Tips to help BlackBerry make its phones cool again
5 Tips to help BlackBerry make its phones cool again 1. Don't make a slider phone Slider phones are the equivalent of your dad da...
-
LG G4 design
The LG G4 design lives up to the many rumors that it'll be clad in premium leather, specifically vegetable tanned leather. It'll come in multiple colors too.
Leather isn't for everyone, so other backs are available with the new smartphone including more familiar black and gold with a metallic coating and white with a ceramic coating.All of three of these alternative design options sport a unique hammered pattern, but have a plastic base.The LG G4 dimensions are 148.9 x 76.5 x 9.9mm and it sports a curved back, as seen in several press renders.
LG's mobile chief Juno Cho has stated that the G4 will be "radically different" to anything that's come before. Those changes were originally said to include a metal casing rather than a polycarbonate one, but LG upped the elegance with a leather back.LG G4 screen
LG has shown the G4's screen in a video, revealing that it has a QHD IPS Quantum Display, which is 25% brighter and has a 20% wider color range than the display on the LG G3.That screen had already been revealed by LG Display before it was confirmed that the LG G4 would use it, so we know it's a 5.5-inch 1440 x 2560 display.
LG G4 also takes cues from the company's curved smartphones with a slight bend to its design. It's not as dramatic as the LG G Flex 2, but its should prove resourceful for screen durability.LG G4 camera
An official teaser video reveals some of the G4's camera features, such as Quick Shot, which lets you take a snap by double-tapping the rear key, even if the phone is locked.
There's also a Gesture Interval Shot mode, which takes four photos in a row, allowing you to choose the best to keep. Plus the camera features powerful manual controls.
As for the hardware, a brand new camera module has been created that features an aperture of f/1.8, and will very likely be used in the G4, which according to LG makes it the "widest aperture camera developed for a smartphone".
In plain English this means the LG G4 should be excellent at taking photographs in low light conditions, allowing 80% more light in than the LG G3, as well as less blur when taking photos of fast moving objects. You can see the results for yourself in LG's teaser video below.The LG G4's camera has also been boosted from the 13MP resolution of the LG G3 to 16MP on the back and from 2.1MP to 8MP on the front. The rear camera has a six-layer lens that is twice the size of the one found in the LG G3.An ultra-thin 0.1mm blue IR filter will also be included, to help give photos a natural look with accurate colours by blocking out infrared interference.LG G4 OS and power
LG's G4 will have an all-new UX 4.0 interface to give it a more refined look as it attempts to compete with HTC Sense and Apple's obvious iOS.
Among these are 'Ringtone ID', which automatically composes a custom ringtone for each contact and 'Quick Memo+', which lets you collect snippets from the web without the adverts.
Other features of the newly announced UX 4.0 include a Smart Alert, which makes activity suggestions based on the weather forecast and a Smart Board, which combines information from multiple apps into a single widget.
Surprisingly the LG G4 looks set to pass on the Snapdragon 810 and use the weaker Snapdragon 808 instead, if a benchmark believed to be from the LG G4 is to be believed.It could be true, as the 810 reportedly suffers from overheating issues, though it contradicts earlier rumors, which suggested that the LG G4 would sport a Snapdragon 810 chip. Either way, it's set to have a meaty 3GB of RAM.LG G4 cost
While the LG G3 undercut rivals it looks like the same may not be true of the LG G4. South Korean carriers SK Telecom and T World Direct have it pegged at $825, which would be between the Galaxy S6 and Galaxy S6 Edge in the US.Converting to pounds gives us £550 in the UK, but direct conversions rarely pan out and if anything it's likely to be slightly more than that.'techradar. -
10 best compact cameras of 2015
1. Panasonic LX100
A compact masterpiece, with a, big sensor, classic controls, fast zoom and even a viewfinderSensor: Micro Four Thirds, 12.8MP | Lens: 24-75mm, f/1.7-2.8 | Monitor: 3-inch, 921K dots | Viewfinder: Yes | Continuous shooting: 11fps | Movies: 4K | User level: ExpertKeen photographers usually go for a DSLR or a compact system camera, but they also want something that will slip in a pocket for those days when the big camera needs to stay at home. Usually, that means putting up with a smaller sensor – but not this time. Somehow, Panasonic has shoehorned a CSC-sized Micro Four Thirds sensor into a compact camera body. Not only that, it's added an aperture ring on the lens, a shutter speed dial on the top AND an electronic viewfinder. It has a specially-designed super-compact wide-aperture lens and it can shoot 4K too. Expensive, but amazing and unique.
2. Fuji X30
A compact camera for enthusiasts that's packed with features and style but still affordableSensor: 2/3-inch X-Trans, 12MP | Lens: 28-112mm, f/2.0-2.8 | Monitor: 3-inch tilting, 920K dots | Viewfinder: EVF | Continuous shooting: 12fps | Movies: 1080 | User level: Intermediate/ExpertBut you don't have to pay a fortune for a top-quality high-end compact camera. We like the Sony RX100 III with its 1-inch sensor, but we're actually going to go for the Fuji X30, and for two reasons: it's very good value for money for what it delivers, and the 2/3-inch Fuji X-Trans sensor punches well above its weight, with excellent film simulation modes, dynamic range expansion and shadow/highlight contrast control. It's nicely made, too, with a solid-feeling body, traditional manual zoom ring and a very good electronic viewfinder.
3. Fuji X100T
Fuji took a chance with this retro-themed fixed lens compact – and made its reputationSensor: APS-C X-Trans, 16.3MP | Lens: 35mm, f/2 | Monitor: 3-inch, 1040K dots | Viewfinder: Hybrid optical/EVF | Continuous shooting: 6fps | Movies: 1080 | User level: ExpertThe X100T is a beauty both to look and and to use, but it's not for everyone! It's a relatively large, retro-styled camera with a fixed focal length 35mm equivalent f/2.0 lens, and designed for photographers who hanker after the weighty feel and manual external controls of traditional 35mm rangefinder cameras. It's a relatively specialised camera you'll use for a certain type of subject (street photography, for example) and most owners are likely to have other cameras too. The original X100 revived Fuji's fortunes and gave its rivals the jolt they needed to develop their own classically-designed cameras.
4. Sony RX10
Hard to categorise and easily overlooked, the RX10 scores with a brilliant lens and a big sensorSensor: 1-inch CMOS, 20.2MP | Lens: 24-200mm, f/2.8 | Monitor: 3-inch tilting, 1440K dots | Viewfinder: EVF | Continuous shooting: 10fps | Movies: 1080 | User level: Intermediate/ExpertActually, that 'big' sensor is relative. DSLR and mirrorless camera owners would sneer at a 1-inch sensor, but it's much bigger than the sensors used in regular compact cameras and bridge cameras and this has a big impact on picture quality. The problem for the RX10 is that its 8.3x zoom range is too short for it to be considered a 'bridge' camera so people don't know how to categorize it. But that 24-200mm lens is remarkable – its constant f/2.8 maximum aperture is unheard of in a compact camera with this kind of zoom range.
5. Panasonic FZ1000
Bridge cameras usually match yucky, small sensors with crazy big zooms... but not this timeSensor: 1-inch, 20.1 megapixels | Lens: 25-400mm, f/2.8-4 | Monitor: 3-inch articulating, 921K dots | Viewfinder: EVF | Continuous shooting: 12fps | Movies: 4K | User level: IntermediateThe Sony RX10 is impressive enough, but the Panasonic FZ1000 takes it a step further. Bridge cameras are very popular because they offer a colossal zoom range at a modest cost. To design a big zoom, though, the makers have to use a tiny sensor – and here Panasonic took the wise choice to sacrifice zoom range for better quality. Like the Sony RX10, the Panasonic FZ1000 uses a 1-inch sensor, and while the zoom tops out at 400mm equivalent, that's still plenty for all but the most extreme uses. If you want both zoom power and quality, the FZ1000 is the answer.
6. Canon SX60 HS
Big-zoom bridge cameras don't deliver the best quality, but the SX60 HS is best-of-breedSensor: 1/2.3-inch back-illuminated CMOS, 16.1MP | Lens: 21-1365mm, f/3.4-6.5 | Monitor: 3-inch articulating, 922K dots | Viewfinder: EVF | Continuous shooting: 6.4fps | Movies: 1080 | User level: Basic/IntermediateHaving just complained that regular bridge cameras use small sensors that compromise the quality, we're still going to recommend the Canon SX60 HS. The Panasonic FZ1000 is big and expensive, and the Canon is much more manageable in both respects. Its 1/2.3-inch sensor has a back-illuminated design for better light gathering, and while its 65x zoom has now been beaten by the 83x zoom on the Nikon P900, it's still right up there with the biggest on the market. You get an articulating LCD, full manual controls and the ability to shoot raw files, so the SX60 is about as good as regular bridge cameras get.
7. Panasonic TZ70/ZS50
Travel cameras combine big zoom ranges with pocket-sized bodies, and the TZ70 is the bestSensor: 1/2.3-inch CMOS, 12.1 | Lens: 24-720mm, f/3.3-6.4 | Monitor: 3-inch, 1040K dots | Viewfinder: EVF | Continuous shooting: 10fps | Movies: 1080 | User level: Basic/IntermediateMost of us like to travel light, and this has led to a big market in versatile 'travel', or 'long-zoom' compacts. Panasonic kicked off this whole camera genre with its TZ-series, and these are still the best. The latest model, the TZ70, has a 30x zoom and some remarkably powerful features, including full manual exposure modes, the ability to shoot raw files and even an electronic viewfinder. The small sensor is a necessary evil for this type of camera, but Panasonic has bravely dropped the resolution to 12 megapixels to give better sensitivity and all-round quality.
8. Olympus Tough TG-4
If you like to live on the wild side, the TG-4 can take as much punishment as you canSensor: 1/2.3-inch CMOS, 16MP | Lens: 25-100mm, f/2.0-4.9 | Monitor: 3-inch, 460K dots | Viewfinder: No | Continuous shooting: 5fps | Movies: 1080 | User level: Basic/IntermediateWe haven't yet had Olympus's latest TG-4 in for review, but we've tested the TG-3 and we like it a lot. You normally think of cameras as delicate electronic devices, but the TG-4 is as tough as they come. It's shockproof to a height of 2.1m (the height you can drop it from), crushproof (resisting a force of 100kg), waterproof (down to a depth of 15m) and freezeproof (down to -10 degrees centigrade). You also get a surprisingly fast 4x zoom lens – f/2.0 at its widest focal length – and built-in GPS, so that you can follow your adventures on a map.
9. Canon PowerShot D30
Tough and smart-looking at the same time, the D30 is waterproof down to an amazing 25mSensor: 1/2.3-inch back-illuminated CMOS, 12.1 megapixels | Lens: 28-140mm, f/3.9-4.8 | Monitor: 3-inch, 461K dots | Viewfinder: No | Continuous shooting: 1.9fps | Movies: 1080 | User level: BasicStill on the subject of tough cameras, we also like the Canon PowerShot D30. It's a lot cheaper than the Olympus TG-4 and a little less aggressive in its styling. It goes even deeper, too, with a depth rating of 25m, and all this combines to make it a tough and practical family camera. But while the D30 does have GPS, like the Olympus, there's no Wi-Fi – and there's no 'crushproof' rating either. The image quality isn't quite on a par with the Olympus's (which also shoots raw files, by the way) and the macro mode can be a bit hit and miss, but you can't fault its value.
10. Sony W800
It's cheap, it's simple and it still gives you a 5x zoom – the Sony is our top low-cost buySensor: 1/2.3-inch, 20.1MP | Lens: 26-130mm, f/3.2-6.4 | Monitor: 2.7-inch, 230K dots | Viewfinder: No | Continuous shooting: 0.5fps | Movies: 720 | User level: BasicIf price is the biggest factor, then you can hardly do better than the Sony W800. At this end of the market you have to tread a careful line between 'cheap' and 'rubbish', and the W800 keeps you firmly on the side of 'cheap'. Its 20MP 1/2.3-inch sensor and 5x zoom lens deliver perfectly satisfactory quality for a budget point-and-shoot camera, and both the build quality and the styling are a cut above what you might expect at this price. It's small, light, easy to use and gives you just enough manual control to cope with the occasional tricky situation.
'techradar -
Good reasons why your next machine must be a PC?
If
you believe everything you read coming out of the various analyst
houses around the world the PC is on its last legs, or more to the
point, the PC is actually well and truly dead since Apple used the iPad
and Mac to hammer nails into its already outdated coffin.Midway through 2013 the story was this: tablet sales were on pace to race past PC sales in just two years after selling 332 million units and thus eclipsing the pitiful 323 million computers sold. That was all before the PC began its fight back into the relevance of everyone's lives.2-in-1 laptops plus a new breed of consumer looking to get a far better experience than the limited one offered by certain tablets mean that sales are as buoyant as ever. Chuck in the introduction of Windows 10 this July and the release of stellar new games like Grand Theft Auto V and there's more than enough to get excited about. What follows is a look at the five major reasons why the PC is still relevant for each and every one of us.
'techradar . -
Drone technology has developed rapidly over the past few years, but they're still pretty dim-witted - requiring an operator to be within eyesight to prevent collisions. However, that might be about to change follow research into artificial neural networks.We've long had computers that can recognise objects and respond in real-time, but the tech and power demands have made them unsuitable for mounting on a lightweight drone. To date, research into getting drones to sense and avoid obstacles has focused on short-range technology like radar, but that often doesn't give enough warning for a fast-moving drone to avoid a power line.So instead, a US company called Bio Inspired Technologies is taking a different approach - mimicking a biological brain. Humans and animals are generally rubbish at traditional computing tasks like adding up numbers, but great at processing input from multiple senses and responding to it.Sky smart
Bio Inspired has built a "brain" out of memristors - resistors that have a short memory. They're hooked up like the neurons in a biological brain, giving the chip-sized system the ability to recognise and "remember" objects like clouds, birds, buildings, radio towers and other drones - as well as using a camera to estimate how far away they are."Objects like other aircraft can be catalogued in a vague sense, meaning 'I see an aircraft', or in an exact sense: 'I see another drone'," Terry Gafron, CEO of Bio Inspired told New Scientist. "Not only could the system fly autonomously, but it could conceivably tell the difference between a deer and a wolf from the air." That information can then be used by the drone to plot a new flight path.Applications for the technology include Amazon's fleet of delivery drones, precision agriculture, industrial caretaking and of course the military. Gafron says it could even fly around town looking for empty parking spaces and relaying that information to you in real-time.Bio Inspired is working on a prototype of a drone equipped with the technology, which the company believes will be ready for its first flight later this year.'techradar. -
Launching the Apple Watch and new Macbook this week wasn't enough for the world's biggest technology company. Today, Apple has announced an update to its Final Cut Pro X, Motion and Compressor apps.
Pushing Final Cut Pro X to version 10.2, the new update delivers easy to control 3D motion titles improved masking for colour grading and effects, and native support for more camera formats.
Meanwhile the updates to the Motion app allow users to create custom materials and environments for 3D titles and share them to the main Final Cut Pro X app, and the Compressor updates make it easy for filmmakers to publish to iTunes.
The update is available to filmmakers now, with owners of previous versions of Final Cut Pro X getting the upgrades for free. New customers can grab Final Cut Pro X 10.2, Motion 5.2 and Compressor 4.2 from the Mac App Store for a recommended retail price of $US300 / £230 / $AU380, $US50 / £40 / $AU65, and $US50 / £40 / $AU65 respectively. -
Microsoft appears to have renamed the live tile system in use on its Windows 8 operating system to Modern UI after it had to stop using the term Metro due to legal threats from a German firm of the same name.
Microsoft's feeling a little down if the latest Windows code-name rumour is true – we could be talking about Blue instead of Windows 9.
So Blue could turn out to be Windows 8.5 or something similar and Foley's contacts tell her that it will land in the summer of 2013.
In other Microsoft naming news, the Windows Phone and Windows 8-friendly Metro UI looks set to be known henceforth as Modern.
That's if you can believe what you read on a registration page for Windows 8 DevCamp, where it's referred to thusly.
"Join this session to learn about the new platform for building Modern UI-style applications," the event page says.
V3 contacted Microsoft for confirmation of the new term but had received no reply at time of publication.
It's not the best name we ever heard, but it's certainly a preferable alternative to the other options, which include "Windows 8-style UI", "New User Interface", "Windows 8 design" and "Windows 8 application". -
Samsung Galaxy Note 2 release date,
News and features
Real ability as expected, it works really well and pretty.
Note the original Galaxy Samsung announced at IFA in Berlin. A similar time this year is on the cards, GSM Arena reporting that Samsung will hold one of the unload event, a day earlier than the IFA 2012, August 30.
This is one month earlier than some of the reports, but with Apple announces iPhone iteration 6, iPhone prophesied 5, in October, it seemed fixated on that we'll see Note 2 Galaxy was launched on August 15, with sources who said they would there are events around the world to see the excellent new phablet.
Samsung has confirmed that it will launch Galaxy Note 2 on August 29, just before IFA 2012 begins in Berlin.
-
The Canon PowerShot G1 X was one of the most interesting things to come out of CES 2012. It is, according to Canon, the finest compact camera it has ever made, and it features a sensor that is almost as big as those found in its DSLRs.
It seems that the natural competitor for the Canon PowerShot G1 X is last year's Fuji FinePix X100 - a retro-styled, high-end compact camera that has found a market with enthusiast photographers looking for a good back-up to their DSLR.
But how do these two premium compact cameras compare?
Sensor size
Although both cameras feature large sensors compared to their small body size, it is of course the Fujifilm FinePix X100 that wins here in the technical stakes, thanks to its APS-C sized CMOS sensor. However, while the Canon PowerShot G1 X's physical size is smaller, it does boast an extra 2MP and the same pixel size as its DSLR stablemate, the Canon EOS 600D.
Lens
Determining the best differences between the lenses on these cameras depends on what you're looking for.
While some people won't like the fact that the Fuji FinePix X100 only has one focal length - 23mm (35mm in equivalent terms) - others will inevitably see that as part of its charm. And of course it also comes with a wide maximum aperture of f/2.0.
That said, it's hard to deny the flexibility that a zoom lens such as the Canon PowerShot G1 X's 4x optical zoom provides, giving it an effective focal length of 28-112mm. At its lens's widest end, the Canon PowerShot G1 X's widest aperture is f/2.8, potentially giving the Fuji the edge in low-light stakes.
Sensitivity
Going hand-in-hand with the wide aperture lens is the camera's ISO sensitivity range. Both cameras are capable of reaching ISO 12,800, which is a first for a Canon compact camera.
In our review, we found that the Fuji FinePix X100's noise reduction options do a good job of processing out noise from high-sensitivity shots, while we found slight banding issues at the highest end of the spectrum.
We're looking forward to seeing how the Canon PowerShot G1 X compares when we test it for our full review, although the inclusion of Canon's new Digic 5 processor is a promising start, since we've found it performs very well in other cameras that use it, including the Canon PowerShot S100 and the PowerShot SX40.
Viewfinder
In the past, we've been disappointed by the quality of the viewfinder on Canon's G series of compact cameras. But the Canon PowerShot G1 X's is a bit better, because it's bigger and more practical.
Meanwhile, the Fuji FinePix X100's hybrid viewfinder (it has both an optical and an electronic finder) has generally been highly praised. Again, we're looking forward to putting the Canon PowerShot G1 X's viewfinder to the full test when it comes in for our full review.
Video
Both the cameras have the capability to shoot HD video. But the Canon PowerShot G1 X has the edge, since it produces full 1080p footage, compared with the Fuji FinePix X100's 720p movies. Both are capable of shooting at 24fps.
LCD screen
There are again pros and cons for each camera's LCD screens. Both are 2.8-inch units, but the Canon PowerShot G1 X's is on an articulating hinge. This proves extremely handy for shooting in awkward positions, and is great for shooting video. But, on the other hand, it reduces the sleekness of the camera, creating bulk and potential weak points in the camera's body.
Aesthetics
There is no denying that vintage is very much in vogue right now. Fujifilm has clearly gone down the retro route with the FinePix X100, and this seems to be one of its key selling points. The company has continued the styling with other X range cameras, including the Fuji FinePix X10 compact camera and the new Fuji X Pro-1 compact system camera.
The Canon PowerShot G1 X, on the other hand, has a much more utilitarian appearance, with bulky modules and a wide body. Sadly, we can't see anybody giving any style awards to the Canon camera's body, so the Fuji definitely wins out in the looks department.
Verdict
Well it's a toughie, no doubt about that. It's difficult coming to a firm conclusion when we are yet to fully test the Canon PowerShot G1 X, and both cameras have extremely strong selling points. In the end it probably comes down to a head vs heart decision.
We think the Fuji FinePix X100 with its beautiful aesthetics and slightly larger sensor just about edges it for the heart the moment, but the versatility of the Canon PowerShot G1 X is perhaps the choice of our heads.
We will of course bring you a full in-depth review of the Canon PowerShot G1 X as soon as possible, at which time our minds may be changed. Watch this space. -
Some 15 years ago, the American political scientist Robert Axelrod put forward a remarkable model of the way cultural diversity persists in society. His idea was that people are more likely to interact with others like them. The more similar two people are, the more likely they are to adopt each other's traits.That's how traits spread but it is also why diversity persists.Since then, the power and simplicity of Axelrod's approach has led complexity theorists to study numerous variations on the original theme. The model lends itself to computer simulation because people can be modelled as nodes on a grid influenced by those closest to them. Whatever the starting conditions, a computer can go through through millions of iterations to see how traits spread.Consequently, Axelrod's approach has been used to simulate behaviours ranging from the spread of language to voting behaviour.Today, Bartlomiej Dybiec and pals at the Center for Models of Life in Copenhagen use an Axelrod-like model to examine the way cultures might have spread throughout Europe. They think about culture as a collective term for rumours, stories, ideas and fashions which are shared by people at the same location.The culture spreads when people at a nearby location adopt a newer set of fashions. Cultural centres survive by rebroadcasting the same fashions or repackaging old ones as new.Where Dybiec and co differ from Axelrod is in assuming there is a small chance that a new fashion can spontaneously arise at any location and then spread like ripples across a pond. And instead of using a square grid (or some other regular shape) they superimpose their model onto a map of Europe.Clearly, Europe's geography places strict limits on the way cultures can spread (assuming that fashions cannot jump across water). This has important implications.For example, Dybiec and co's model suggests that the borders between regions dominated by different cultures can change very quickly. Their maps of Europe change over a period equivalent to 50 years or so. That's exactly as has happened, even in the recent past.But these guys' main conclusion is that cultural centres survive longest in geographically remote regions, particularly peninsulas such as Greece and Italy. That's because it is hard for new cultures to spread into these regions.So, it's of more than passing interest that these regions gave birth to two of the greatest and long-lived cultures in human history--the ancient Greek and Roman empires. It also backs the idea put forward by Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs and Steel that the fortunes of the western world are largely the result of an accident of geography.Of course, Dybiec and co's model is simplistic in the extreme. It makes no allowance for the possibility that culture might spread overseas and does not take into account the effects of other geographical constraints such as rivers, mountains and climate.But these are nuances that, presumably, can be added into the model as it becomes more complex.Dybiec and co describe their model as replaying the history of Europe. It'll be interesting to see what the next replay reveals. -
Can One Phone Save Nokia and Microsoft?
It's blue, plastic, and could decide the fate of two multibillion-dollar companies.The Lumia 900 was launched by Finnish phone company Nokia at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas today with surprisingly frank talk from the company's CEO about how both his company and Microsoft trail in the market for smart phones.
Steven Elop repeatedly drew on military metaphors to describe how he planned to assault the U.S. market. "Clearly there are strong contenders already on the field, [and] our strategy has been to establish a series of beachheads," he said, before unveiling the new handset, which comes in either black or cyan, and will be available on AT&T's 4G network in coming weeks. "From that beachhead, you will see us push forward," said Elop.The warhorse leading that charge, the Lumia 900, is an LTE device with a polycarbonate plastic case. It has a 4.3-inch screen with an OLED display that Nokia nicknames "clear black" and uses a technology unique to the company to deliver truer blacks than most OLED displays, said Elop. The phone's camera offers a wider angle of view than most smart phones, said Nokia senior vice president Kevin Shields while demonstrating the device on stage. He also boasted about the camera's large aperture, which means it lets more light reach its sensor. "The front camera lets in as much light as the back camera on pretty much any other smart phone out there," said Shields. The price for the Lumia was not announced, but Elop claimed it would be "competitive."Nokia's partner of just one year, Microsoft, has as much riding on the Lumia 900 as Nokia does, as underlined by the surprise appearance of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer on stage with Elop. He underlined the commitment of the two companies to one another, one that cynics might say is due to the fact that each has nowhere else to go.At the time of the agreement between the two companies, Nokia found itself without a smart phone operating system able to punch its weight against those of Apple and Google. Microsoft had just reinvented its struggling mobile operating system but faced an uphill battle turning the heads of phone manufacturers, such as Samsung and HTC, that had enthusiastically embraced Google's Android operating system."We didn't sign a contract to work together until less than a year ago," said Ballmer. "To go from concept and discussion to real engineering partnership to delivery is fantastic." He went on to call the Lumia 900 an "incredibly important milestone" before acknowledging that Windows Phone is far from on par with its competitors. "There's a lot of room to grow in terms of selling Windows phones," said Ballmer. "This third ecosystem is really going to pay off for users, for developers, for operators, and I trust for our two companies." There are now more than 50,000 apps available for Windows Phone, said Ballmer. Apple currently states that there are more than 500,000 apps for the iPhone, while Google said in October that there are over 400,000 for Android phones.Elop claimed that Windows Phone provided a genuine alternative to models pushed by Apple and Google's mobile operating systems, which share basic design features like the way apps appear as icons. "The product itself has to stand for something, it has to be differentiated," said Elop, praising the "live tiles" of Windows Phone. The tiles are both shortcuts to apps and also notification areas that can show things like Facebook activity and Twitter messages. That design is much more valuable, said Elop, than "yet another collection of static applications on a grid."He conceded that Nokia would have to make efforts to communicate that to consumers more familiar with Apple and Google's offerings, saying that 2012 would see the company spend money on that. Such is Nokia's need to see Windows Phone charm consumers that Elop even said he welcomed competition from other companies launching phones with that operating system. "I'm happy that Samsung and others are introducing Windows devices, because our principal competition is other ecosystems," said Elop.Asked whether Nokia would release tablet computers, perhaps based on Microsoft's forthcoming Windows 8, Elop said that it would depend on being able to offer something different from existing tablets. "You want to ensure differentiation, as we have for phones, with camera optics, design, and the operating system," he said. "If we believe we can bring differentiation to tablets, whatever it may be, then clearly, it's an opportunity for Nokia."
-
While Apple's new iWork suite (three separate productivity apps) for the iPad is an impressive technical and usability achievement for a mobile device, it quickly begins to frustrate.
They're beautiful apps, yes, and they're packed with clever, though not especially intuitive, gestures and interface flourishes that genuinely begin to replicate what you'd expect a traditional desktop app to do, and all on a glorified mobile-phone-with-a-big-screen.
But while Keynote is fine if you're happy to use the few beautiful themes Apple supplies, you quickly run into limitations if you try to tinker or, worse still, import your own existing presentations. Never mind that the process of getting the files onto the iPad in the first place is a hideous and convoluted mess (see the Pages review); once they're finally imported, you're likely to see glitches.
Carefully laid-out slides can find their layouts messed up, especially if you've created a widescreen presentation that Keynote has to reformat for the 4:3 iPad screen.
Limited scope
Though Keynote comes with 43 fonts, you can't use your own for brand consistency, and heaven help you if you try to export anything vaguely complex from PowerPoint via Keynote on the Mac.
And just how do you get assets onto the iPad to use in your presentation? Local side loading through iTunes is the standard method, but yuck – how finicky. The most convenient method for images, bizarrely, is to copy them from the web and paste in, but again, it just feels nasty.
What about master slides you've created? Keynote ignores them, so your only option is to copy and paste an existing slide unless you want to create each one from scratch.
Presenter notes are stripped out when you copy from Mac to iPad, which is a shame given that with the purchase of the VGA-out connector you can run a presentation from the iPad to a projector. Unless you're happy to create presentations that stick pretty closely to Apple's templates, you're going to find the whole experience exasperating.
We had hoped it would at least be a decent player for Mac-created presentations that you could make last-minute edits to on the way to a meeting, but it's not even there yet. -
More details have been released on Sony Ericsson's Q4 financial results, which saw it record a pre-tax loss of £205 million.
Sony Ericsson has put this down to intense competition in the market, the turbulent global economic situation and the recent natural disaster in Thailand – where many components are made for its handsets.
SE goes on to highlight another reason for the loss was due to the lack of new smartphones being released in Q4 – a sign of the times maybe, with Sony perhaps reluctant to produce more phones bearing the Sony Ericsson brand before it takes over full control in February.
All change please
A shift of focus is also highlighted, with Sony Ericsson moving away from feature phones and concentrating on the Android smartphone market.
Lower end feature phones have performed well for SE in the past; however the drop in units in this area has not been recouped by its Android smartphone range in Q4 (which have increased by 65% year on year though), which have failed to reach the heights of rivial models such as the Galaxy S2 and iPhone 4S.
This has lead to a 20% year on year decrease in number of units shipped during the fourth quarter.
Sony will be looking to get the company back on track when it takes over in February, using the Xperia S and co., as the cornerstone of its handset assault on the 2012 market - directly challenging the other big hitters arriving this year, such as the iPhone 5 and Samsung Galaxy S3. -
guardian.co.uk - A mobile OS fragmentation doesn't have to be bad, and there isn't just one form of it. But one mobile expert – and ex-Microsoftie – argues that Android is now far out of Google's control
Charlie Kindel worked at Microsoft for 21 years, latterly on Windows Mobile and then on Windows Phone, where he was in charge of getting third-party apps on the platform, before leaving the company last August. He thinks Windows Phone is "the BEST product Microsoft has ever built". He is now running his own mobile startup business. This post, which originally appeared on his blog, is reused with permission. You can find him on Twitter at @ckindel.Google 'has lost control of Android'. Photograph: Kena Betancur/Reuters
Android: in pieces?
The fragmentation of Android is very real and very problematic for end users, developers, mobile operators, device manufacturers, and Google. However fragmentation does not mean Android is going to "die" or "fail" as some seem to think.
On the contrary, I think we can count on Android playing a significant role in our world for a long, long time. I also am confident that Google has already lost control of Android and has zero chance of regaining it. This post explains why I'm so confident about this.
TL;DR
You'll (hopefully) note that I intentionally separate Android from Google. Repeat after me: Android is not Google and Google is not Android. Android has become something that is independent of Google (or anyone else, for that matter).
• Next time you say/hear "fragmentation sucks/is not a problem" consider for whom.
• Fragmentation will cause Android to continue to grow.
• Google has lost control of Android due to fragmentation.
Let's break down this whole mobile platform fragmentation thing. Last weekend, Jon Evans of Techcrunch apologised to MG Siegler for disagreeing about the relative quality of the Android and iOS developer tools. In that post, Jon argued that Android device fragmentation is relatively minor for developers, but OS fragmentation is a real problem:
Android's fragmentation has become a giant millstone for Android app development, leaving it worryingly behind its iOS equivalent. It's not the panoply of screen sizes and formats; the Android layout engine is actually quite good at minimising that annoyance. It's not the frequent instances of completely different visual behavior on two phones running exactly the same version of Android; again, annoying, but relatively minor. Device fragmentation is just an irritation.
OS fragmentation, though, is an utter disaster.
– Jon Evans
Jon points out two of the five axes of fragmentation: Device and OS. The other three are User Interface, Marketplace and Services.
The Five Axes of Mobile Platform Fragmentation
are:
• User Interface
• Device
• Operating System
• Marketplace
• Service
For a mobile platform, a different degree of fragmentation can exist along each of these axes. For example, Apple's iOS platform has almost no fragmentation along the Marketplace axis because Apple has been so hardcore about ensuring that the iTunes marketplace is the only marketplace supported. A relatively small amount of fragmentation on the User Interface axis exists because Apple has been extremely consistent with UI. Likewise there is a bit of device fragmentation in iOS due to different generations of iPhones having different hardware capabilities (such as a front-facing camera).
The fragmentation of Android is severe, across all of these axes, regardless of how Eric Schmidt tries to spin it. And because of the complexity of the mobile ecosystem (and the other ecosystems Android is part of), the effect is more multiplicative than additive.
Revisiting the Mobile Ecosystem
In my "Windows Phone is Superior; Why Hasn't it Taken Off?" post, I broke the mobile ecosystem into its market sides: Developers, Users, Carriers, Device Manufacturers and OS Providers (see how I put Developers first? Wouldn't want someone to think I don't believe they are important, for heaven's sake). As I pointed out, the mobile ecosystem is highly complex and, due to the desires and behaviours of the various sides, is not efficient. There is not enough clean value exchange between several sides of the market, and too much friction.
But regardless of how virtuous the virtuous cycles within the mobile ecosystem are, it is clear each side of the ecosystem is affected differently by each fragmentation axis. In some cases, some combinations of fragmentation/market side are actually positive (one could use the word "diversity" instead of fragmentation in these cases). In many other cases fragmentation is bad. Bad with a capital B, in fact. In still other cases, fragmentation can be a double-edged sword for a player on one side of the market.
Examples of positive fragmentation (diversity):
Examples of negative fragmentation:
Any commentary about fragmentation either needs to include all market sides and all axes, or else be very specific about which aspect is being discussed. Jon's article above is clearly about developers. You can obviously take the tables above and expand them to cover the entire 5x6 matrix. But even if you did, and tried to document all 60 rows (30 instances, two sides each), you'd quickly discover the following: not all players on a market side are the same. They differ in the value they provide and the value they expect to extract from others. This is most pronounced on the OS providers side, and this gets to the core of the point of this post:
Google lost control of Android a long time ago and nothing it does will allow it to regain control. In fact, almost anything I tries will simply increase fragmentation along most fragmentation axes.
Remember we are talking about a complex multi-sided market (6 sides) with high-impedance between key sides of the market (see my "superior" post). The OS providers side of the market is dominated by Apple and Google. Microsoft is serious about being a third player, and I believe it will push, push, push until it is. There's also RIM and a few others, but it's safe to ignore them here (Cue Scoble: "Charlie says Bada is dead"). [Tech Editor's note: Three days after this post was originally written, Samsung announced that it would open-source bada, and tie it into Meego.]
OS Providers' Perspectives
• Apple – Makes the vast majority of its money by getting paid ~$150 up front from mobile operators per iPhone sold. The high-margin iPhone business will becomes a smaller relative portion of the overall Apple business. Apple is motivated to keep propping up this high-margin business as long as possible and to start leveraging its significant market share to grow revenue from services. Apple has caused an imbalance in the ecosystem by cutting third parties out of the device manufacturer side of the market.
• Google – Invested in Android believing it could own mobile search like it owns web search by tying Android to Google search. At one point, believed it could disrupt the carriers (the link is from November 2006, when Eric Schmidt suggested we'd take free phones in return for watching targeted ads). It got slapped back down, hard. Now, the desire to continue to invest in Android is still about search, but also about owning a social graph (via Google+) and being pissed as hell that Apple is so successful. Google is deeply frustrated with the fragmentation of Android and has been trying all sorts of tactics to rein it in.
• Microsoft – Feels stuck between the Apple & Google models. Going it alone, ala Apple, is not possible due to the fact that no carrier will ever let anyone else do what Apple did to them again. The Google model is way too similar to what the old Windows Mobile was like (irony much?). Microsoft sees mobile as a means to an end (as Google does). But the end is different. Where Google has only really one service it can monetise via mobile, Microsoft has several (Office, Xbox LIVE, etc). In addition, Microsoft has a cash cow that is at serious risk due to Microsoft not being a key player in mobile: Windows. Microsoft must be relevant in mobile or Windows revenues will plummet because everything is going mobile. I think Microsoft really likes the fact it generates revenue from Android, but I doubt it has that much impact on the bottom line.
Only Apple directly profits from being an OS provider in the mobile ecosystem. For Google, it is a cost centre. Apple is also the only OS provider that leaves device manufacturers out in the cold.
Smartphone device manufacturers now have two choices: Android or Windows Phone 7. As I noted in my "superior" post, Microsoft's strategy of focusing on the quality of the user experience (which tends to minimise fragmentation along most axes) is counter to what device manufactures really want. I am glad Microsoft is following this strategy; it is pretty much the only strategy that makes sense given the hole they dug with Windows Mobile. But this strategy does cause friction between Microsoft and device manufacturers/carriers when ideally you'd not want friction.
Google, on the other hand, gave device manufacturers exactly what they wanted with Android: Extreme flexibility and an open source license. That model is like crack cocaine for the likes of Samsung and HTC. They have had years to get addicted to it and, from their perspective (selling boatloads of devices) it's working just dandy for them.
The carriers tend to encourage the device manufacturers here. They demand a variety of devices. They demand differentiation from their competitors. They control the marketing money spent on advertising. When Verizon writes something like $10bn+ worth of cheques every year for devices, who do you think they write them to? Hint: it's not Google.
Google's options
Google has some tactics that it might try (is trying) to use to rein in fragmentation. None of these will have a significant impact; in fact, most will make fragmentation worse.
• Investing in the Nexus brand. Nexus is Google's "pure" Android play. The idea is a phone with a more rigidly defined user experience, more consistent hardware, the latest OS with a consistent upgrade policy, a single marketplace, and consistent (Google endorsed) services. I love this strategy from an end-user's perspective. Nexus phones will sell fairly well. But the numbers will pale in comparison to the non-Nexus phones sold. But Nexus will only be "fairly" successful because it is counter to what the carriers want and every dollar Google spends on advertising it incents the device manufactures and carriers to spend more on advertising their differentiated products. Nexus actually worsens fragmentation along most axes by introducing yet another "Android model" into the mix.
• Wishing Everyone Will/Would Upgrade. This actually seems to be Google's primary tactic. As Eric Schmidt said last week: "With Android, Google's 'core strategy' is to get everyone on Ice Cream Sandwich, the latest version of the platform." Google is trying to do this two ways:
• Holding Back Access to Google Services. "Follow our rules or you can't use Google Search." This just pisses Google's partners off and smells like anti-trust. Not that it matters, because Google can't really do this because there are enough reasonable alternatives to Google's services now. In addition, the battle of the social graph is causing Google to push Google+ everywhere. What strategy tax (that is: when big organisations are forced to make non-ideal decisions because of their profit motive) at Google do you think will trump the other: Android consistency or Google+ everywhere?
• Holding Back Access to the Latest Version of Android. "Follow our rules or you don't get Ice Cream Sandwich, etc…" Uh, it's open source. Fork. More fragmentation. Simply. Will. Not. Work.
None of these tactics will work, primarily because none of the other sides of the market have any motivation to help (other than end users, who would benefit, but consumers don't really have enough power). Secondarily, these tactics won't work because Android has already been so fragmented and such a market success (in terms of units).
The early fragmentation of Android (across all axes) was the proverbial camel's nose under the tent – the beginning of the slippery slope.
Buying Motorola Mobility, under-investing curating the marketplace, redesigning the user interface every release, not forcing the device manufacturers/carriers to consistently upgrade, and Google's monopolistic behaviour with search got the camel into the tent up to its first hump.
Android's massive unit growth means the camel is now already IN the tent. (Which means, following the old proverb, that who/whatever was inside the tent before is now outside in the cold.) Android has become so successful that Google has lost control of it. And this, in turn, means Android, as a brand, will have a significantly diminished value over time.
Oh, and if after reading the above tome, you still don't agree. Consider this article about television. Remember, Android is not just about mobile…
I'd love to hear your comments. (There are plenty on the original post, too.) Keep it clean…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
