Phone, Tablet and Gizmo Thread #0x02

[Anujan]

Intel is the best bet. If they are able to integrate LTE. Sammy just recently got an architectural license for arm also acquired a wireless silicon company I believe. So let's see.

[Singha]

Snapdragon seems to have scored 100% on the next lines of coming high end phones.
Microtek has locked on the mid range so called dual and quad core janata mercedes phones.

Not much haleem and biryani left for intel, nvidia....

In india, intel comes on xolo phones...and who else? Its a sea of microteks and snapdragons...

[Raja Bose]

How is this anti trust? Anti trust applies only if you use your monopoly in one area to acquire monopoly in another.

Not quite. It also applies if you use your monopoly for uncompetitive and/or discriminatory business practices.

When I referred to browser wars here, I am not talking about the original case where Mickey prevented other browsers from running on Windows but the more recent one where Mickey was asked to open up private APIs which IE used but were not available to other browsers such as Chrome or Firefox. Those private APIs were not necessary for building a browser on Windows but it was successfully argued that not having access to those would make rival browser offerings on Windows uncompetitive in terms of UX. Same argument can be made here for YouTube and Chacha's blocking of a native YouTube app on WP.

1. Does YouTube have monopoly in video?

The even more relevant question is does YouTube have monopoly in video on mobile. Answer is yes. Monopoly does not mean you own 100% of the market - in which case there are no monopolies in this industry!

2. Does not having YouTube on WP favor android given that it exists for iOS too?

That's where the uncompetitive and/or discriminatory business practices part comes into play, especially the latter. Moreover, Chacha's requirements for YouTube apps on WP are different from Android or iOS (Clicky). And on top of that they have been selectively enforced for Mickey's own app onlee and not on the other 2 dozen odd native YouTube apps which already are on WP.

That way M$ can also be sued for antitrust for not having office on android or fruitco for not having icloud or iTunes for android and iOS.

If Mickey were to do the equivalent of what Chacha is doing with YouTube on WP, then it would have to make the office document formats closed source and would have to insist that you can open office documents thru the browser onlee using Office Webapps or Office365 rather than thru say, OpenOffice or only provide partial information on the document formats/capabilities to ensure other office suites cannot provide a competitive UX even if they wanted to. These anti-trust issues are one of the primary reasons why the Office document formats are open and public.

[Mort Walker]

^^^I'd love to jump in, but I've got to work today.

[Raja Bose]

^^^I will test my BRF withdrawal symptoms during the weekend - off to Crater Lake for hiking.

[Raja Bose]

I wonder why no about the requirement to create a Google+ account to access even old albums on Picasa (requiring it for creating new ones while stinking of Gundotra sleaze, is still understandable)? That's like holding customer data hostage unless there is a known method to download one's old albums from Picasa using one's regular gmail login, without requiring a Google+ account?

Anti-trust and other laws dealing with uncompetitive business practices are quite fascinating and really provide an insight into where things are headed in terms of product offerings. CDs are already going the way of floppies and standalone software products are giving way to the subscription model so a software product is no longer a tangible product you pay money for and own in absolute terms (like a car or a refrigerator) but is becoming more like a utility you have to subscribe to (electricity, water, cable).

[Mort Walker]

^^^Wait a minute, was the YouTube app actually approved by GOOG when it wasn't HTML5 compliant? Seems like MSFT is crying about nothing and I don't trust MSFT when they run all of those "scroogled" ads. Daal meh kuch kala hai.

[Raja Bose]

^^^Chacha requires WP app to be an HTML5 one before giving approval but doesn't require that for other platforms. Daal mein kuch kala nahin hai, its good ol' leverage and the reasoning that 'they own XYZ hence can do whatever they want' doesn't fly coz there is ample precedence in court rulings against such acts (that is why you have laws for anti-trust/anti-competitive business practices). Thats the price one pays for having a wildly successful platform or service.

I don't trust any corporation whether Mickey or Chacha or others in the true sense of the word trust, period. They are all for-profit publicly traded corporations, do no evil/pro-consumer PR is BS to bamboozle those soft in the head (such as Berkeley hippies). Their main motive is to make profit, everything else is secondary.

[Mort Walker]

^^^Arre, jab Windows is suppose to be seamless across mobile and desktop, then why HTML5 requirement not logical? MSFT can't have their cake and eat it too.

You are right about not trusting any big corporation, but Uncle Fester & MSFT have gone out of their way to criticize GOOG. Its very nasty if you ask me. Even AAPL hasn't been that way to Sammy.

[Raja Bose]

^^^Its not a question of logic. Its a legal question of imposing requirements in a biased manner. Let Mickey try imposing a similar requirement for Windows apps - they will get hauled to court (they have already been in the past).

You are right about not trusting any big corporation, but Uncle Fester & MSFT have gone out of their way to criticize GOOG. Its very nasty if you ask me. Even AAPL hasn't been that way to Sammy.

What do you think has been happening in the courts here?

Chacha and Mickey are not exactly friends and neither have been very nice to each other - extremists on both sides onlee, equal-equal. And its business so saying XYZ has been mean to me so I get to beat them on the head doesn't fly either unless one manages to beat the other on the head and make it seem like they are exchanging a loving kiss - now that's being chankian.

[Anujan]

I still cannot grok the point you are getting at. "Access to service backend through a native app else antitrust" seems to be a bit of a stretch? Have you thought through it carefully?

Consider two scenarios: Gmail can be accessed from all platforms on the web. In addition chacha has native apps for android and iOS. Last I looked there was no native app for WP. But you can make any IMAP client so all is well. However threaded messaging, fast account switching and sectioned inboxes are not supported over IMAP.

Google search can be accessed though any platform through the web. It can be accessed through a native app on android and iOS. Imagine there is no native app for windows phone. (A) is Google required to disclose APIs used by the front end to submit queries to the search back end (B) is Google required to roll out a native app?

YouTube Is accessible on the browser on all platforms. There is native app for iOS and android. None for WP. (1) Should Google disclose APIs used to connect to back end (2) is Google required to develop a native app for all platforms?

The examples are many. Google maps: browser for all platforms, native app for few. Google music: browser for all platforms, native app for few.

The requirement that APIs for services be disclosed is something I have not heard of before. Are you sure it makes sense?

[Mort Walker]

Wait a minute. MSFT agreed to GOOGs conditions in May 2013 to present the YouTube app as GOOG requested it. Instead MSFT did a half-ass job and thought if it released YouTube with ads, which was only one part of the deal, then GOOG would look the other way. GOOG wanted MSFT to code the app to be in HTML5 because it is Windows. Now, MSFT being a paki cries about GOOG being unfair to them. Why did they agree to this back in May, why not have complained then and threaten to take it to the courts? MSFT is simply playing this in the public opinion court and trying to get sympathy from the uninformed, and to make GOOG look bad. Just like another iteration of the "scroogled" campaign and uncle Fester throwing chairs and threatening to f**king kill GOOG.

AAPL has always been civil to Sammy. Yes, it did take them to court, but personal nastiness didn't come out in the open - privately is another matter. The Mahdi hated Android and said he would do TNW to destroy it, but he never publicly cursed to GOOG or start anti-GOOG campaigns like "scroogled".

On another note, I saw rumors of a Nokia tablet running Windows. It looks promising, but will compete with the Surface. I get the feeling MSFT will try to screw Nokia up now.

[Raja Bose]

I still cannot grok the point you are getting at. "Access to service backend through a native app else antitrust" seems to be a bit of a stretch? Have you thought through it carefully?

The question is not whether to give native access or not - that is specific to this case. The question is whether preventing access through native app results in UX which is not as competitive as access thru native app. If it is, then you bet there is a case there and a legal precedence. Comparing with gmail/maps/some other service is moot becoz the exact access required (native/non-native, thru ABC protocol vs XYZ protocol etc.) is specific to this case and may not apply in other cases.

Services are now becoming what apps used to be before so the laws will now target services - that is what I was talking about when I mentioned how the traditional app model is moving to a subscription/service one.

GOOG wanted MSFT to code the app to be in HTML5 because it is Windows.

Umm....exactly why?

AAPL has always been civil to Sammy. Yes, it did take them to court, but personal nastiness didn't come out in the open - privately is another matter. The Mahdi hated Android and said he would do TNW to destroy it, but he never publicly cursed to GOOG or start anti-GOOG campaigns like "scroogled".

Tau ji, its all business, not personal - these are corporations, not people. Even with Mahdi (who got somewhat personal) and more so with Mickey. Cursing and all that BS does no real damage but getting hauled to court and flogged does real damage, not just financially (which is usually peanuts for large corporations) but it builds up a legal precedence for future cases and makes it easier to flog the same horse in the future. Like I said it business so real damage is the one done civilly in courts with sooted-booted lawyers in tow, rather than the ones done thru histrionics or monkey dance antics. Unless you think getting called maa-behen ki gaali is somehow more painful than getting one's b@lls squeezed.

On another note, I saw rumors of a Nokia tablet running Windows. It looks promising, but will compete with the Surface. I get the feeling MSFT will try to screw Nokia up now.

Umm...if Mickey didn't want Nokia to build a Windows tablet, it would simply not give them access - Windows is a closed source platform, remember? They don't need to screw Nokia for that like you are describing. Itna bhi tin-foil hat mat pehno tau.

[Anujan]

The question is not whether to give native access or not - that is specific to this case. The question is whether preventing access through native app results in UX which is not as competitive as access thru native app. If it is, then you bet there is a case there and a legal precedence. Comparing with gmail/maps/some other service is moot becoz the exact access required (native/non-native, thru ABC protocol vs XYZ protocol etc.) is specific to this case and may not apply in other cases.

Services are now becoming what apps used to be before so the laws will now target services - that is what I was talking about when I mentioned how the traditional app model is moving to a subscription/service one.

That is a super bizarre stretch of an argument.

There are two things: (1) What does it mean to be open and (2) Questions like anti-trust. Lets handle the second first: What I was getting at, is if someone feeling bad about something equates anti-trust. Anti-trust has a very definite interpretation and very strict requirement.

1. You should first establish that youtube is a monopoly. In something. You should establish that there is a cost for switching out of youtube. "I'd like to watch youtube and now I cant" is hard to establish on two grounds: (a) You can still watch youtube (b) Not sure what the "cost" is here -- by analogy, I can claim that I would like to watch "house of cards" but cant if I stopped my netflix subscription.

2. Then you should establish that youtube is a reason people switch to android. Well not sure that will fly either -- you can watch youtube with same (or even better) UX on iOS too.

The reason that anti-trust is hard is because there are several things (that you might think is bone headed) which are perfectly valid. For example, it is valid for a cable provider to offer a discount in internet service if you subscribe to their cable TV. It is costlier for someone to get cable TV from one provider and internet from another -- that doesnt equate antitrust. It is valid for someone to offer value-additions to their service, which is not available otherwise. Apple offers iTunes player for iOS, but not for android. There is no way to access iCloud docs using native apps on android -- that doesnt equate antitrust.

Arguing intangibles like "degraded UX and ergo anti-trust" is a bit of a stretch.

Now coming to (1) nobody should mistake this for what it is. It is a pissing contest. Fighting M$ on this is like wrestling with a pig -- they have no consumer brand equity to talk about and the fight will only damage Google's brand. Atleast for that case, I wish youtube issue is settled amicably.

[Anujan]

The mistake most people make is to assume that companies have an obligation to make their products and services available on all platforms. This need not be the case due to technical and non-technical reasons. Google drive isnt available for linux (the fileuploader/sync part). Probably the marketshare was not worth the effort -- this is a non technical reason. Netflix until recently (not sure what the status is now) wasnt available for Linux -- this is because their DRM wasnt implemented in Linux -- they have a contractual obligation with movie studios to offer their library only with accompanying DRM -- this is a technical reason.

So if you build a new OS and dont get Google drive or Netflix on it, it doesnt equate anti-trust.

Secondly, it is a fallacy to assume that all companies should allow third parties to build apps interfacing with their products and services. Here again the reasons could be technical or non-technical. FruitCo for example built the Google maps and youtube that used to exist in iOS before iOS 6 came out. They were concerned about UX (these were highlighted apps during launch and preceded the app store and opening up to third party developers). One of the objections that chacha had about the previous WP youtube app was branding. You cannot randomly use the youtube name and logo on an app not developed by youtube. Youtube owns the trademark to their brand.

Coming to anti-trust issues: M$ got into trouble partly because of being a d1ck. If you think about it, no modern OS can ship without a browser -- iOS and android came with a browser. Browser is deemed to be essential to any operating system -- M$ could have successfully argued its case based on merit. This is not what got them into trouble.

Billy G sat in court, refused to answer most questions and argued about the meaning of "ask" and "we" (this is true). They also had numerous memos and emails declaring they wanted to kill netscape. On top of that M$ wrote an email to Netscape offering to divide up the market for browsers with Netscape with Billy G making a vague threat along the lines of "I hope you are not hoping to make money selling a browser because soon everyone will be bundling browsers for free". On top of that they threatened to yank NT support for Alpha if Compaq offered alternative operating systems on their desktops. They threatened to cutoff OEM pricing for windows if Dell offered Linux as a choice. This more than anything else is what got them into trouble.

OTOH look at where they *did not* get into trouble. They purposely broke the APIs used by wordperfect and did not release newer APIs for them in Windows 95. They gave access to their internal teams first so they had a better version Word ready before wordperfect and Novell had to wait till windows 95 was released and corresponding visual studio was released and used documented APIs and produced wordperfect late. M$ actually won that case with the judge stating that M$ was a d1ck, actually ruling that M$ engaged in aggressive conduct with an intent to monopolize the applications market, but under anti-trust laws they did nothing wrong. When preventing access to APIs to third parties at the same time as their own developers and breaking compatibility APIs of third parties is ruled "aggressive but legal" arguing that "degraded UX" is anti-trust is a bit of a stretch.

Anti-trust is not nicely cut and dried as "I want your service on my platform, if you dont offer it, I will yell anti-trust"

[Raja Bose]

That is a super bizarre stretch of an argument.

There are two things: (1) What does it mean to be open and (2) Questions like anti-trust. Lets handle the second first: What I was getting at, is if someone feeling bad about something equates anti-trust. Anti-trust has a very definite interpretation and very strict requirement.

Again you are making the mistake of ignoring the anti-competitive business practices aspect of anti-trust lawsuits. It may be a bizarre stretch of an argument to you..but its one with legal precedence so guess what happens when something like that is brought to court? After all it hardly matters what you or I think....it matters more what the courts have already ruled.

There is no way to access iCloud docs using native apps on android -- that doesnt equate antitrust.

It would, if iCloud were the dominant service in its category and it were deemed uncompetitive to prevent access. In fact if Mickey's Office document formats were not open sourced, Chacha would have grounds to bring anti-trust lawsuits against them and I am sure would have (the whole why no MS Office for Android question that you asked earlier?). Anti-trust and related cases are not about preventing access in general, it is about preventing access with the intention to create an uncompetitive environment. One factor which plays a lot in these cases is, whether the request for access is reasonable and whether the owner is blocking access unreasonably.

Arguing intangibles like "degraded UX and ergo anti-trust" is a bit of a stretch.

Actually this is the exact argument Chacha successfully made in the browser APIs case in court - can't be a bit of a stretch then can it? Don't make the mistake of thinking UX is an intangible - its not and the courts already recognize that both in EU and US. Ask Sammy and Mickey.

Now coming to (1) nobody should mistake this for what it is. It is a pissing contest. Fighting M$ on this is like wrestling with a pig -- they have no consumer brand equity to talk about and the fight will only damage Google's brand. Atleast for that case, I wish youtube issue is settled amicably.

Now that is truly tin-foil hat territory. Its business, not some dark conspiracy to malign someone's 'pristine' image. Like I said these are all for-profit publicly traded corporations, no white knights with conscience here except in their own PR BS....claiming one is somehow more pious than the other is however, a bit of a stretch.

[Anujan]

Why is that tin-foil hat territory? Surely apple's brand sells its devices. Jaguar is among the leakiest cars around, their brand sells cars. Attack ads have always been about brands - M$ ran scroogled ads against Google. Apple ran "I'm a mac, I'm a PC" ad against M$, Sammy ran "dumb iPhone users" ad against apple.

Branding is valuable -- that is why People buy Nike and Reebok and do not buy perfectly equivalent if not better products, but house brands of garment shops. Attacking and defending brands are part of the game -- I never argued about moral superiority of Google, just that this was an attack on Google's brand.

Also M$ office format was not open-sourced because of anti-trust concerns, it was open-sourced because of requirement that any bid for government software should have an opensource file format -- to make sure one can open government documents even if the companies went out of business. Readup on the history of OOXML.

[Raja Bose]

The mistake most people make is to assume that companies have an obligation to make their products and services available on all platforms.

To summarize in a nutshell, actually they do if not giving access equates to uncompetitive practices. That is the very basis of laws which deal with anti-trust and uncompetitive business practices.

Coming to anti-trust issues: M$ got into trouble partly because of being a d1ck. If you think about it, no modern OS can ship without a browser -- iOS and android came with a browser. Browser is deemed to be essential to any operating system -- M$ could have successfully argued its case based on merit. This is not what got them into trouble.

That argument actually is fallacious becoz if it were true Mickey would have won its cases. After all it would say Windows ships with a browser - its called Internet Explorer. Anyhow you are referring to the wrong case in your post (the Netscape one), the more pertinent one is the more recent one (which dealt with APIs essential for 3rd parties to make their browsers on Windows competitive).

They purposely broke the APIs used by wordperfect and did not release newer APIs for them in Windows 95. They gave access to their internal teams first so they had a better version Word ready before wordperfect and Novell had to wait till windows 95 was released and corresponding visual studio was released and used documented APIs and produced wordperfect late. M$ actually won that case with the judge stating that M$ was a d1ck, actually ruling that M$ engaged in aggressive conduct with an intent to monopolize the applications market, but under anti-trust laws they did nothing wrong.

If Mickey had lost this one, using this ruling as precedence old Motor Oil Takla would have taken Chacha to court becoz Chacha has done that with Android.

[Raja Bose]

Why is that tin-foil hat territory? Surely apple's brand sells its devices. Jaguar is among the leakiest cars around, their brand sells cars. Attack ads have always been about brands - M$ ran scroogled ads against Google. Apple ran "I'm a mac, I'm a PC" ad against M$, Sammy ran "dumb iPhone users" ad against apple.

Branding is valuable -- that is why People buy Nike and Reebok and do not buy perfectly equivalent if not better products, but house brands of garment shops. Attacking and defending brands are part of the game -- I never argued about moral superiority of Google, just that this was an attack on Google's brand.

Well how is a YouTube app an attack ad? Its use of leverage for sure but it has nothing to do with any public image based mud slinging. Rather it is an exercise in collecting evidence if things go downhill and an exercise in getting access to YouTube with good UX if things work out. Plain and zimble onlee.

In the consumer mind, Google is still associated with search & ads and Android with phones and YouTube with videos and the vast majority of mango abduls don't know or care that Google owns Android and YouTube (both of which probably have much higher brand equity than the Google name), in the same way nobody cares that XBox or Skype which have also huge brand equity amongst consumers is owned by Microsoft and have much higher brand equity than the Microsoft name. The reason is simple: people associate words....now if Android was called Google Android or XBox was called Microsoft XBox (just like Microsoft Windows) then people would make that connection. But since they aren't, they don't. Hence, what you are saying doesn't really hold in this case.

[Raja Bose]

Mahdi must be rolling in his grave if this is true

Photos of reported gold-colored iPhone 5S surface

[Singha]

gold colour is however seen in sinic/japanese art of which he was a fan - white, black, gold, red ...

[Mort Walker]

The anti-trust stuff MSFT was hit with in the mid 1990s was a message from the US Justice Dept. under Clinton that, if you don't make political contributions, we will come after you. Subsequently, MSFT, GOOG, AAPL and others in SV regularly grease the skids of both parties at the executive and congressional branches of government. In return, the Clinton administration handed over the gift of the DMCA, to give s/w what RB calls a "utility" type of service such as water and electricity.

Remember, in the US we have the best government money can buy. I only wish India ran so efficiently.

[Anujan]

gold colour is however seen in sinic/japanese art of which he was a fan - white, black, gold, red ...

The gold color might still look nice if paired with some sensible color on the face. It might also be a special edition. FruitCo sold a red iPod for some time (product red) in association with Bono to fight poverty.

[member_20292]

Question about radiation and its effects;

1. When I keep my Samsung Galaxy S1 (Nov 2010) in my breast pocket or in my pant pockets , I ALWAYS feel a small heat in the skin which is right next to the phone. This is like a small microwave-ish kind of feet. Like a slow burn, consistent, and always in the skin area next to the phone.
I know that the screen is switch off, i.e phone is on standby. This radiation must be due to the cellphone receiving the signals from the nearest tower.

Is this safe, or are the effects of radiation on human subjects not completely known....something like the scientists studying cigarettes in the 1930s ?

[member_20292]

Remember, in the US we have the best government money can buy. I only wish India ran so efficiently.

Inefficient and uncertain govt that money buys is already there.....

[Sushupti]

Peace Mobile: An Islamic Smartphone by Dr. Zakir Naik



http://twocircles.net/2013aug06/peace_m ... _naik.html

[Anujan]

I was expecting atleast 9in screen, a taller phone, a tighter back panel, coming in all light fair colors, a camera that refuses to photograph women unrelated to you, a media player which wont play movies or music, a ringer which goes off 5 times a day and which can be wired in as a detonator in an emergency.

[Singha]

^ and also comes preloaded with "how to" guides on suicide vests, simple explosives, DIY AK56 and pistol manufacturing, haleem recipes, and a loudspeaker 10W RMS to blast out prayers 5 times a day.

but jokes apart, RBI has now given approval to kerala govt to start islamic banking system . more caliph ruled states will follow suit.

[SaiK]

they can fund with zero interest on gizmo devices to trigger various terror bombs.

[Raja Bose]

gold colour is however seen in sinic/japanese art of which he was a fan - white, black, gold, red ...

The gold color might still look nice if paired with some sensible color on the face. It might also be a special edition. FruitCo sold a red iPod for some time (product red) in association with Bono to fight poverty.

This gold looks way too tacky which is why I suspect its a KiRF.

[Mort Walker]

^^^Itna jaldi vapis aagaye aap? Kaisa tha, kuch photo leya, with besides a phone?

[negi]

Gold might actually sell very well amongst the 'hey homie, brother from another mother' type crowd that has a thing for bling in fact entire Nicky minaj and Usher fan club might fall for it.

[Raja Bose]

Yeh lo tau....(all from Lumia 928 - you dont carry bulky delicate stuff like SLRs up steep hikes )

Panorama of Crater Lake


Crater Lake


Is that the sky or the water?

[Raja Bose]

Lighthouse from The Ring

[member_20292]

^^^

lighthouse from Ringu ; photo main bhoot dikh raha hai mujhe. Standing at the base of the door, just below the cross in the awning. Bhoot is wearing a smock , just like Friar Tuck of yore.

Wow. This is another advantage of phone cameras.

[Lilo]

Ok if anyone is getting issues in internet connectivity due to default DNS servers going down on your network while on android , they can use Set DNS app (requires root) and set custom working DNS servers - this works not just on WiFi but on 3g networks too

[Singha]

it looks like soldier of gondor or a ape from planet of the apes standing in full armour infront of the door.
or was it bigfoot?

[Prasad]

Yeh lo tau....(all from Lumia 928 - you dont carry bulky delicate stuff like SLRs up steep hikes )

There are some idiots who do. With bags and tripods

[Mort Walker]

^^^+1

[SaiK]

I have done that using my A2E phillum camera. huh!.. but it has been some decades since then.