Bad Ideas: Stealing Products That Can Be Tracked Wirelessly

from the just-a-suggestion dept

Slashdot points us to the amusing story of technology "solving" a theft of an irrigation controller on a farm, thanks to a wireless connection. The irrigation controller was stolen, which was first noticed when it sent an error message to the guy who runs them. A few weeks later, though, he was surprised to get a signal from the controller, and he was able to communicate with the device and get the company that supplied the wireless connection to triangulate and reveal the general location of the unit (the guy had the maker of the controller, who obviously contracts with the wireless provider, request this info to make sure the request was legit). From that, the guy used Google Earth to figure out where the controller must be -- and went to the local police. After investigating the person whose property it ended up on, the controller went missing again... only to turn back up in its original location a few weeks later.

While it's a neat story of technology thwarting a theft, there are a few questions raised by the story. To be honest, the full writeup so pumps up this particular brand of irrigation controller system, that it almost sounds like an apocryphal story made up to hype up how much better this controller is than competitors (look, it's theft proof!). Also, despite the "happy ending" -- the actual thieves were not apprehended, and future thieves will simply learn to disable the wireless communications ability. In the meantime, though, it's a reminder that technology is making the job of the ordinary thief somewhat more difficult these days.

Filed Under: irrigation controls, theft, tracking, wireless

Is The Mobile Ad Market Poised To Break Out... Or To Disappear?

from the are-mobile-ads-necessary? dept

Matt Marshall over at VentureBeat has an excellent article on AdMob, a top company in the mobile advertising space. Marshall does some back-of-the-envelope calculations to come up with some revenue figures and notes that AdMob is poised to start "minting" money as the mobile web takes off. It may happen, but I wonder if the mobile ad market will really be as big a deal as some make it out to be -- for a few reasons. First, it seems incredibly unlikely that mobile ads get anywhere near the clickthrough rate of web-based ads. Given the scenarios under which mobile content is usually called up (on the go, looking for something specific), it seems likely that mobile ads would get significantly less attention. Second, and more importantly, the concept of "the mobile web" still seems like a temporary invention that is destined to go away. As the iPhone has shown, it is possible to design a rather competent browser that can show "the full web" on a mobile phone. With mobile network speeds increasing, and more handsets bound to offer similar browsing functionality in the not-too-distant future, the distinction between the mobile web and the regular web seem destined to go away. At that point, specifically mobile ads will make even less sense, and the market will simply return to the existing market for web ads.

Filed Under: advertising, mobile ads, mobile web
Companies: admob

Theaters Working To Make Even The Pre-Show Ads More Entertaining

from the good-for-everyone dept

Two different themes we've discussed here quite often are (1) that movie theaters need to stop worrying about piracy, and focus more on improving the moviegoing experience and (2) that advertising is content -- and it better be good content if you want the advertising to be effective. That's why it's somewhat encouraging to see that movie theaters are now experimenting with much more entertaining and interactive "pre-show" advertising. They're doing things like using motion sensors to have the audience "play" a game as a group, or having them use their mobile phones to vote on certain questions on the screen and immediately showing the results. That latter example may be doubly surprising considering how theaters these days are so anti-mobile phone. Still, while this is a move in the right direction, it's the wrong thing to be focusing on at this point. Improving the overall experience is much more important than making the pre-show ads better, so hopefully this is only one small part of what theaters are working on these days.

Filed Under: advertising, content, movies, theaters

EFF, ACLU Sue To Find Out Details Of Gov't Use Of Mobile Phone Data To Track People

from the it's-like-your-own-personal-beacon dept

Back in November, the news broke on the Friday after Thanksgiving that the federal government routinely asked for and received information from mobile phone operators about the location of various mobile phones (effectively tracking their owners) without bothering to show any sort of probable cause. This should raise plenty of concern (especially combined with the warrantless wiretapping program), as it effectively would mean that if you own a mobile phone, you've given the gov't the freedom to figure out where you are at any moment in time with no probable cause.

The EFF and the ACLU filed Freedom of Information Act requests to find out details of the program, which were (not surprisingly) denied by the Justice Department. The two organizations have now sued the government to find out more about these programs. Given the government's reaction to similar lawsuits on wiretapping, don't expect much info to come out of this lawsuit -- and do expect a vigorous attempt to get the case dismissed with various bogus claims of "state secrets" and "national security." It all comes down to the same basic thing, though. The government seems to think it's above the law.

Filed Under: freedom of information, government, mobile phones, tracking
Companies: aclu, eff

The Real Price Of The iPhone: $599

from the hey,-that-sounds-familiar dept

As was widely expected, it turns out that all the hype and fuss about the iPhone costing $199 was really hiding the key facts: it's only that price if you're buying it in the US, along with a long term contract with high service fees. At first it actually appeared as though the only possible way you could buy the phone was with one of those contracts. However, AT&T has now admitted that it will indeed sell the phone without a contract, but the price will be $599. While some unlockers may find that worthwhile, it's probably a bit much for most. Still, this once again highlights how Apple's predictions that it was going to change the economics of the mobile phone industry haven't actually been true. There are plenty of mobile phones out there that you can buy subsidized under a contract, which cost 3x as much without a contract. So, rather than changing the economics of mobile phones, Apple has now completely bought into them. Update: Of course, as some are realizing it's actually cheaper to buy the subsidized version and break the contract. The early termination fee is less than the difference here, so you end up doing better that way.

Filed Under: iphone, pricing, subsidies, unlocking
Companies: apple, at&t

It's Good To Be A Monopoly: Rogers Prices iPhone Service At 2 Arms And 2 Legs

from the what-else-are-you-gonna-do? dept

There's been a fair amount of complaining about the pricing of the new iPhone 3G over the last few weeks. While plenty of people were initially enamored by the cheaper price for the actual phone in the US (and in some other countries), this subsidized low price often hid higher service fees (with a locked contract) that came with it. However, it appears that the folks at Rogers Communication up in Canada really went overboard in its service pricing: offering very expensive service fees that have excessively limited data amounts (and no unlimited data offering). Users also get less talk time. Basically, these service plans make the iPhone a hell of a lot less appealing -- but since Rogers is the only carrier offering the iPhone in Canada, it feels it can get away with such high prices. But, the impressive thing is that people are trying to fight back, putting together a petition against Rogers' decision. While online petitions are notorious for their ineffectiveness, this one seems to be getting an awful lot of attention -- creating a ton of negative publicity for Rogers. If the company has any sense of the harm negative publicity can do, perhaps it will rethink its pricing strategy.

Filed Under: canada, expensive, iphone, service
Companies: apple, rogers communications

Taking Suggestions: What Else Should We Ban While Driving?

from the we-obviously-need-a-list dept

With California's law banning driving while talking on a mobile phone without a handsfree device set to take effect next week, the author of the original bill is already working on a followup to ban driving-while-texting as well. He says this is necessary because driving-while-texting "wasn't an issue" when the original bill was put forth. Of course, there are an unlimited number of different driving distractions -- so if we really need to come up with a law for all of them, why don't we put our heads together to come up with a list. After all, we've already heard of worries that involve driving while using a laptop, driving while using OnStar, driving while faxing (which also includes something about driving while playing a video game). And, of course, everyone's favorite: driving while having sex.

Rather than coming up with all these laws banning each particular action, why not recognize that you can't ban stupidity, and just focus on already existing laws against reckless driving? If you're doing something other than driving that puts others at danger, that should be plenty. We shouldn't need a list of "banned" activities while driving. We should just be focused on teaching people to actually drive when they're driving.

Filed Under: california, driving distraction, laws

When All Else Fails, Sue For Patent Infringement

from the this-again? dept

We've seen it all too often over the years. After a technology company has failed to get anywhere in the market with its products, it decides to sue everyone possible for patent infringement. As has been said: Those who can, innovate. Those who can't, litigate. The latest to join the bunch is a failed multimedia device company, e.Digital, who is suing a ton of companies, claiming to hold a patent on using removable flash drives in portable devices. Seriously. It's already sued Casio, LG Electronics, Olympus, Samsung, Sanyo, Vivitar, Avid and Nikon (all in Texas, of course) and says that's just the beginning.

The patents in question are as follows:

• US5491774: Handheld record and playback device with flash memory
• US5742737: Method for recording voice messages on flash memory in a hand held recorder
• US5787445: Operating system including improved file management for use in devices utilizing flash memory as main memory
• US5839108: Flash memory file system in a handheld record and playback device
• US5842170: Method for editing in hand held recorder

To think that others weren't thinking about removable solid state storage on devices seems rather ludicrous. The real innovation in the space may have been the creation of flash memory, but to claim that using removable flash memory is an innovation worth limiting with patents just doesn't make any sense. But, once again, this shows how the patent system is being used for the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do. The company that failed in the marketplace gets to hold up those who are succeeding because they made a better product.

For additional irony, by the way, it should be remember that one of e.Digital's failed media devices looked almost identical to the iPod, and was named the "Treo 10" -- quite similar to the Treo mobile phone device. I would think that charges of "copying" would apply a lot more to that device than anyone using the fairly obvious idea of using removable flash storage in a mobile device.

Filed Under: flash memory, patents, removable flash
Companies: avid, casio, e.digital, lg, nikon, olympus, samsung, sanyo, vivitar

Can We Close The Book On MVNOs Now?

from the or-will-they-rise-again? dept

Back in 2002, there was suddenly a lot of buzz about how MVNOs (Mobile Virtual Network Operators) were going to be the next big thing. The idea was that any brand could start offering mobile phone service just by slapping its brand on mobile phones that would work on someone else's network. Then you could have a company with a huge brand jumping into the mobile phone space, adding various "synergies" (gag) from other business lines, without having to worry about the technical infrastructure of running a mobile network. The problem, which really was sort of obvious from early on, was that no one could explain why anyone would want to buy mobile phone service from a non-mobile phone company. And, indeed, all of the "big brand" MVNOs died rather gruesome deaths.

The second generation of MVNOs were supposed to be different however. Names like Amp'd and Helio weren't building on existing brands, but planned to build up huge new brands by themselves, and would do so by focusing on the high end, offering all sorts of neat phones, applications and services that the big mobile operators were afraid to offer. Actually, the reality was that the big mobile phone operators knew enough to recognize that people just didn't want those things, which is why they weren't offered. Amp'd flamed out spectacularly, burning through $360 million and attracting a negligible number of customers.

And, now, Helio has basically given up the ghost as well, selling off to Virgin Mobile -- about the only mobile phone MVNO that has managed to hang in there. From the sound of it, Virgin basically was doing a favor to Helio, to make its initial backers (Earthlink and SK Telecom) save a little face, rather than just shutting down the service.

So, with this, can we officially declare the era of the MVNO over? Or will we see breathless reports a year or two from now from new analysts in the space claiming a great new market in "branded" mobile phone services?

Filed Under: mvnos
Companies: amp'd, helio, virgin mobile

Flirting Over Email Or Text In Scotland Could Land You In Jail

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

It appears some Scottish politicians are putting forth a bill that could put people in jail for up to 10 years for sending a text or email with "sexual content." The goal of the bill is to discourage sexual harassment over email or text messaging -- but it appears to be worded quite broadly. The bill defines the crime as "committed if someone sends an unsolicited text message to someone else which a court finds was designed to give the sender sexual gratification or to humiliate, distress or alarm the receiver." How the court determines what gives the sender "sexual gratification" isn't entirely clear. Does a flirty email count? You can also run afoul of the law by "causing a person to see or hear an indecent communication." Forgot that NSFW tag? You might be in trouble. While you can understand the desire to cut down on harassing messages, this law seems problematic as worded.

Filed Under: criminal, email, harassment, scotland, text