Will Apple's new iPad be called 'HD'?

Will Apple's new iPad be called 'HD'?

By Matthew Panzarino.

So there have now been two recent reports that the new Apple tablet being introduced on Wednesday won't be called the 'iPad 3'. Instead, both Cnet and Venturebeat are claiming that their sources are telling them that it will be called iPad HD.

A rumor that the next iPad would feature the 'HD' signifier actually began circulating back in July of last year. Joshua Topolsky of The Verge posted information from a source about a new tablet featuring a double-resolution screen was about to be announced in the fall, to be called the iPad HD. The timing turned out to be incorrect, but now the naming rumors have been resurrected.

Just how likely is it that we'll be seeing the name iPad HD displayed on a keynote slide next Wednesday? Lets chat a bit.

Yes, definitely iPad HD

First, lets play devil's advocate and talk about some ways that a name change like this makes sense for Apple.

It describes the defining feature of the device. As far as we (think) we know today, the biggest new feature of the next iPad will be its Retina display. Packing a resolution of 2048x1536 pixels, it will be far crisper than the screen on the last two iPads. It's likely to be the biggest bullet point on any list of 'reasons to buy the new iPad.' Emphasizing the defining feature of a device right in the name of a device is a trick that Apple has used in the past with the iPhone 3G (3G connectivity) and iPhone 3GS (S for speed) most recently. Arguably, the iPhone 4S used the same trick, but the S was for 'Siri,' although that's debatable.

HD is easily relatable for the common consumer. Apple has its own nomenclature for its super-high-resolution screens. It calls them 'Retina displays'. For the average consumer, however, the yardstick of display quality is HD. The difference between standard definition and high definition has been drilled into consumers by the television industry over the last 10 years. People are conditioned to see HD as 'sharper and better,' two things that Apple will doubtless want customers to think about the iPad. Everyone knows 'HD' is better.

It makes sense if they keep the iPad 2 around as a low end option. If the iPad 2 sticks around, as at least one of its models is rumored to be doing at this point, then having a clear differentiator may be useful. It may also help the iPad 2 not feel 'old' but instead 'cheaper'. If its offered at $399 as a 'current but less full-featured' model, it could sell better than if it was positioned as the older '2' to the brand new iPad 3.

No, absolutely not. iPad or iPad 3, but no 'HD'

Now lets flip the argument, what reasons are there for Apple not to call it the 'iPad HD'?

Other manufacturers, lots of them, already use HD. There are a ton of smartphone and technology manufacturers that use the term HD and they do so willfully and with abandon. Many times it's used to merely indicate a newer model with a slightly higher quality display or perhaps even just a bigger one. This is a far cry from the immense improvement that a Retina display signifies over the older iPad. Why would Apple associate itself with this hackneyed and overused term?

It actually devalues what is the defining feature of the device. If you're convinced that the Retina display will be the single biggest new feature, why would you crap all over it by calling it 'HD'? True 'full HD' resolution is 1920x1080 for televisions, where the descriptor is most often used. this is well below the iPad 3's 2048x1536 resolution, which at 9.7 inches is going to absolutely blow away the pixel density of a regular old HDTV. Which brings us to our next point, that Apple has already done the work to cement a new identifier for its super-high resolution screen ...

Apple already has a name for the iPad 3's screen. It's Retina, not HD. Apple has spent two years pounding the term Retina into the collective tech consciousness. While it didn't invent high-resolution screens that moved above the '36 arcsecond per pixel' threshold, it did popularize the term Retina for use with displays and has spent a lot of marketing money and effort to make it the term by which people referred to Apple's displays particularly. It wants people to think of the iPad 3's display as Retina, not HD, like every other TV or poorly named smartphone.

Numbers say 'better' more effectively than 'HD.' Apple doesn't need an 'HD' to convince people that the latest iPad is better than the older version. A numeric scheme is just effective, if not more effective at communicating that the latest version is better. It's the same reason that you see camera boxes emblazoned with huge 'X Megapixels' labels, when the amount of raw pixels now means next to nothing in the world of digital photography. They're easy for customers to pick out as better and easy for sales associates to shrug and point at the one with the highest number in big box stores. Slap a '3' on the end and call it a day, people will get the message.

It may detract from other new features of the next iPad. As a converse argument to the one about emphasizing the best new feature of the iPad 3, what if there are features yet to be revealed that Apple feels are just as big a selling point? It's likely that these would be software or internal-hardware related, because there's not a lot of room on the exterior of the iPad for new widgets. But emphasizing the higher resolution display as the primary selling point may minimize whatever other features Apple has lined up. A recent survey put the want for better battery life, a better camera, a faster processor and wireless syncing above a fancy new display for some consumers.

So which is it?

We have no information about the new iPad being called '3' or 'HD' so there is no way to tell whether Apple has settled on iPad HD or iPad 3 at this point. The speculation above is completely a matter of opinion. Having three separate publications chime in with the iPad HD name at this point seems to indicate that this may be more of a sure thing than not.

But there is always a possibility that both Cnet and Venturebeat heard the information from sources which are not as well informed as they think they are. Or sources that have been provided with information that isn't accurate purposefully by Apple, a tactic that they have been known to use in the past in order to suss out leaks.

We presented both sides of the argument above as there is no way to tell for sure at this point. But if we had to simply guess based on our gut, we'd say no to 'HD'.

We'd love to hear your thoughts, please use the comments section below to tell us why we're wrong about this, or so very right.

 

Other Electronics News:

Red Store , Laptop Battery , Lenovo Battery ,

Toshiba Mini Notebook NB200 Battery , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB205 Battery , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB255 Battery , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB205-N2xx Battery , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB255-N2xx Battery , PA3821U-1BRS , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB505 Battery , Toshiba Satellite T210D Battery , Toshiba Satellite T215D Battery , Toshiba Satellite T230 Battery and Toshiba PA3431U-1BRS battery , Toshiba PA3399U-1BRS battery , Toshiba Portege R500 Battery , toshiba satellite l745 battery , TOSHIBA Portege M700 Battery , TOSHIBA Satellite U205 Battery , TOSHIBA PA3450U-1BRS battery , Toshiba Satellite P25 battery , Toshiba PA3636U-1BRL battery , Toshiba satellite a210 Battery , etc.

Developers unsurprised, but cautious about Gatekeeper

Developers unsurprised, but cautious about Gatekeeper

By Dan Moren.

Thursday's surprise announcement of the next version of Mac OS X had developers across the Mac community perking up their ears, thanks in no small part to a new feature in Mountain Lion called Gatekeeper.

"My takeaway on Gatekeeper is it's a lightweight introduction of the notion of registered developers outside the App Store," Daniel Jalkut, proprietor of Red Sweater Software, explained to Macworld.

Gatekeeper relies on a technique called code-signing, in which software developers are provided with a cryptographic certificate from an authority - in this case, Apple - which they can then use to digitally "sign" their applications. It's similar to the process that consumers encounter when they buy things via the Web, in which they've been trained to look for the padlock icon that indicates a secure transaction.

"Security based on digital signatures has been a long time coming, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise to developers," said Ecamm Network co-owner Glen Aspeslagh. "As the Mac gains in popularity, Apple's approach will be a powerful and much needed weapon against malware."

While our Windows-using compatriots have been plagued by malware of all shapes and flavors, Mac users have remained largely unscathed, although the debate continues to rage over whether that's because of innate superiority in the Mac operating system or the Mac's smaller market share presenting a less tempting target for writers of malicious software.

Certificate of authenticity

Apple's new approach relies on the idea of what it calls "identified developers," which is to say developers to whom the company has issued a digital certificate. That certificate becomes linked with the developer's identity and subsequently with their applications. If Apple finds that a software maker is distributing an application that contains some sort of malicious code, it can revoke the certificate, which - depending on how a user has Mountain Lion set up - may prevent the app from launching. Presumably, Apple could even revoke all the apps from a single developer with the flip of a switch.

This isn't really a new concept for Apple; code-signing as an option has been around since 2007, when it was introduced as part of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. And the company has employed it as a requirement for programs distributed in both the App Store for iOS and the Mac App Store.

"We've been in the Mac App Store for a while (since the very beginning)," Bare Bones Software's Rich Siegel told Macworld, "and as far as I can tell, if you're shipping a Mac App Store product today, you're an 'identified developer.'"

But, of course, not all Mac developers participate in the Mac App Store. So while developers can sign their own code to certify, for example, that the contents of their apps have not been altered since distribution, they can't reap all the potential benefits that code-signing has to offer. In order to do that, the certificates would need to be issued by a trusted authority - to wit, Apple.

So last November, Delicious Monster chief executive Wil Shipley proposed in a blog post that Apple issue certificates that would allow developers to release self-signed apps outside of the app store environments as a way to help combat malware without going to the complexity of other proposed solutions, like sandboxing (more on which later).

"My suggestion," Shipley wrote on his blog, "is for Apple to provide certificates directly to developers and allow the developers to sign their own code. And, by doing this, Apple can then reasonably say, 'Ok, now we're going to, by default, not allow the user to run any code whose certificate wasn't issued by us and signed by a real third-party developer (except the stuff the user checks in the control panel).'"

That seems to be more or less the approach that Apple has embraced with Mountain Lion, which allows users to choose which applications they'd like to run: any apps at all, only apps from the Mac App Store and identified developers, or just apps from the Mac App Store.

"What's most exciting for us as non-App Store developers is this new de-coupling of app signing security and the Mac App Store," said Ecamm's Glen Aspeslagh. "The message I'm getting here from Apple is 'Non-MAS apps are alive and well for the time being. But we know where you live.'"

"I think this is a fantastic approach," added Ken Aspeslagh, Ecamm's other co-owner. "Apple could have gone all or none, so this middle of the road option is great news."

Indeed, the introduction of Gatekeeper would seem to assuage one popular concern, that Apple would eventually go the same route with Mac apps as it has with iOS apps, mandating that only those purchased from its storefronts can run on the platform.

"That is a reassuring message, given recent fears that [Apple] may have an eye on locking things down," said Jalkut. Of course, he adds, it may be nothing more then an intermediary step in bringing those identified developers into the fold as full Mac App Store citizens.

In fact, some developers would like to see that very same approach expanded to Apple's other platform.

"Having the option to install signed apps from outside iOS App Store wouldn't make it any less secure, especially if the signing process still acted as a kill switch," said Paul Kafasis, CEO of Rogue Amoeba.

That's an approach that Google has long taken with its Android mobile operating system, which allows users to check a box to install apps from outside of the Android Market. But Apple has stuck to its guns, only allowing users to download apps through the App Store.

And that precedent still makes some worry about the future of the Mac OS, as Bare Bones Software's Siegel pointed out. "In a larger sense, though, I think we may be watching an inexorable move toward a Mac OS X that is locked down by default, such that you won't be able to run software that wasn't purchased from the Mac App Store."

It depends, he says, on which of Mountain Lion's three settings is the default option. "A default which allows App Store apps or Apple-signed products would certainly strike a good balance for today's developers and customers," he said. According to Apple, this is indeed what Mountain Lion's default will be.

Siegel warned that future changes to that default could risk devaluing the power of the Mac platform. "If... the factory setting is such that only App Store apps can be run by default, then customers are denied access to the sort of 'power tools' that empower them to create content and craft solutions (including software products) using Macs. I believe that would undermine the fundamental core character of what the Mac has always been."

Sandbox rules

The Mac App Store represents an even higher level of security than just becoming an identified developer. Most recently, there's been much discussion over a security technique called "sandboxing," which will, as of March 1, become a requirement for apps submitted to the Mac App Store.

Sandboxing, which has been a part of iOS since its release, restricts apps from interacting with other apps, their data, and certain parts of the OS itself. While few deny the security benefits of a sandboxed system, many developers have been concerned that it will make certain features impossible to implement - and may even render entire classes of applications persona non grata.

"What I'm most curious about is whether Gatekeeper, as a new tool in Apple's security belt, changes their attitude at all about app sandboxing," said Jalkut, "and whether the planned March 1 App Store sandboxing deadline will be revised."

While sandboxing and certificates have similar aims, to keep the user safe, they accomplish that goal in different ways. Sandboxing is an implementation intended to prevent an app from doing anything that it shouldn't - certificates, on the other hand, are more just a matter of accountability; those apps can still violate the rules, but if they do, they'll have their authority revoked.

"If an application is signed by an Apple-issued developer certificate, this creates a chain of accountability," explained Siegel. "If your product misbehaves or proves to be malware, Apple can find you (as the developer) and revoke your certificate; at that point, your product will no longer function when the OS is locked down. That's certainly not a bad thing for consumers."

But although sandboxing has garnered most of the criticism from developers about its potential handcuffing of app's capabilities, the use of certificates is not without its own concerns.

For one thing, certificates aren't a panacea for security issues. While they do allow Apple to rapidly react to cases of malware by revoking certificates, the Gatekeeper system has its limitations. It doesn't check apps loaded on from a disk or USB drive, only those downloaded from the Internet. And it can still be overriden by users manually. So, there's a concern that it could lead users to a sense of infallible security that isn't realistic.

"If the OS refuses to run software with a missing or invalid code signature, that provides a measure of tamper resistance," said Siegel. "On the other hand, code signing is no guarantee of reliability or quality: that still has to come from the developer; so there's a chance that an enforced code signing requirement can create a false expectation in the customer's mind."

Another concern that might not be apparent to most users is that certificates of this sort usually have an expiration date, after which they must be renewed. For the most part, that's not an issue, but it can conceivably cause problems.

"What [users] may not realize is it also means that if a developer decides to move on, their 'signed' apps may stop working a year later, since their certificate won't be valid any more," said Dave Nanian, owner of Shirt Pocket Software. "It won't be a matter of 'OK-ing' them - they'll just stop working."

Mac App Store front

There's also a slippery slope argument, Nanian points out, in terms of the kind of authority that Apple wields over developers' applications: "In addition to the 'your software expires' problem, it also hands 'veto power' over to Apple, who can revoke your certificate at will."

Siegel concurs, calling the identified developer system a "two-edged sword."

"As the issuing authority for your developer certificate, Apple may revoke your certificate at any time, for any reason, and there won't be anything that you can do about it," he said. "If that happens, customers will be denied the use of your product."

"Down the road we could see the basic concept of registered developers being extended to support more fine-grained, or more draconian security measures," said Red Sweater's Jalkut.

"Even that middle option [of only allowing apps from the Mac App Store and identified developers] is providing Apple with more control than they have now - that may not work out badly, but it's something to consider," added Rogue Amoeba's Kafasis.

While Apple has, to date, not demonstrated a tendency to capriciously revoke certificates of this sort, concerns about the increasingly locked-down nature of software have been widespread among developers, and some users, since the debut of iOS.

That said, Apple is trying to make the process of embracing its new security procedures something that developers want to do, especially when it comes to the Mac App Store. Currently, it appears that certain features - such as the ability to add full-fledged support for iCloud, or support for Mountain Lion's Notification Center - are only available to those who go the distance and submit their apps to the Mac App Store.

"The App Store-only APIs [application programming interfaces] continue to proliferate, which means we're being marched, slowly-but-surely, to a future that's increasingly locked down," said Shirt Pocket's Nanian.

"On the one hand, this may be seen as 'encouragement' to go App Store-only," says Siegel. "On the other hand, it has a clear 'offer you can't refuse' feel to it. Today, those APIs could reasonably be considered nonessential to certain products; but there's absolutely nothing to stop Apple from introducing core-functional APIs that require App Store participation."

Of course, some developers, such as Red Sweater's Jalkut, have hopes that Apple might expand things: "What would be really interesting is if Apple decided to let identified developer certificates entitle apps to access things like iCloud that are currently limited to App Store apps."

The devil is in the details

Developers do seem inclined to embrace Apple's new certificate system, largely because it's not a particularly onerous task on their part, and it can benefit users.

"Indeed, even as a developer I'm reassured to know that I won't be accidentally running things from sources that are not at least somewhat vetted," said Jalkut.

And many developers have been code-signing their own applications for years now, ever since the tools to do so have been available.

"We adopted code-signing pretty quickly back when it was first supported by the OS, back in 2007," commented Siegel. "At the time it seemed pretty clear to us that some day, code signing was going to be a requirement for Mac software.

"From a developer's perspective, signing isn't a big deal, and the tools for that have improved over the years," Nanian added.

"Hopefully, this program is specifically made for companies like us - to show we're not malware, but not squeeze out any apps that Apple won't approve for the Mac App Store," said Kafasis. "We've been code-signing our software for years. We have no problem with that. But it will all depend on the terms required for the 'identified developer' program. Until we see those, we can't know for sure what our next step will be. Provided those are not onerous, we'll certainly sign up for it."

As to whether or not it will actually improve things for users, many developers seem to be adopting a wait-and-see approach.

"It certainly seems to have good intentions. Security is obviously a good thing," said Kafasis. "Time will tell if it actually enhances security, or just provides the illusion of security."

"The bottom line is that security and accountability are always a good thing for consumers," said Siegel. "Our concerns arise around how the mechanisms could be misused to the detriment of the developer community; or worse, to disempower the computing capabilities of mutually shared customers. The potential is clearly there; how it will all play out between now and when Mountain Lion ships remains to be seen."

Shirt Pocket's Dave Nanian agreed. "Do I think it's a good thing for users? It may give them a false sense of security. We'll have to see if that future is all puppies and kittens or whether, like the frog-in-the-pan, everything seemed reasonable until we got to the end of the process."

 

Other Electronics News:

Lenovo Battery ,

Lenovo X61 Battery , Lenovo X61S Battery , Lenovo X61 tablet pc Battery , Lenovo X100E Battery , Lenovo X120E Battery , Lenovo X200 Battery , etc.

 

Ice Cream Sandwich Update For Motorola, HTC, Asus Smartphones Get Updated Schedules

Ice Cream Sandwich Update For Motorola, HTC, Asus Smartphones Get Updated Schedules

By Jason Gilbert.

Android 4.0, or Ice Cream Sandwich, was announced to the world on October 19, 2011, and became available along with the Galaxy Nexus on December 15, 2011; two months later, only a reported one percent of Android smartphones are running ICS. We're getting a clearer picture of how soon this number will be increasing, however, as several major Android phone manufacturers have updated their Ice Cream Sandwich release schedules -- unfortunately, for many popular Android models, it's looking like a long wait.

MOTOROLA

First, Motorola has posted the updated Ice Cream Sandwich rollout schedule to its online owner's forum, and several of the most popular models don't even have a timeframe for an ICS upgrade. Though Motorola's Xoom tablet already has Android 4.0, other Motorola devices are yet to taste ICS, and may not for a long time. The earliest Android 4.0 update planned for an American Motorola device, for example, will land in July 2012 at the earliest: the Atrix 2, Atrix 4G, Photon 4G, and Motorola Xyboard tablet are all scheduled to receive Motorola's ICS update starting in Q3 2012.

Leading models like the Droid RAZR, Droid RAZR Maxx, Droid Bionic, Droid 3, and Droid X2, meanwhile, are still in what Motorola calls the "Evaluation and Planning phase ("Phase 1 of 4") on the path to Ice Cream Sandwich, and have no real timetable for ICS. After Phase 1 ("Evaluation and Planning") comes "Development," and then "Testing," and then Phase 4, Availability. None of those phases have definite lengths of time attached to them.

For what it's worth, Motorola appears to have fallen behind its own schedule, as a Motorola exec previously said in late 2011, that the Droid Razr -- the manufacturer's top-of-the-line phone -- would get Ice Cream Sandwich in early 2012. It appears that Motorola will miss on that pledge.

You can read more about Motorola's process for developing Ice Cream Sandwich for its smartphones and tablets, along with the updated release schedule, here.

HTC

HTC wrote a note on its official Facebook page to announce that Ice Cream Sandwich would be available for the HTC Sensation, HTC Sensation 4G and HTC Sensation XE in March 2012, with the Sensation XL getting its ICS "soon there after."

A gaggle of other HTC smartphones were name-checked by HTC in the post as well: Android 4.0 for [Deep breath] the HTC Rezound, HTC Vivid, HTC Amaze 4G, HTC EVO 3D, HTC EVO Design 4G, HTC Incredible S, HTC Desire S and HTC Desire HD "will be coming later this year."

HTC had previously said (in November 2011) that the HTC EVO 3D, HTC EVO Design 4G* and HTC Amaze 4G would be available in early 2012. From HTC's updated schedule, it appears the company will miss that deadline.

ASUS

Asus, meanwhile, recently announced that it, too, will miss a proposed deadline for upgrading its Transformer Prime to Ice Cream Sandwich, announcing that its tablet will receive Android 4.0 in February or March. The Transformer Prime was previously expected to get ICS at some point in late January.

In less official news ("This Week In Android Rumors!"), the Samsung Galaxy S II and brand new Galaxy Note have been tipped to receive Android 4.0 in early March, according to a tweet by mobile industry insider Eldar Murtazin. Samsung had scheduled the Galaxy S II and Galaxy Note for a Q1 2012 Ice Cream Sandwich update, so Murtazin's unsourced tweet isn't so far-fetched.

And that's all the pertinent news about Ice Cream Sandwich from the past week! For previous statements from smartphone manufacturers -- including Samsung, Sony, LG, HTC and Motorola -- on when their devices should be getting Ice Cream Sandwich, read our round-up from late December.

Sony completes takeover of Sony Ericsson, renames it Sony Mobile

By Nathan Olivarez-Giles.

Sony's takeover of Sony Ericsson is now complete and the smartphone maker has a new name -- Sony Mobile Communications.
But make no mistake, you'll be seeing simply "Sony" on smartphones from the company going forward.

Sony Corp. in Japan announced the finalization of the takeover of the company, which started as joint venture between tech giants Sony and Ericsson in 2001, on Wednesday, thus bringing to a close a deal announced in October.

Sony purchased Ericsson's half of the joint venture for about $1.5 billion. Sony and Ericsson will also cross-license five essential patent families relating to wireless handset technology as a part of its takeover deal.

Sony Mobile Communications is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony, which said in a statement that plans are to "further integrate the mobile phone business as a vital element of its electronics business, with the aim of accelerating convergence between Sony’s lineup of network enabled consumer electronics products, including smart phones, tablets, TVs and PCs."

Soon we'll see Sony smartphones that interact with Sony TVs, Blu-ray players, laptops and (fingers crossed) PlayStation video game consoles.

The newly named Sony Mobile will be headquartered in London, as Sony Ericsson was before it, and Bert Nordberg is staying on as president and CEO. Nordberg has been president of Sony Ericsson since 2004 and chief executive since 2009.

In a bit of good news for Nordberg, on Thursday Vestas Wind Systems in Denmark said it would like the Sony Mobile executive to take over as its company chairman when its current chair steps down later this year.

As a part of Sony's takeover of what is now Sony Mobile, Nordberg will be charged with changing the company from a company that focused on feature phones (regular cellphones that can do things such as store and play music, shoot photos and video but not run full-out mobile apps) to a firm that focuses on smartphones.

Currently all of Sony's smartphones run on Google's Android operating system.

 

Other Electronics News:

Laptop Battery Rechargeable ,

Toshiba Laptop Battery , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB305 Battery , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB305-N3xx Battery , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB305-N4xx Battery , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB305-N6xx Battery , PA3733U-1BRS , etc.

Google Chrome will see greater expansion on mobile devices

Google Chrome will see greater expansion on mobile devices

By Rachel King.

Summary: Sundar Pichai, senior vice president of Chrome and Apps at Google, talks up the dual strategies of Android and Chrome, but don't expect the two platforms to merge anytime soon.

SAN FRANCISCO - The mobile web is in its infancy, according to Sundar Pichai, senior vice president of Chrome and Apps at Google, adding that this market will flourish over the next three to five years.

Pichai sat down for a chat during the closing keynote discussion of the 2012 Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference on Thursday afternoon.

See also: Groupon CEO: 'We've cracked the code'

For critics who would ask what is there left to innovate with a browser, Pichai retorted that even though browsers have been around for 15 years, if you make the experience better, people will respond.

There are roughly 200 million Chrome users worldwide, and while Chrome is primarily a desktop experience as part of Google's dual strategy (Chrome and Android), it's starting to make its way on to mobile devices.

Last week, Google released a beta version of Chrome for Android for mobile devices running Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich).

Pichai noted that the "future of Chrome" is pushing the platform across smartphones and tablets. Part of the motivation for pushing Chrome to tablets, in particular, is how much more people use the browser on these devices.

"Users expect a seamless, integrated experience across devices," Pichai asserted, explaining the necessity (and opportunity) to ensure Chrome's presence and continuity across Google's products, from the desktop to mobile devices to Google TV.

The underpinnings to Chrome relies on two things: cloud-based apps and the browser that makes these things work.

Although the Chrome App Store is "in its early days," according to Pichai, he boasted about its success thus far given that install rates have tripled over the last three months, and there are approximately one million downloads in this space each day.

Pichai didn't offer many specifics about where the Chrome App Store will go from here, but he did note that we'll be seeing many more gaming and productivity apps released in the near future.

As far as productivity goes, Pichai pointed towards both Chrome and Google Apps, cloud computing products that are becoming much more popular with businesses trying to wrangle with the bring-your-own-device to work trend.

Businesses want something "that will scale across all this: a cloud-based solution that supports multiple endpoints," Pichai argued. "That changes the value of Apps significantly."

But as for any kind of pressure about merging the Android and Chrome platforms into a single unit, Pichai remained mum.

"We don't know. We will always do the right thing by users," Pichai said. "People use them differently, and we want to address them differently for today."

Apple tweaks apps policy under lawmaker pressure

By Gerry Shih.

(Reuters) - Under pressure from U.S. legislators, Apple Inc moved Wednesday to quell a swelling privacy controversy by saying that it will begin to require iPhone and iPad apps to seek "explicit approval" in separate user prompts before accessing users' address book data.

Apple's move came shortly after two members of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce committee requested the company to provide more information about its privacy policies. Bloggers, in recent days, have published findings that some of the most popular software applications in Apple's App Store have been able to lift private address book data without user consent.

"Apps that collect or transmit a user's contact data without their prior permission are in violation of our guidelines," an Apple spokesman told Reuters. "We're working to make this even better for our customers, and as we have done with location services, any app wishing to access contact data will require explicit user approval in a future software release."

In a letter addressed to Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook, Representatives Henry Waxman of California and G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, both Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, asked Apple earlier on Wednesday to clarify its developer guidelines and the measures taken by the company to screen apps sold on its App Store.

The letter came after Path, a San Francisco startup that makes a Facebook-like social networking app, attracted widespread criticism last week after a Singaporean developer discovered that Path's iPhone app had been quietly uploading his contacts' names and phone numbers onto Path's servers.

In the following days, other technology bloggers discovered that iPhone apps like Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare and Foodspotting similarly uploaded user data -- without permission, in some cases.

The Path incident "raises questions about whether Apple's iOS app developer policies and practices may fall short when it comes to protecting the information of iPhone users and their contacts," the letter said.

The legislators' request for information cast the spotlight squarely onto Apple for the first time since an independent blogger, Dustin Curtis, wrote in a widely distributed post last week that "there's a quiet understanding among many iOS app developers that it is acceptable to send a user's entire address book, without their permission to remote servers and then store it for future reference."

Curtis blamed Apple, writing that he could not "think of a rational reason for why Apple has not placed any protections on Address Book in iOS."

In their letter to Apple, Waxman and Butterfield, referenced Curtis' blog post, adding: "There could be some truth to these claims."

The legislators had asked Apple to submit its response by February 29.

 

Other Electronics News:

Laptop Battery ,

Toshiba Batteries , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB300 Battery , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB301 Battery , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB302 Battery , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB303 Battery , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB304 Battery , etc.

iPhone apps storing contact lists just the latest privacy debacle in the mobile industry

iPhone apps storing contact lists just the latest privacy debacle in the mobile industry

By Brad Spirrison.

Smartphones and mobile applications entertain, inform and keep us connected in ways we could not even fathom just a few years ago. There is a trade-off, however, as many of these new conveniences require us to share personal information with cell phone companies or app developers.

While many of us are willing to do things like broadcast our location to friends who might be nearby, or invite people on our contact lists to a cool new social network, we count on mobile companies to explain to us when and how they are using personal information to enhance our overall experience. We also trust that our personal and financial data will be safe in the event of a security breach.

This is not always the case. This month's scandal involving Apple and several high-profile iPhone apps is only the most recent example of privacy breaches made by major mobile companies. Here we detail five of them with recent updates.

Twitter, Instagram and Path caught storing contact lists without clear permission

Earlier this month it was discovered that popular social networking app Path was transferring contact list information - which could include names, email addresses and phone numbers - from iPhone users to its own servers. This data helped Path members find and add friends to their networks. While there is nothing that indicates Path was doing anything inappropriate with the contact information, the company erred by not clearly communicating to users how their sensitive information was being stored. Path later apologized and updated its iPhone app to require user permission before it stores any contact data.

Shortly after the Path disclosure, prominent iPhone apps including Twitter, Instagram and Foodspotting either released updates to require user permission, or acknowledged similar practices. Feeling the heat, on February 15 Apple announced that it would require all apps to ask permission ahead of time before accessing users' address books. Additionally, Apple CEO Tim Cook was formally asked by Congress to tighten up the company's app approval process and make sure independent developers cannot access contact information without permission. So iPhone (as well as iPad and iPod Touch) owners should expect updates by the February 29 deadline provided by the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade.

Security flaw found in Google Wallet

While there is no scandal to date associated with how apps running on Android smartphones access contact lists, Google is addressing a security breech that could impact a user's virtual pocketbook. Earlier this month, the company temporarily suspended issuing Google Wallet prepaid cards after tests showed how funds could be depleted if a user's smartphone got into the hands of a thief. It was revealed that because prepaid card balances were stored on smartphones rather than within an app, all a would-be thief would need to do to access funds was clear existing data on Google Wallet and create a brand new account.

On February 15, Google began reissuing prepaid cards. The company now requires users who wiped data from Google Wallets to set up new accounts with a human being from Google's support team. While this fix in theory should take care of the problem, this episode will give pause to the vast majority of consumers who do not use their smartphones to make purchases.

Carrier IQ scandal could lead to Mobile Device Privacy Act

Last November it was discovered that software called Carrier IQ that is installed within tens of millions of smartphones was tracking user location and even keystroke behavior without permission. While cell phone carriers use Carrier IQ's technology to help them identify gaps in their networks that lead to dropped calls, the media attention of practices including capturing passwords to secure websites drew public outcry and even an FBI investigation.

Carriers and smartphone manufacturers including Sprint, HTC and Samsung have recently removed Carrier IQ from their networks and devices. Expect more companies to follow suit (Apple removed Carrier IQ when it released its iOS 5 operating system). Longer-term, the Carrier IQ scandal, at least in part, inspired the Mobile Device Privacy Act. If enacted, the Privacy Act would require mobile companies to disclose ahead of time if they are using any type of tracking software.

Apple quickly fixed a gaffe in storing user location information

In one of his last public acts on behalf of Apple, Steve Jobs last April expertly addressed a potential scandal involving his company's use of iPhone location information. Apple and Google both track their users proximity to Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers as a method to deliver more localized services. When a glitch was discovered that showed Apple storing this information for users that turned location services off, Jobs (who was then on medical leave) acted swiftly and implemented a quick fix.

"It took us about a week to do an investigation and write a response, which is fairly quick for something this technically complicated," he said in a public statement.

Advocacy groups, including the Electronic Privacy Information Center, applauded Apple's response.

BlackBerry kicks out messaging app

When Kik Messenger debuted its instant messing service for iPhones, Androids and BlackBerrys in October 2010, it became an instant sensation attracting more than one million users in its first 15 days. Kik is a great way for users across the leading mobile networks to send IMs to each other. But another reason for its quick success was due to the fact that new users signing-up for the service at the time would automatically send alerts to their contacts who were also running Kik.

After considerable user backlash, Kik CEO Ted Livingston apologized and the company stopped sending alerts without permission. While Kik remained on iPhones and Androids, BlackBerry kicked the app out of its App World store. This didn't seem to hurt Kik's business prospects, as the company a few months later raised $8 million in venture capital. The company now also promotes the fact that BlackBerry owners can access the service via its mobile website. You can also find Kik on Microsoft and Nokia smartphones.

 

Other Electronics News:

Laptop Batteries ,

Toshiba Laptop Batteries , PA3734U-1BRS , Toshiba Mini Notebook NB205-N3xx Battery , PA3783U-1BRS , PA3784U-1BRS , PA3785U-1BRS , etc.

Why Androids eat Apples for breakfast

Why Androids eat Apples for breakfast

By Shawn Dobbs.

Contributor

Before the criticism begins, let's give credit where credit is due. The iPhone is a good product. In terms of functionality, user-friendliness, and cohesiveness of vision and implementation, the iPhone (especially the iPhone 4S) is ideal for many people. But, as Samsung has recently tried to point out through their Galaxy ad campaign, it is by no means the only thing out there.

In fact, the biggest reason that Apple is such a powerhouse today is because they were first out of the gate, releasing the first iPhone in July 2007, over a year before the first Android device (HTC's G1) was released. Since the G1, it's been an ugly battle, with both companies viciously competing for market share and driving the technology in the field to dizzying new heights.

Despite Apple's significant lead (a year is a lifetime in the smartphone industry), Android has taken massive strides to catch up and surpass Apple in almost every respect. So before you run out the door to buy a new iPhone, consider a few things first.

Open Source

As mobile technology advances more quickly than any other industry, and Apple had such a huge head start, how is it that in just over three years Android has been able to overtake Apple in such a significant way? Within the answer lies what is the most crucial difference between Android and Apple. That reason is "open source."

Put simply, anyone can do anything with their Android phone. In contrast, the user can't even take the battery out of the iPhone. This represents a stark contrast in company philosophy. Android is an open source code. The developer codes for Android software are available for free to anyone who cares to mess with it.

You can "unlock" your Android phone and rewrite the very code that it runs on to make it do what you want it to. This is far more advanced than the average user is capable of, but there are plenty of people out there who love doing exactly this, and they make the results of their work available for free to the rest of us on the Android platform.

Apple, on the other hand, charges $99/year for access to their code, and developers can do only one thing with it: create apps for the Apple AppStore. Any attempt to rewrite the iPhone code would be immediately rejected, and those caught modifying and distributing modified codes would be prosecuted.

In the long run, it is this philosophy that will be the death knell for iPhone. There is an active community of thousands of Android enthusiasts working tirelessly to make the platform the very best that it can be. The open source nature of Android encourages this. Apple retains such tight control over every aspect of its product that it simply cannot utilize the resources of the developer community in the same way that Android can.

Hardware & Software

There is one final, crucial aspect to consider when purchasing your new phone, and that is the hardware and software it is running. In this area, Apple at least gets kudos for keeping things simple and reliable. There is only one iPhone every year, and it comes straight from Apple. Every new iPhone is guaranteed to feature significant improvements over the previous generation of iPhone. Not so with Android.

Android manufacturers have recently stated that beginning this year they will focus on quality rather than quantity and the general concensus is that this is a welcome trend. For the last two years, Android handsets have been flooding the market faster than anyone could keep up with. The high-end and some mid-range Android phones have always been superior to iPhone (and any other phone on the market), but the low-end and certain other mid-range phones have tarnished the platform and left many consumers feeling that deciding which Android phone to get is just too much trouble. Many simply believe all Android devices are the same.

In order to give an accurate comparison, we will focus only on the high-end phones (generally called "flagship devices") of the various carriers, which represent the best of Android, and compare them to the iPhone 4S, the best of Apple.

Droid Does

Motorola uses the slogan "Droid Does" in their marketing campaigns. This accurately sums up the difference between Android and Apple devices. Android does, and Apple does not.

What does Apple not do? Several things, including but not limited to- NFC chips (Near Field Communication, used for such services as mobile banking), AM/FM radio; widgets (extensions of apps that update automatically on the phone's home screen), 4G network speeds (that's right- the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S are NOT 4G phones), and memory cards/SD cards/SIM cards.

In addition to lacking several software features found in nearly every Android phone, the iPhone 4S falls short in the hardware department too. Without getting overly technical, the biggest problem with the iPhone's hardware is that it is outdated and overpriced. The just-released iPhone 4S is powered by the 1Ghz Apple A5 dual-core processor. The A5 chip is based on Cortex 9 technology, which is almost three years old.

Samsung has been able to use Cortex 9 technology to produce 1.5Ghz processors. Why did Apple choose not to utilize the technology to its full capability? Even the upcoming iPhone 5, with an updated Apple A6 processor is based on Cortex 9 and expected to run at only around 1.2Ghz, while Samsung's highly anticipated Galaxy S3 is expected to be running on Cortex 15 technology, boosting performance to 2Ghz and providing up to 75% more speed and power than Cortex 9-based chips.

Even with inferior hardware, the iPhone 4S retails at $400, and that is WITH a 2 year contract. In contrast, flagship devices from LG, Motorola, Samsung, and HTC (the major Android manufacturers) have never topped $299, and most go for $199.

Another major disappointment is that the iPhone 5 will not be a quad-core device, meaning Apple users will have to wait at least another full year before they can hope to see a quad-core iPhone.

Dual core devices were introduced for the first time last year (making their debut on Android, incidentally) and provided twice the speed, computing, and processing power of any handset released prior. Dual core has now become the industry standard. Quad core devices take it still further, promising a 5x performance improvement.

Essentially making mobile devices capable of running at speeds equal to or faster than a desktop PC with high-speed internet access.

Quad core technology is already in use in some Android tablets, and at the Mobile World Congress at the end of February, quad core phones will be premiered for the first time, yet again exclusively on Android.

In the last three years, Android has come from being the dark horse of the mobile arena to the fore runner. In the coming years Android's expertise and superiority will only become more pronounced as they continue to deliver cutting edge technology with the best hardware and software at the best prices on the market. Unfortunately for Apple, their reign of smartphone dominance is already on the decline, and they will continue to be outpaced and outdone as Android delivers what consumers expect out of their products.

APPS, APPS, APPS

While it is true that the Apple AppStore still contains more apps than the Android Marketplace (459,000 for Apple compared to 319,000 for Android, as of October 2011) there are three things to keep in mind here.

(1) Apple has a 16-month head start on Android. Considering that in just the last three months of 2011 there were over 100,000 apps added to each platform, 16 months is a tremendous lead, and for Android to close the gap this quickly is an impressive feat.

(2) Android is catching up fast. October's numbers were the latest exact figures available, but Android boasts on its website that the Marketplace now contains over 400,000 apps, and Apple claims to have over 500,000. Regardless of claims and speculations, one thing is clear- Android is catching up. Keep in mind that because of the open source nature of Android, apps can be downloaded from other sources as well, including the Amazon AppStore, the AppBrain market, AppPlanet, and countless others. Including these third party sources, Android far surpasses Apple in sheer numbers of apps.

(3) Android offers more free apps than Apple. 70% of Android apps are free, compared with just 35% of Apple apps. From a developer standpoint, this could be a disappointment, but for the end user it is extremely satisfying knowing you got the same app for free that your iPhone carrying friends coughed up $3-$5 or more for.

 

Other Electronics News:

Lenovo Battery ,

Lenovo X40 Battery , Lenovo X41 Battery , Lenovo X41 tablet pc Battery , Lenovo X60 Battery , Lenovo X60S Battery , Lenovo X60 tablet pc Battery , etc.

 

A Closer Look: Comparing Apple's iPhone 4S and Samsung's Galaxy Nexus

A Closer Look: Comparing Apple's iPhone 4S and Samsung's Galaxy Nexus

By Michael J. Miller.

For the past couple of months, I've been walking around with both an iPhone 4S and a Samsung Galaxy Nexus, with the former running iOS 5 and the latter running Google's Android 4.0, known as Ice Cream Sandwich. I posted my initial impressions a while back, after having used both devices for a week or two, but now that I've gotten used to both, I thought I'd reevaluate how they compare in several categories.

Size: Of course, the Galaxy Nexus, with its 4.65-inch display, is a lot larger than the iPhone 4S, which has a 3.5-inch display. The Nexus measures 5.3-by-2.7-by-0.4 inches, while the iPhone measures 4.5-by-2.31-by-.37 inches. Initially, I thought the size would make carrying the Nexus more difficult, but both fit into my pocket. The Nexus's size makes it better for reading lots of text on a page and for viewing videos, but the iPhone's smaller size means it's easier to carry and to use single-handedly because you can reach all the controls. Let's call it a wash.

Display: The Nexus display is not only physically bigger, but it also offers higher 1280-by-720-pixel resolution, compared with the iPhone's 960-by-480. That means you can see more on a webpage, for instance. The Nexus display uses Samsung's "Super AMOLED" organic LED display, but uses Samsung's PenTile technology (which has two subpixels per dot, not three); the iPhone uses an IPS LCD display. The basic technology-OLED versus LCD-means that the Nexus has really dark blacks (since it doesn't use backlighting), and thus better contrast. In practice, though, the iPhone looks quite good and is typically brighter. There are pros and cons, but overall I'd give the advantage to the Nexus, mostly because I do a fair amount of browsing and email, and the larger, higher-resolution screen matters. Advantage: Galaxy Nexus

Camera: The iPhone 4S has an 8-megapixel rear-facing camera; the Nexus has a 5-megapixel one. The iPhone has a VGA resolution front-facing camera; the Nexus has a 1.3MP one. Ice Cream Sandwich gives you a lot more control over the camera settings, with more screen modes and more control over exposure and white balance. But forget the specs; I've now used both, in a variety of situations, and the iPhone 4S simply takes better pictures. Advantage: iPhone

Network: This is going to vary a lot depending on which carrier you choose, and where you live and travel. The Galaxy Nexus is currently only available in the U.S. as a Verizon LTE phone, whereas iPhones are available on multiple networks. Mine uses AT&T's HSPA+ network. As someone who works in New York but travels to the West Coast pretty often, there's just no question: Verizon's LTE network is faster. I've been particularly happy using it with a hotspot feature (and have stopped using a separate mobile hotspot as a result). For voice calls, Verizon seems to be a bit more reliable than AT&T, but I find that varies a lot by location. I still get no service from Verizon when I'm on the train tracks at Grand Central Terminal, for instance, but AT&T works fine there. At my home, both are fine; at my office, both are horrible. (I thought midtown Manhattan was getting better for a while, but it's gotten worse again.) Traveling, I've seen lots of variability. On balance, I'll give this to LTE. Advantage: Galaxy Nexus

Battery Life: In part, it may be the LTE support, but this really isn't a competition. I almost always can get through a day with the iPhone 4S without concern but I'm always worried about battery life with the Nexus, and often drain it. Third-party apps to better manage the battery have helped, as has an extended life battery, but it's just not as good. Advantage: iPhone

Browser: I like the iPhone browser, which is quite fast, but the Nexus's has more features. Sure, everyone talks about the ability to run Flash on Android, but actually, the feature I found most useful was the ability to request the desktop site instead of the mobile one. Advantage: Galaxy Nexus

Apps: There are plenty of great Android applications, and you will probably be very happy with the selection on either platform. There are a few more iPhone apps, and in some cases, they are a bit more polished, but Android is catching up. Advantage: iPhone

Voice recognition: Apple has given Siri a lot of attention. There's no question that its ability to query multiple databases simultaneously and generate an answer is more advanced than the relatively straightforward Google Voice Search on Android. Still, other than as I demo, I don't find myself using voice very much; most of the time, I can get what I want a lot faster through a browser. Apple has a noticeable lead here, though I really can't say it matters much to me yet. Advantage: iPhone

Operating System/Stability: Overall, I've found many reasons to applaud the Ice Cream Sandwich version of Android. I really like the way it handles multitasking; a single button that shows you thumbnails of all your loaded applications, making the switch among applications faster and easier. I've seen crashes on both systems (not to mention on Windows and Mac OS X), but in general, the iPhone has been more reliable. As a result, I'm giving Apple the point here, but minor tweaks to Android could change things. Advantage: iPhone

Reviewing this list, the iPhone wins in more categories. For the most part, that comes down to software; Apple's iOS 5 is just a bit more refined, and a bit easier to use. Make no mistake, though, Android 4.0 is narrowing the gap quickly. From a hardware perspective, the Android ecosystem just gives you more choices. Users can get a larger display on the Galaxy Nexus, a keyboard on the Droid 4, or a much less expensive Android model. That diversity is a major strength of the Android platform, and Apple can't really compete with that. If I had to pick just one, though, I'd still choose the iPhone 4S today.

By the way, in addition to the iPhone 4S and the Galaxy Nexus, I always have my BlackBerry Bold 9810, which still has the best corporate mail solution, even if it lacks the application array of the other two. Carrying three phones all the time probably makes me look like a nerd, but that's not really new news.

 

Other Electronics News:

Laptop Batteries ,

vgp-bps2a battery , hp pavilion dv6000 charger , vostro 1400 battery , dell vostro 1510 charger , macbook pro 13 inch charger , vgp-bpl8 , etc.

HP's Whitman Warns On Android, Optimistic On WebOS

HP's Whitman Warns On Android, Optimistic On WebOS

By Eric Zeman.

Google has said over and over that Android will remain an open platform. HP CEO Meg Whitman isn't so sure.

When Google announced its intent to purchase Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion, there was an immediate fear that Google would close the OS and work only with Motorola moving forward. Other hardware makers voiced support for the deal publicly, but you can be sure they were cursing behind closed doors. Ever since, Google has said over and over that Android will remain an open platform. HP CEO Meg Whitman isn't so sure.

Speaking to attendees of the HP Global Partner conference in Las Vegas, reports PC World, Whitman contended that "the industry needs another OS," and went on to suggest that Google may change its mind once it owns Motorola. This potential allowed Whitman to talk up the appeal of its own webOS, which it recently decided to launch as an open source project.

Whitman maintains that webOS could remain an important player over the long term. Though it will take time for webOS's full potential as an open source project to be realized, she said that HP will sit in silent support of its mobile platform as it continues to take shape. HP is still excited about webOS's prospects and will continue to contribute to its development.

WebOS was developed by the now-defunct Palm, which HP acquired in 2010. WebOS floundered under HP's ownership, and last August the company announced that it would cease making webOS smartphones and tablets--mere weeks after launching the webOS-powered TouchPad. The company announced its intent to open source the platform in December. Since then, it has begun making individual components available to the community, though the entire OS isn't expected to become available until September of this year.

Whitman is likely wrong about Android. It would be suicide for Google to close off Android and could spark a huge legal war between Google and its hardware partners. Google is activating more than 750,000 new Android devices each and every day. Why would it want to harm that number? Motorola may make decent products, but Samsung is outselling it like mad the world over with its own Android devices.

Were Google to close off Android, it wouldn't just be shooting itself in the foot, it would be lopping off both legs and letting them bleed out.

The idea that the mobile industry needs webOS to stick around is also a bit of a folly. The platform failed for a reason: there are stronger alternatives already in the market. If webOS really had a place in the mobile ecosystem, Palm would have been more successful with it.

There's been a ridiculous amount of consolidation in the platform space. We've seen Symbian, MeeGo, Windows Mobile, Palm OS, and webOS all go away. In their place, we have Android, BlackBerry OS, iOS, and Windows Phone. The market is having a hard enough time supporting these four, as BlackBerry and Windows Phone are struggling up against Android and iOS. What use is webOS at the moment? Though I don't doubt the creative uses to which the open source community will put it, unless it gets major backing from a hardware vendor (something it has already lost) it doesn't have a significant chance of re-entering the market.

Is A Galaxy Note 10.1 Tablet On The Horizon?

BY E.D. Kain.

Samsung's giant Galaxy Note smartphone has been described as a ‘phoneblet' thanks to its massive 5.4" screen.

The innovate smartphone comes with an S Pen stylus, allowing you to take notes or draw sketches directly onto your phone.

And while the big screen may have some downsides when it comes to actually talking on the phone, if rumors are true it's going to be downright tiny compared to the Galaxy Note 10.1.

That is, if there's going to be a tablet version of the not-yet-released smartphone.

While it may be a mistake, Slashgear also points to a casting call for an actor to star in the Galaxy Note 10.1 commercial. Though there's been no official confirmation that a Note tablet is on the way, this is looking like more than just idle speculation.

While I think the Galaxy Note smartphone looks awesome, I still wonder if there's a market for such a large screen. On the other hand, the 10.1 version would be perfect. The extra screen real estate will make the tablet an even better medium for artists and other creative types.

Now I just need to find a way to get to Barcelona at the end of this month for Mobile World Congress 2012.

 

Other Electronics News:

Laptop Battery Charger ,

macbook pro power adapter , inspiron b130 battery , compaq presario cq60 battery , dell xps m1710 battery , gw240 dell battery , hp pavilion dv6000 charger , etc.

HP's Whitman Slags Android to Pump WebOS

HP's Whitman Slags Android to Pump WebOS

By Eric Smalley.

Sometimes, when you're down and fighting your way back to your feet, you've got to throw elbows. Or, if your opponents aren't in range, sling FUD.

On Wednesday, at a meeting of the company's channel partners in Las Vegas, HP CEO Meg Whitman talked up Open WebOS, the company's newly open sourced mobile operating system. But she also took a moment to stir up a batch of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Google's Android. The mobile operating system "may end up being a closed system with their purchase of Motorola," she said. Whitman also described Android as "remarkably fragmented."

The concern about Google's Motorola acquisition is nothing new, and it may be much ado about nothing. Google announced its intention to purchase Motorola in August, and the acquisition was briefly back in the headlines this week when U.S. and European regulators approved the deal.

According to Forrester Research analyst Sarah Rotman-Epps, Google has a vast and growing business that involves distributing Android and other services to many outside phone manufacturers. Whitman's remarks are simply raising old concerns about the Google Motorola merger, she says. Little has changed, and Google has shown no indication that it will favor Motorola over its other partners. "There's too much at stake for Google," Rotman-Epps says.

A Google spokesperson pointed to the company's FAQ about the Motorola acquisition: "Android absolutely will remain open-source. It's in our interest to have as many Android partners (OEMs) as possible."

Linux Foundation executive director Jim Zemlin dismissed the idea that Android could become closed. "First, Google has been a wildly good open source citizen. They are responsible for amazing amounts of useful code being out there for everyone to use," he says. "Second, Android is wildly successful right now so it doesn't make a lot of sense for Google to mess with that success. Why fix what isn't broken?"

Strategically, Whitman's rhetoric is an attempt to position WebOS as a viable alternative to Android. Whitman's remarks follow last month's release of HP's roadmap for taking WebOS open source. Open WebOS 1.0 is scheduled to be released in September. Establishing Open WebOS is likely to take two to four years, according to Whitman.

One of the first milestones on the road map is this week's release of the WebOS open source project governance model. The WebOS project is modeled on the Apache project: WebOS will be licensed under the Apache license. If the WebOS project evolves according to plan, it will be more open than Android. The WebOS governance model allows independent people promoted by merit to branch and merge code in the open. Initially, however, only HP will be allowed to "commit" code.

The Open WebOS project follows HP's failure to make headway against Android and Apple's iOS with its proprietary WebOS platform. HP wrote off $3.3 billion in 2011 for winding down the WebOS device business. That's 2.5 times as much as the company paid to acquire WebOS creator Palm.

HP is clearly looking to leverage the open version of the operating system. Even if WebOS fails to gain traction with hardware OEMs and app developers, HP can use the operating system to avoid relying on platforms owned by other companies, says IDC's Al Hilwa. HP is taking the open source project seriously, he says. "They appear to be conducting a thorough [intellectual property] scrub to avoid many of the issues with Android and seem intent on a more open governance model."

Of course, there's no guarantee that an open WebOS will be any more successful than its proprietary predecessor. Even if it ends up being a more open operating system than Android, it's not clear why WebOS would be better for OEMs, says Rotman-Epps. "I don't know that openness in itself is a virtue for making products with efficiency and scale."

 

Other Electronics News:

Laptop Battery and Adapter ,

battery for dell inspiron 1440 , dell inspiron 1521 charger , vgp-bps9 s sony battery , hp pavilion dv4 battery , sony vgp-bps2c , dell inspiron 1100 charger , etc.

Sub-Zero Weather: Can Your Smartphone Stand The Cold?

Sub-Zero Weather: Can Your Smartphone Stand The Cold?

By Ossi, MikroPC, VIA:pcworld.com.

Some smartphone manufacturers don't recommend that their devices be used in cold weather while others guarantee smooth functioning even in temperatures as low as 4 degrees below zero.

MikroPC (PCWorld Finland) decided to test if smartphone manufacturers can back up their claims.

We obtained the 15 most-sold mobile phones in Finland, as well as three others for comparison, and took them into the Technical Research Centre of Finland and their "Weather Room." The room is a specialized research lab where the temperature can be adjusted to a fraction of a degree. Note: Many of these phones are not sold in the United States--Two notable exceptions are the Apple iPhone 4S and the Samsung Galaxy S II.

The initial temperature in the room was set to 32 degrees. From there, we kept lowering it by steps of 9 degrees until even the most persistent devices gave up and stopped working. (Note: All temperatures in this story except for the graphic below are in Farenheit.)

What Do Manufacturers Recommend?

According to Apple, its iPhones can be used only in temperatures between 32 degrees to 95 degrees Farenheit. In other words, an iPhone user taking his device outside in typical Scandinavian winter conditions will do so at his own risk. If the phone breaks down, Apple claims it will not be responsible and the damage is not covered by the phone's warranty.

HTC and Nokia do not mention operating temperature guidelines in user manuals or on their websites. Samsung, on the other hand, guarantees its phones to function in temperatures between -4 degrees and 122 degrees.

First Fail: Apple iPhone 4S

At 32 degrees, it was business as usual for all the phones. At 23 degrees, the iPhone 4S and the Nokia N9 started showing symptoms: The iPhone reported a sim card error, and the N9 claimed its battery was nearly empty.

Lowering the temperature to 14 degrees was more than the iPhone could handle. The Apple device suddenly announced a dead battery and shut down. (All phones with LCD displays in our tests experienced difficulties when the temperature dropped below 14 degrees.) AMOLED displays proved to be able to stand cold much better and kept working at that temperature.

The Cheaper, the Better?

In our tests, the majority of smartphones couldn't handle temperatures ranging from 5 degrees down to -4 degrees. Even if the phones managed to stay powered up, most died when put to actual use.

Feature phones, which are less complicated than smartphones, did better. Apart from slow display reaction, the feature phones we tested showed no symptoms until the temperature dropped to -13 degrees. By the time that temperature was reached, most smartphones were completely useless.

We were surprised to find that Samsung smartphones outlasted Nokia's touch-screen devices. Only one of the smartphones we tested kept running smoothly when the temperature reached -22 degrees: The Samsung Galaxy S II.

Even if Korean engineers don't face sub-zero temperatures as often as their Finnish colleagues, they've managed to design a better smartphone for such conditions. The Galaxy S II didn't shut down until the temperature reached -31 degrees. And until that point, there wasn't even a hint of slowness when using its display.

The Breaking Point for All Phones: -40 Degrees
The ultimate cold temperature for the smartphones we tested was -31 degrees. Even the most persistent smartphone, the Samsung Galaxy S II, shut down when we tried to use the phone at this temperature.

None of the other tested smartphones could stand such extreme conditions. But some feature phones did work at -31 degrees, even though their LCD displays showed serious slowness. But when the temperature dropped to -40, no phone in either category survived. Even the toughest ones shut down.

The two phones that survived the longest, both feature phones, were an inexpensive Nokia C1-01 and a five-year-old Nokia E65, which was one of the devices we chose for comparison purposes in the tests.

These two phones may not be equipped with high-end touchscreens, but they worked. Nokia engineers appear know what they're doing on these phones: The coldest temperature reached in Finland almost every winter is -40 degrees.

Blame the Battery

When the temperature drops low enough, a cell phone thinks that its battery is empty--even if it's fully recharged--and shuts down. Here's why:

A chemical reaction takes place inside the battery. The product of the reaction is electrons, and the flow of electrons creates an electric current, which the cell phone uses as its source of power. The speed of this reaction depends on the temperature: The colder it gets, the slower the reaction, and the smaller the current that the battery can provide.

The voltage of the battery isn't stable, either. The nominal voltage of a lithium-ion battery is typically 3.7 volts but, in reality, the voltage is between 2.7 volts (for an empty battery) and 4.2 volts (for a fully charged battery).

In cold temperatures, the internal resistance of the battery grows, causing the output voltage to drop. When the voltage drops too low--below a threshold voltage--the cell phone thinks the battery is empty, even it is fully recharged, and shuts down.

How the Cold Affects Different Displays

An LCD display consists of layers. The actual liquid crystals are positioned between the polarizing filters and electrodes. A TFT layer (thin film transistor) is positioned behind the screen to control the pixels of the screen.

When the temperature drops, the viscosity (or thickness) of the liquid crystal material increases exponentially. Depending on the material used in the liquid crystals, the viscosity increases two-to-three times more when the temperature drops 18 degrees. This means the pixel changes its color slower in the cold.

When it's cold enough, the pixel color change is so slow that it can't change fully before the next frame is already drawn on the screen. This is when the display seems to work slowly and when ghosting or image blur appears on the screen.

In AMOLED displays, the colors are produced with a layer covered in organic material (OLED). This lack of liquid crystals probably explains why AMOLED displays work better in the cold.

 

Other Electronics News:

Lenovo Batteries ,

Lenovo R500 Battery , Lenovo X21 Battery , Lenovo X22 Battery , Lenovo X23 Battery , Lenovo X24 Battery , Lenovo X30 Battery , etc.