points at an October release, which puts the thingamajig only three months away. And yet another Chinese paper claims a September or October release. Apple Insider claims that it will be available in 2010.

I’m personally inclined to trust the Financial Times rumor. Not only because of them being so adamant about their multiple sources, but because the timing makes a lot more sense than the other options. It also makes sense to announce it in this entertainment event, which will most probably include announcements for the updated nano and touch—minor updates for already-established products that only add cameras, confirmed by a myriad of new cases from China.

The big bang, however, could be the newest member of the iPod/iPhone family: The Apple Tablet. Like the iPhone—which was originally announced alongside other products during a MacWorld keynote—the Tablet won’t cannibalize any existing product sales, so it makes sense to drum up the hype like they did with the iPhone, building excitement for the shopping season.

Matt, on the other hand, thinks that the device could be announced on an event on its own. His rationale is that it’s too important to be released alongside other products. To me it makes more sense to tell the public that, while big—literally and metaphorically speaking—this is “another iPod”, and the third model of a new family of iPhone OS-based products—a potential family which, incidentally, has been hinted by Jobs and the rest of the Apple executive team.

Whenever it is actually announced, however, the general consensus is that the tablet exists—even John Gruber is certain about it, and he rarely fails. The question now is when. According to our Apple Tablet Probability Meter, you’re 80% likely to be able to buy one in four months.

By Jesus Diaz @ Gizmodo

UDPDATE: We’ve also learned that Apple has rejected the OFFICIAL Google voice app.

GV Mobile going bye bye?

GV Mobile and Voice Central pulled from App Storeby TJ Luoma on Jul 27th 2009 at 7:00PMEarlier today, iPhone developer Sean Kovacs posted on his blog that his Google Voice client, GV Mobile, is getting pulled from the App Store due to “duplicating features that the iPhone comes with Dialer, SMS, etc.” Kovacs says he received a call from an Apple staffer, who “wouldnt send a confirmation email either – too scared I would post it.

“The app still appears in the App Store, but when you attempt to purchase it you will be told “The item you tried to buy is no longer available.” Weve also heard that Voice Central another Google Voice application is similarly no longer available for purchase.

There has been speculation that Google is preparing its own iPhone app for Google Voice, however, in light of the news that Apple requested that Google make Latitude a web app instead of a native app “in order to avoid confusion with Maps on the iPhone,” I wonder if we are unlikely to see such an application from Google.

MailWrangler, a native Gmail client for the iPhone was also rejected from the App Store because the “application duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application Mail without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality, which will lead to user confusion.” As a heavy duty user of Gmail, Ive wished for MailWrangler from the beginning. Sure you can use Gmail through Mobile Safari — as you can use Google Voice — but as Apple soon learned after trying to convince users and developers that web apps were all we needed, there are certain things which a native application makes much easier.

GV Mobile is a very popular application for using Google Voice on the iPhone. Apples own phone application is great, but for Google Voice users, a native application was a nice thing to have.Im not sure why Apple keeps insisting that users would be confused by apps which do similar things How many different applications are there which duplicate “Notes” functionality?, but a greater concern is the idea that a developer can work on an application, have it released to huge success, and then have Apple turn around and yank it from the App Store.

This in loco parentis attitude from Apple hurts iPhone users and developers alike. Developers like Fraser Speirs have stopped developing new applications for the iPhone and hes not the only one. (Frasers post on Twitter was how I heard how I heard about GV Mobile being pulled from the App Store.)

I hope these are growing pains that Apple and the App Store will leave behind. Users who seek out, find, download, and install 3rd party applications are unlikely to be “confused” by the “duplication” of functionality. The fact that they sought them out is evidence that they found something lacking from the applications that Apple offers.The App Store is wonderful, except for the parts of it which are terrible; namely, the review process which takes too long and rejects too many apps and the removal of applications which do no harm and which have been released for some time to great success.

via TUAW

Microsoft’s decision to leave Windows XP users behind, with no easy upgrade path to Windows 7, is, possibly, the sole mistake of an otherwise pitch-perfect product development and launch campaign.

Yes, I know there’s precedent for Microsoft not helping customers upgrade from multi-generations-old operating systems. When XP shipped in October of 2001, Windows 3.1 and even Windows 95 were left behind. The exact phrasing Microsoft uses in its literature is: “No Supported Upgrade Paths.” When Vista shipped in January 2007, XP had multiple paths, but Windows 2000 (and older OSs) were left out in the cold.

To clarify, Microsoft isn’t abandoning these users. The company is simply making it clear that for any user running a Windows operating system older than Vista, there is “no supported upgrade path.” That means, of course, that you’ll need a clean install to run Windows 7. Look, our tests have shown that Windows 7 is one of the leaner Windows OSs in recent years. It can even run on sub-powered netbooks. So, it’ll likely run on your older systems (within reason, of course). However, if you want to move that XP system to Win 7, you’ll need to do what Microsoft is calling a “Custom install.” Microsoft describes it thusly:

“A custom installation gives you the option to either completely replace your current operating system or install Windows on a specific drive or partition that you select. You can also use Custom if your computer does not have an operating system, or if you want to set up a multiboot system on your computer.”

Just so you know, “…replace your current operating system…” means starting over. You’ll lose settings and will need to back up all your files to storage outside that XP system. All your apps will need to be reinstalled, as well. And you may have to manage some of the hardware driver updates, too. Microsoft also is not promising that all your XP apps will work with Win 7: The company has always promised that all Vista hardware and software would.

I don’t think Microsoft is being unfair here. Like I said, this is how it has always done its upgrades. On the other hand, XP followed Win 98 and Vista followed XP. Despite some initial misgivings, users came to tolerate, if not like, 98 and XP, especially once each one of them got its Service Packs and Special Editions. Theses upgrades made a world of difference. By the time new OSs came along, adoption was pretty much universal.

Things are different now.

For one thing, perception of Windows Vista has been almost universally bad. It became the poster child for a product that over-promised and under-delivered. Like the OSs that came before it, Vista now has its own set of Service Packs. SP2 solved most of Vista’s major issues, and now, it is, in fact, a good OS. But oh, the way Vista is perceived. It’s been so bad that it’s kept many consumers and huge swaths of businesses away. What’s more, Vista, unlike Win 7, is a resource hog that demands a powerful system to run effectively.

And then there’s the netbook thing. The netbook explosion created a very unusual problem for Microsoft. An operating system that Microsoft was trying to euthanize—XP—rose from the dead and now marches among us on netbooks, with its own third Service Pack. I don’t think Microsoft planned the last one, but XP remained so popular that it had to release it. Netbooks are only serving to extend its improbable run. Eight years after its initial release, new systems are still selling with XP preinstalled. Steve Ballmer must be cursing the netbook explosion.

Interestingly, when I went to the Microsoft Professional Developers Conference where the first Win 7 beta was introduced, Microsoft executives made a special point of showing off how well Win 7 runs on a netbook. They had to know that current netbooks are running XP. So, why didn’t anyone push for an upgrade path?

The point is, XP may be an old OS but it’s widely used. Consumers, in particular, will be squeamish about installing a completely new OS. I think the word of mouth about Win 7 is so good—and rightly so—that users will finally want to upgrade. However, when they hear that they have to replace their operating system and, ostensibly, rebuild their relatively new PCs, they could balk.

Microsoft is also ignoring the countless businesses that stuck with XP. I hate to admit it, but I work at one of them. Sure, I’m surrounded by PCs running Vista, Win 7, and even the Mac OS, but my work PC is XP (SP2!). My IT department, like so many others, wanted nothing to do with Vista, or the headaches they assumed they’d encounter. Microsoft needs companies to feel comfortable about switching to Win 7. If they can’t upgrade from the OS most are using, they’ll wait, too.

Obviously, many businesses will wait anyway (I know of some firms still running Windows 2000 and earlier OSs), but this Microsoft strategy will certainly scare off many XP users who were considering an upgrade. There is a bit of good news. Microsoft’s decision has left the door open for third-party tools. LapLink (remember them?), for example, has created a utility that will let any XP user upgrade to Win 7.

There are still a few months before Win 7 ships. Perhaps Microsoft can do something on its own, too. Now that Win 7 is in RTM, it’s unlikely Microsoft can do anything to the code, but the company could offer its own free migration utility.

via Windows XP to Windows 7: It’s Going to Be a Bumpy Ride – Columns by PC Magazine.

Look for personal computer users to soon get their hardware in the same way that they get their cell phones: for free as part of telecommunications service subscriptions, the executive director of the Linux Foundation said on Friday afternoon.

In a presentation at the O’Reilly OSCON (Open Source Convention), Linux Foundation Executive Director Jim Zemlin said a trend will emerge in which users would select a wireless or network service provider and get a free PC when buying a data plan.  AT&T, he said, already is offering netbooks as part of a service plan, with the user getting the netbook for $50.

[ Earlier this year, Intel said it would turn Moblin over to the Linux Foundation. ]

In an interview on Thursday, Zemlin elaborated on his free PC vision, enabled by the rise of netbooks running Linux. “What made the cell phone industry in the U.S. in particular take off in the mid-90s was the free phone,” he said.

Carriers, he predicted, can provide Linux-based devices and develop their own app stores. Device makers also can provide these store, like Apple has, Zemlin said.

During his keynote, Zemlin emphasized the use of Linux in multiple types of systems and how Linux was changing the game in operating systems even on the client. “Today, everybody in the modern world uses Linux multiple times a day,” he said, citing examples such as laptops, Google searches, and other systems.

Meanwhile, phones and PC devices are starting to converge, offering a lot of the same functionality, he explained. A PC can be cheaper than a phone, he said.

“If you look at what the iPhone has, it looks pretty similar to that PC,” said Zemlin, comparing the iPhone to a $1,000 ThinkPad PC.

Linux also is benefitting from the down economy, with customers looking to save costs, Zemlin said. It also is overcoming potential legal hurdles with developments such as Microsoft now embracing the GPL, Zemlin said.

via infoworld

The first step of Twitter’s business plan is something called “Twitter 101,” which the company plans to launch either tonight or tomorrow, co-founder Biz Stone revealed at the Fortune Brainstorm Conference in Pasadena this evening. [Update below: The site is now live]

While Stone only gave a brief overview of what it would entail, as the name implies, it sounds like it will basically be a beginners guide for using the service effectively. Something like this is crucial if Twitter is going to convince businesses to sign up en masse. When most people, let alone businesses, look at Twitter for the first time, they still have no idea what they are supposed to do with it. So this guide will be a set of use cases, techniques and best practices, among other tips, to help users get acclimated to the service.

“The level of engagement is less than the level of awareness about it, and we want to change that,” Stone said. Twitter wants to teach people to use the service via these docs. And also get people hooked on trends and searches of their brands, Stone noted.

It’s through businesses using Twitter that the service plans to make money. While there are no plans to ever charge regular people to use it, businesses that are either selling items or providing support to customers through Twitter, are likely to be charged down the road. But Twitter needs to make sure the service is as business-friendly as possible first. Hence, a “Twitter 101″ service.

Again, look for Twitter 101, which we imagine will be some kind of site linked to from the main Twitter site, either later today or tomorrow.

Update: And here it is. As expected, it’s a site that contains documentation for how businesses can best use Twitter (you can also get the documents in PDF form).

Here’s what Stone says on the blog:

We coordinated with business students and writers to surface some interesting findings, best practices, steps for getting started, and case studies. The results demonstrate how customers are getting value out of Twitter and suggest techniques businesses can employ to enhance that value. While this work was envisioned for businesses, it’s also useful for anyone using Twitter so have a look if you like.

The site contains six sections. They are: “What is Twitter”, “Getting started”, “Learn the lingo”, “Best practices”, “Case studies” and “Other resources”.

One thing we noticed is that the site contains links to a new subdomain: business.twitter.com (it looks like a lot of these links have been changed back to twitter.com, but business.twitter.com is there, and it works). It works on and off, but if you put in a brand name, like “bestbuy,” it will redirect to that company’s Twitter page. This would seem to indicate that Twitter may be thinking about hosting its business accounts on this business subdomain. Or perhaps that is how they will allow businesses to access their special accounts (when those eventually launch). It does not appear to work for personal accounts.

Another thing that immediately jumps out about Twitter 101 are the case studies. They come from the likes of Dell, JetBlue, Teusner Wines, Current, Tasti D Lite, CoffeeGroundz, Etsy, NAKEDPizza, America Apparel and Pepsi. They are pretty well done, and show that even early on in Twitter’s lifespan, without much support, companies are having no trouble figuring out how to use the service for business purposes.

Here’s Twitter’s own definition of “tweet”:

Users refer to an individual message as a tweet, as in, “Check out this tweet about our CEO dancing on the sidelines of the Phoenix Suns game.” People sometimes use it as a verb, too, as in, “I tweeted about the stimulus package this morning.” If “tweet” is hard for you to use with a straight face in a business context, try “twittering” as a verb instead. Alternatives include “post,” “message” and “update.”

Here’s how Twitter explains its own name:

Twittering is the sound birds make when they communicate with each other—an apt description of the conversations here. As it turns out, because Twitter provides people with real-time public information, it also helps groups of people mimic the effortless way a flock of birds move in unison. On these pages, we’ll show you a few examples of that powerful Twitter characteristic.

Here’s what Twitter says it can do for businesses:

Twitter is a communications platform that helps businesses and their customers do a number of useful things. As a business, you can use it to quickly share information with people interested in your company, gather real-time market intelligence and feedback, and build relationships with customers, partners and other people who care about your company. As an individual user, you can use Twitter to tell a company (or anyone else) that you’ve had a great–or disappointing–experience with their business, offer product ideas, and learn about great offers.

via TechCrunch

“Our goal is not to build the most computers. It’s to build the best.”

That was Apple COO Tim Cook two days ago during Apple’s quarterly earnings call. Sure, it may sound like spin from an executive who doesn’t have a better answer as to why Apple isn’t competing in the low-end of the market, and thus, gaining market share. But it’s not.

You need look no further than numbers released today by NPD to understand Apple’s strategy. Its revenue share of the “premium” price market — that is, computers over $1,000 — is a staggering 91%. This means that 9 out of every 10 retail dollars that is spent on PCs in that price range, goes to Apple, as Betanews’ Joe Wilcox points out. That, for lack of a better word, is insane.

Analysts and journalists are often quick to point out Apple’s relatively low overall market share (less than 10%). But that completely misses the point of Apple’s Mac business. If Apple wanted to make a range of low-end computers, it absolutely could. And such machines would sell like crazy, boosting Apple’s market share. But there would have to be some trade-off in quality, and perhaps more importantly to Apple, to its high margins. And as it has proven time and time again, it has no desire to give up either.

Instead, Apple is content to keep churning out its high-quality, high-margin machines, and watch the profits roll in. If it happens to gain market share as a byproduct of that, that’s great. You can’t be so naive to think that Apple doesn’t care about that at all, of course it does, but it’s clearly a secondary goal, which most people don’t seem to understand.

It’s a metaphor that’s often used, but a way to think about it is if Windows-based PCs as a whole are thought of as a top selling car like the Toyota Camry, Apple’s Mac computers would be more like a luxury car, like a Porsche. Porsche sales are just a fraction of Camry sales because it does not sell any models in the low-end price range. But at the same time, Porsche makes more money on each car sold and maintains a premium branding. If Porsche started selling cheap cars, it would move a lot more units, but it would no longer be the Porsche brand that we know.

That’s not to say the Camry sucks or that the Porsche is perfect. They’re just two different cars that cater to different markets. And they represent the two different goals that most Windows-based PCs have (market share) versus Apple’s Mac computers (high-end revenue share).

And that’s why Microsoft’s recent Laptop Hunter commercials really never made a lot of sense. Sure, from a marketing perspective, I understand the idea: It’s a down economy, lets play up the fact that our computers are cheaper. But in many of the spots, the shopper’s stated desired computer was simply not something that Apple even made. In the famous first commercial, Lauren wants a laptop with a 17-inch screen for under $1,000. Okay, Apple doesn’t make that product. So of course she’s not going to buy a Mac.

The real point is that people who are shopping for computers where price is the key factor, were never going to buy Macs anyway. They never have. There is a reason Apple still has less than 10% market share. Did Microsoft need to spend millions of dollars on commercials to tell us that?

Instead, those commercials set up a narrative around the bifurcation of the computer-buying public. And today’s NPD numbers are the perfect ending to that story. If you’re a consumer looking for a bargain computer, you’re happy to save money buying a PC. If you’re looking for a premium computer, you’re happy to spend more money buying a Mac.

via TechCrunch

With sheer strength and overwhelming odds on their side, they were frontrunners to win their battles. But Goliath, Apollo Creed, and whoever lost to the “Mighty Ducks” have one thing in common: sloppiness late in the game. The same can be said of America’s telecom giants.

As the FCC crafts the first-ever national broadband plan, and with $7.2 billion in stimulus funds for broadband expansion on the line, the massive phone and cable companies are falling over themselves to defend the embarrassing state of Internet access in America. The agency’s public comment period closed this week.

On Monday, Blair Levin – the FCC’s broadband czar – expressed disappointment at the industry’s official comments, citing a general “sloppiness of thinking” and a tireless stream of “get-mine-first” proposals.

But just like a real-life team of “MythBusters,” Free Press countered the industry’s drivel this week with a data-driven reply that took apart many of its more absurd and deceptive arguments.

Free Press’ reply provides evidence that the telecom giants Comcast, AT&T and Verizon want a “do-nothing” plan, which would leave consumers where we’re at now: ranked 14th in speed, 20th in penetration, and 22nd in price, with a duopoly broadband market to thank for it. Although broadband has become an economic, democratic and cultural necessity, 40 percent of Americans cannot afford high-speed Internet or live in areas without service.

I’ll outline some myth-busting highlights here (although I encourage you to check out our 62-page report):

Industry Myth #1: Deregulation promotes investment and the spread of the Internet.

Reality: AT&T and its cronies are quick to brag about how much they’re investing in their networks, and how any regulation would deter further investment.. However, the data has shown that regulation designed to prevent abuses of market power encourages investment.

For example, the FCC applied a Net Neutrality condition to the 2006 AT&T/Bell South merger, forcing the company to adhere to openness for two years. Gross capital investment increased immediately following the imposition of the Net Neutrality merger condition, and continued to rise after that. Only with the neutrality condition sunsetting in 2008 do we see a sharp decrease in investment. In fact, the current deregulated market has seen network disinvestment industry-wide for several years. For more data and examples, see Section A of the reply.

Myth #2: We have a competitive broadband market.

Reality: Providers cling to their widely discredited and misleading talking points on competition. They claim that the market is competitive enough to lower prices and spread broadband due to “third pipe” competitors on platforms like mobile broadband (not phone or cable competitors, however). However, the reality is that mobile broadband – the most viable alternative – is slow, expensive and dominated by the telecom incumbents. For more, see Section B of the reply.

Myth #3: Net Neutrality will doom the Internet.

Reality: AT&T, Verizon and Comcast want to become the Internet’s gatekeepers and crush Net Neutrality. Without Net Neutrality, online content can be sped up, slowed down or made unloadable depending on which companies or sites can pay to play, and results in massive telecom profits.

Contrary to the claims of the telecoms, preserving the open Internet will not result in its complete collapse. Internet traffic is not spiraling out of control; prices for the equipment to expand networks continue to fall, and the evidence shows that an open Internet and reasonable network management can coexist.

The value of openness in promoting online investment and growth was recently acknowledged by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration – the agency in charge of over half of the $7.2 billion for broadband – which attached strong openness rules as a condition of receiving any of the funds. For more, see Section C of the reply.

So why are the telecom giants recycling tired, old calls for less oversight and making dishonest claims of increased investment and meaningful competition? Profit, pure and simple. But to spread open and affordable Internet to all Americans, we must recognize their misinformation, and encourage the FCC to act in the public’s interest and alongside the thousands of you who wrote to the agency in support of Net Neutrality.

via savetheinternet.com