The company didn’t provide clarification on whether this is for free apps only, or if it applies to paid apps, how that might work. If paid apps are removed from customers’ devices then a reasonable assumption would be that refunds would be issued. We should also make it clear that this is not a likely scenario — hopefully, Microsoft will be diligent in the approval phase to keep such apps out of the store to begin with. It does hint at an example like the Kindle situation, where companies feel justified in deleting content from customer devices. It’s a wireless world we live in, after all.

My email is pure Gmail, so the outage affected me like all the other Gmail users. My email went down, stayed down for a while, and then came back up just like yours. Did I panic? No, I knew it would come back, and pretty soon at that. Did the lack of email kill off my productivity? Nope. I just worked on other things.

Let’s face it, email is hosted on servers, whether Google’s or someone else’s. And servers go down from time to time. It’s a fact of life — nothing runs forever. Sure we can jump up and down and scream at Google, but why? I knew Gmail would come back and sure enough it did.

I heard all kinds of complaints when Gmail went down. People saying that email service X would never go down like that. Or others saying that Google OWED us to keep Gmail up and running. Give me a break, stuff happens. When I was in the corporate world it was oh, so common to hear employees at some large company or another wandering down the halls claiming that “email is down again.” And this the fancy corporate Exchange Server that only has to keep their own employees working. Stuff happens.

I had my own hosted Exchange Server for a long time and while it rarely went down, sometimes it did. The fact is that email servers are on the web and sometimes access to the server (or the web) is cut off. Stuff happens and we just have to get over it.

Qualcomm Inc. as well as Qualcomm CDMA “are not authorized to use without approval of the Smartbook AG the character sequence ‘Smartbook’ in all notations in association with mobile computers — such as laptops (notebooks) — in the context of business communications expressed in technically retrievable Internet offers in the area of the Federal Republic of Germany without providing information that in the region of the Federal Republic of Germany any usage of the sign ‘Smartbook’ in association with mobile computers is exclusively reserved to the SMARTBOOK AG.”

According to this resolution, the fine applies — alternatively an arrest for contempt of court — in the case of a non-compliance.

“Internet sites of the Qualcomm Inc. such as www.hellosmartbook.com and Internet sites of the German branch office Qualcomm CDMA GmbH, which refer to the U.S. web site of the Qualcomm Inc., were already blocked for users with a German IP address,” according to Dirk Pick, CEO of Smartbook AG.

“We are confronted with an almost absurd but at the same time bold attack against our brand name. It is Qualcomm who forced us to implement defensive measures. We will protect our brand.”

Qualcomm is a maker of the chips used in smartphones and has recently been pushing the “smartphone” concept, a small netbook-like device that runs the processors that the company produces. Smartbooks are touted as connected notebooks that bridge the gap between a smartphone and notebook computer. The press release does not state exactly when Qualcomm web sites were blocked for those with a German IP address.

Smartbook AG is not a company that we have run across before this trademark situation, but from its web site says it sells traditional notebook computers.

(Photograph courtesy of Qualcomm)

The company is Smartbook and I suspect they went after Sascha as he is German and netbooknews.de is a German language blog covering netbooks. The tactic is similar to the one used by Psion in their trademark fight over the “netbook” term. Psion’s fight went on to include Intel and Dell and was eventually settled out of court.

I feel for Sascha and urge him to hold on. The company is trying to bully him to get publicity for their cause. I suspect they will eventually go after Qualcomm and other companies actively promoting the smartbook name.

We’re not talking about disabling it by default, no, Sony has deemed it wise to make it impossible to ever run VT on VAIO laptops. When will companies learn that customers do not want functions disabled on purchased products, especially expensive ones? In response to the building uproar, Sony is now backing down slightly and stating that they will enable VT on “select” VAIO models in the future, although they are not elaborating on which ones. It’s just one other thing to check into before buying that new notebook. Sheesh.

(via CNET)

Image courtesy adotjdotsmith

The human body doesn’t like it when we do things repetitively. That’s why the number of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome cases has increased with the computer age. We often hear of other afflictions caused by “technology abuse,” the latest that doctors are reporting being Texting Teen Tendonitis. This is a new syndrome caused by teens who are texting a lot, often for hours a day. The affliction affects the back, neck, arms and of course, the thumbs. Symptoms include pain in all of the above, along with numbness of the thumbs.

We hear of teens who set records for texting, and we adults think how crazy those kids must be. The fact is, parents rarely have a real idea just how many text messages their kids are sending and receiving each day. It is a lot more common than adults are comfortable thinking about, but many teens are texting hundreds of messages daily. The wise parent got an unlimited texting plan long ago for their kid, and that has let teens go wild. This is why Texting Teen Tendonitis is being diagnosed more often. Hey it must be, it’s got its own syndrome name.

Think you own that digital content on your Amazon Kindle, or any other device, for that matter? Think again. Although it appears we follow a “buy to keep” business model, consumers ultimately license most digital content. Not too many years ago, this wasn’t much of a problem because most media was physical — CDs, DVDs, printed books, etc…

Today, it’s a digital world which presents unique problems. Problems like the one that David Pogue shares today at the New York Times:

“This morning, hundreds of Amazon Kindle owners awoke to discover that books by a certain famous author had mysteriously disappeared from their e-book readers. These were books that they had bought and paid for—thought they owned.

But no, apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic edition, and apparently Amazon, whose business lives and dies by publisher happiness, caved. It electronically deleted all books by this author from people’s Kindles and credited their accounts for the price.”

Although Amazon certainly did the right thing by crediting back the purchase price, what kind of precedent does this set for the future? Can you imagine if this same thing happened with digital files like your music, software, or videos? This situation also shines the ugly spotlight on DRM in general. Had the content not been locked into Amazon’s infrastructure, customers could have maintained control with a backup copy. In reality though, we’re just renting what digital content providers allow us to.

One of our readers tells me via email that his Kindle was hit with this content removal. I feel badly for him and for anyone else that lost their rights to the digital content. Ironically, the content in question was none other than “1984″ and “Animal Farm” from George Orwell. Talk about “big brother” — rather fitting in this case, no?

Dear Verizon,

You are in this business to make money, I understand that. You are responsible to your shareholders to provide the best return possible, and you are obligated to find revenue streams toward that goal. I would like to exhort you to find streams that are in line with your core business, and not at the sole expense of your customers. Without your customers, you will fail. It makes no sense to take things from the customer that you have no business taking. I am referring to the GPS functionality of the smartphones that you sell.

Integrating GPS into smartphones makes sense on many levels. The ability for customers to have a full GPS unit contained in a smartphone is a big benefit to them. This benefit is the reason that handset makers are including GPS functionality in the phones in the first place. Smartphones are carried everywhere by your customers, and it makes perfect sense for them to leverage the functionality of the integrated GPS hardware. So please stop disabling this functionality.

Why do you release phones on your network that have sophisticated GPS hardware, yet you disable it so the customer cannot use it to its full potential? Sure, you always allow it to be used with your own navigation service, but other solutions are blocked from doing so. Even solutions that are included on the smartphones by the manufacturer, for example BlackBerry Maps by RIM, are routinely blocked by you so they cannot be used as intended. The only party hurt by this blockage is your own customer.

We can only make the assumption that you block the use of the GPS hardware by third-party providers in order to promote the use of your own subscription service. I understand your job is to derive as much revenue from subscribers as possible, but to do so by disabling functionality of the phones you sell is a big disadvantage to your customer. You are playing games with your customers, and this practice needs to stop.

The practice has been repeated with many smartphones released on the Verizon network, and it goes like this: A phone with integrated GPS hardware is released by Verizon. Customers buy it, only to discover that the GPS hardware cannot be used as expected. These customers sound off in user forums on the web, and Verizon’s reputation is harmed as a result. Months pass, and eventually Verizon makes an announcement that Smartphone X is now being opened to allow the GPS hardware to be used for solutions besides Verizon’s subscription service. Customers rejoice, but they remember how long they were denied the ability to use the handset as its maker intended. And they do remember, believe me.

This is not an isolated practice; it has happened over and over again, affecting numerous smartphones. The first smartphone affected was the BlackBerry 8830, and customers were so annoyed that a class action lawsuit was filed. Sure, the lawsuit was about the way the phone was pitched to prospective customers, but a suit filed by your own customers cannot ever be a good thing for your business.

As I’ve said, this ridiculous practice has been repeated too many times, the most recent being your announcement that you were going to allow your customers who bought the Samsung Omnia smartphone to fully use the hardware as intended by Samsung. If you believe that you come off as a good guy by once again removing the arbitrary restriction that you, and you alone, put in place, then I can tell you that is not the case. You come off looking as petty, and willing to gain at your customers’ expense. As I said before, customers remember. Make no mistake about that.

I fully understand that it is your network, and you have every right to disable hardware functionality on any phone. Your right to do so is not in question. The logic of doing so, however, is greatly in question. I am confident you would state that your constant disabling of GPS functionality (non-Verizon) is a matter of network security. That is usually your excuse for not allowing customers to do things they want to do. But in this instance I don’t buy into the security excuse. The programs and services you end up blocking are the same ones you eventually approve on every single device you restrict.

Thanks for hearing me out about this issue. Please stop disabling GPS in the smartphones you sell. We customers pay for the phone, we pay for the service, and we demand the ability to use them both to their full advantage.

Sincerely,

James Kendrick

jkontherun.com

Let’s think about this for a second. Folks who would likely want, need or use such a feature probably already have an idea of what 3G data plans do or should cost.

Sure there are bound to be some folks that aren’t aware of their other 3G options, so they might be out of the loop somewhat. But most potential users of an Internet Tethering plan know what Internet Tethering actually is. More importantly, they know they’re already paying for that 3G data plan as part of their monthly iPhone cost. In which case: $55 is way more than the average customer will be willing to bear. It’s also more than what the current market demands for such a service. You can already find tethering options in the $20-$30 a month range from the carriers. What’s going to make AT&T’s alleged $55 plan worth paying double for?

Aside from my thoughts on the matter, AT&T has already chimed in. They’ve debunked the $55 extra claim as far as I’m concerned with this quote from their Facebook page:

“There are a lot of reports out there, but wanted you guys to know that rumors of $55 tethering plan on top of an unlimited data plan are false. We’ll have more news to share when the iPhone tethering option is closer to launch.”

What’s far more likely is the same $20-$30 price point to tether your iPhone as a modem on AT&T’s network. Tom Reestman, writing for TheAppleBlog, makes a good point with this tweet on the topic:

“I think the figure likely includes the $30 unlimited data, so “terhering” itself is just $25-30.”

I’d agree with Tom and perhaps that’s where the $55 figure is coming from. If the iPhone data plan is $30, an additional $25 for tethering adds up to $55 total, not $55 extra.

Rick Huizinga tweeted an approach that jives with what Matt Miller said just today on our podcast:

“I hope AT&T makes tethering pay-as-you-go, metered by how much bandwidth you use.”

If we can’t have free tethering, then this is the next best way to go. In my case, I only need the 3G access from time to time, which is why I’m likely to kill my $60 monthly EVDO plan. Occasional use is what I’m looking for and I’d hate to pay for a monthly service that I only need a few days a month.

The shame of the entire situation applies to any carrier that charges extra to tether a 3G phone for modem use. The data usage takes place the same whether directly on the phone or indirectly on a tethered notebook or netbook. It’s the same pipe and shouldn’t be charged for twice simply because it’s used across two devices.

In his review of the iPhone 3.0 software on PCMag.com, I noticed this tidbit about using the very same Altec Lansing’s on an iPhone 3G with the latest firmware:

“One new feature, stereo Bluetooth, bombs. Music on our Altec Lansing BackBeat headphones was so full of hisses and distortion it was laughable—almost as if Apple was saying, “This is why we hate stereo Bluetooth.” The headphones weren’t the problem, as the same music files sounded much better on a BlackBerry Storm.”

On the other hand, James is thoroughly enjoying the new AD2P support using his Plantronics Pulsar 590E headphones. So what gives?

If I were in the market for pair of Bluetooth stereo headphones, I think I’d be looking for reviews and tests of it with my particular handset. I wouldn’t think that different combinations would produce different results, since A2DP is profile of a wireless specification, but obviously there’s some hiss-tory of differing results.

Yep, that’s it. It’s time for Palm and Sprint to fire the PR firm they are using for the Pre launch.

A recent report (PDF) by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) points out that the U.S.-run GPS system responsible for providing worldwide GPS services is so far behind schedule that services may begin dying as early as 2010. This decay of service could have far-reaching implications for both the military and civilian sectors.

We think very little about the GPS system and how it works because it is “just there.” The proliferation of cheap GPS devices has pushed this technology into the mainstream and as usually happens with such a push,we stop thinking about the technology behind it and simply expect it to work. We’ve seen this with radio, TV and cellular phones.

GPS service requires a “constellation” of satellites to be in orbit in order to provide the coverage needed to maintain viability of the GPS net. Satellites have a limited lifespan, which requires replacement satellites to be launched continually to maintain the status quo as older satellites die. This has not happened, according to the report.

It is uncertain whether the Air Force will be able to acquire new satellites in time to maintain current GPS service without interruption.  If not, some military operations and some civilian users could be adversely affected.

It’s frightening to think of the GPS satellite system failing to provide the service we have come to take for granted, and further digging into the GAO report makes it even more so:

Based on the most recent satellite reliability and launch schedule data approved in March 2009, the estimated long-term probability of maintaining a constellation of at least 24 operational satellites falls below 95 percent during fiscal year 2010 and remains below 95 percent until the end of fiscal year 2014, at times falling to about 80 percent.

This statement becomes very real when you look at their timeline for predicted lack of coverage:

The impact of a loss of GPS coverage would be widespread and the report details just the major services likely to be affected. Intercontinental commercial flights may have to delay, cancel or reroute their flights due to the lack of accurate GPS coverage. The enhanced 911 service that uses GPS to pinpoint callers on cell phones would become less accurate, meaning that emergency workers would not know exactly where you are when you need help the most.

Given the impact on crucial services that the report covers it’s a safe bet that making sure your iPhone knows where you are won’t be high on anyone’s list. LBS services would likely take the first hit with a GPS degradation and that TomTom in your car likely won’t work very well, either. The GAO is basically telling the U.S. government to get its act together in regards to this situation, and soon.

(Thanks to the Register for pointing to this report)

I had to read that part twice, how they are being sued because they didn’t warn about a risk that might not exist. That’s what it says and that’s what it means. Can you say frivolous lawsuit? I knew you could. This is what’s wrong with this system in the U.S. Why bring a class-action suit like this in the first place?  The answer is money. Millions of dollars are being pursued from these big, bad companies and all under the guise of trying to protect us, the unknowing public.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not railing against the ability to take recourse against companies that wrong us as consumers. It’s important that we have an avenue for redressing wrongs. I’m no legal expert, but from all that I’ve seen of these class-action suits, I can’t say I’ve ever seen any consumer get fairly represented when the redressing takes place. It seems to me only the lawyers involved get any redressing. And they deserve it; you can never have enough Armani suits.

This becomes glaringly obvious when you read through the aforementioned document above. The defendants in the suit “deny their Bluetooth headsets are unsafe or that they did anything wrong. Defendants are settling only to avoid the risk and expense of trial.” In other words, the law firms representing you and I bullied these companies into accepting a class-action settlement to keep their potential risk as small as possible. This is how class-action suits work and what’s wrong with them.

If my best interests are being served by those who brought this class-action suit against these companies, what does this settlement mean for me and the other millions who bought headsets? Nothing, it turns out.

“It is not practical or economical to provide benefits directly to individual Class Members because the Class is very large and the amount each Class Member would receive is very small. Therefore, the Class Representative, the attorneys for the Class, and the Defendants agree that the cost of distributing any kind of benefit directly to Class Members would consume too much of the Proposed Settlement benefits. Instead, they believe that providing funding to non-profit organizations that focus on preventing hearing loss will indirectly benefit all Class Members”.

In other words, there are too many of us consumers, so we wouldn’t get much anyway.  That’s the reason for the part of the settlement that “will donate $100,000 to one or more non-profit organizations that focus on preventing hearing loss.”  This sounds like a drop in the bucket to me but a brilliant strategy, because who among us can complain about a lawsuit that gives part of the settlement to charity?

The full settlement agreement shows the real purpose behind this (and many) class-action lawsuits.  In addition to the $100,000 generously donated to several charities the proposed settlement will pay this:

Class Counsel will ask the court for up to $800,000 in attorneys’ fees and up to $38,000 for reimbursement of documented expenses.  Class Counsel will also request up to $12,000 total for the Class Representatives, who helped the lawyers on behalf of the whole Class.  The Court may award less than these amounts.  Defendants will separately pay the fees and expenses the Court orders.  These payments will not reduce the amount Defendants will donate to charity.

Defendants will also separately pay the costs to provide notice to the Class and administer the Proposed Settlement, up to $1.2 million.  If those costs are less than $1.2 million, Class Counsel may request reimbursement for additional documented expenses up to $12,000, which Defendants will pay upon approval by the Court.

It’s easy to see where the money will really go and who gets it — the law firms working in our best interests. No doubt the ultimate take will be in excess of $2 million as evidenced by these documents and what is really going on. To recap, the aggrieved parties (us) get nothing, a charity gets a pittance and the seven law firms handling the suit get a few million bucks. Sounds fair to me.

I win as a consumer in this suit because my best interests are being looked after. When I buy a Bluetooth headset in the future there will no doubt be a sticker on the box warning me that if I keep the volume too high I risk my hearing. That’s a big win for me. I am consumer, hear me roar.

The entire Windows Update process resulted in 5 reboots and took almost 3.5 hours. That is ridiculous in and of itself, but watching it closely (something you have to do as it requires user input at inopportune moments) really got me steamed, as I realized that Microsoft could easily fix this stupid process.

How can Microsoft make this more bearable for the end-user? Simple. Watching the update process made it clear that Microsoft supplied the OEM with Windows XP SP1. A large part of the update process was downloading and installing SP2, which has been out for years. The next pass of Windows Update then downloaded and installed SP3, which has also been out forever. Why the hell is Microsoft not supplying OEMs with the latest SP slipstreamed in the build image?

My fury didn’t end there, no siree. The update process also duly downloaded and installed .NET Framework 1.0. Then 1.1.  Then 1.5. That is absolutely stupid on any level. Then came the core Microsoft applications that had to be “updated.”  You may not believe it, but the update process had to download and install Internet Explorer 7, yes, that’s right 7, which is not even the current version available. Windows XP is still shipping with IE6 in the OEM image. Incredible.

That’s still not all. The update process had to download and install Windows Media Player 11 because the build image only contained WM9. Yes, version 9 even though WM11 has been out for a very long time.

Of course, once all of these “updates” were duly installed, then all of the security updates for each of them had to go through the same loop. I found myself getting more and more ticked off as this inane process dragged on.

I know that I’m going to start hearing that this isn’t even the latest version of Windows, like that’s a good excuse for Microsoft. Give me a break, Microsoft is still happy to sell XP to OEMs (and thus the consumer), so that’s no excuse for lousy support. All Microsoft has to do to end this stupid situation is to roll any update or upgrade that is distributed via Windows Update that is over six months old into the image provided to OEMs. That’s all it would take to end this goofy situation, and there will never be an excuse to not do this that I will accept. Take responsibility for your product, Microsoft.

I’m sure I’ll also hear that a lot of these updates are security related in nature and thus not Microsoft’s fault. I understand that, but I don’t care. As a consumer, I just want my stuff to work as easily out of the box as possible. As far as I’m concerned Microsoft could easily go a long way toward providing that experience if they would just do it.

OK, rant mode off, at least for now.

Yep, that netbook he’s advocating giving their loyal readers is none other than the only trademarked netbook, the Psion netBook. Someone better tell this guy it is almost 10-year-old technology.  :)

(Thanks to Scott Carmichael for sending this in!)

This suit seems to be in response to the appearance of the Kindle for iPhone app in the Apple App Store, as other e-book reader apps have been available on the iPhone for a while. The iPhone is hardly the first mobile device with the ability to read e-books as I have been reading them since the Palm VX in 1999. This suit will surely not stand but it’s aggravating to see these types of hassles simply designed to try to extract money out of the deepest pocket.

(via AppleInsider)