Blame The Mobile Phone For Your Slow Commute?

from the how-about-a-mobile-phone-lane? dept

Yet another study has come out on people driving while talking on their mobile phones, and I doubt many people will quibble with the results of this one. The study found that people who talk on their mobile phones while driving tend to drive slower, helping to back up traffic. Considering how often the "slow driver" you see is on a mobile phone, this certainly sounds accurate. Of course, while this will push more folks to call for additional bans on driving while yakking, an equally effective (and just as realistic) solution might be to just add a "mobile phone lane" on highways, where people are expected to be talking on their phones, and therefore driving slower. Those folks can just go at their own pace, while everyone else knows to avoid that lane and go at a more appropriate speed. No, this isn't exactly practical, but neither is banning every driver distraction known to man.

Filed Under: driving, mobile phones

Does Ordering Food Via A Mobile Device Deserve A Patent?

from the non-obvious? dept

A few weeks ago, the USPTO revealed a patent application from Apple that's getting some attention in the press from folks like Forbes and InformationWeek. Those publications are using the app to guess at what Apple has in mind for future innovations on its mobile devices, as the patent application is for using a mobile device to place a shopping order at a store, and then being alerted to when it's ready. The real question, though, should be why Apple could possibly deserve a monopoly on this idea? I remember four or five years ago, some folks pitching me on a very similar idea. It had been inspired by the plastic light-up pucks that some restaurants give you when you're waiting for a free table. Many of those are based on old pager networks, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to try to update that concept for the mobile age, and realize that you could do the same sort of alerting via someone's mobile phone. From there, it was about a five minute conversation before it became obvious that since this was a two way system, you could easily add ordering functionality for take-out, or put a "reservation" in remotely before getting to the restaurant. As far as I know, these guys never moved forward with the business plan, but it's hard to see why, years later, Apple suddenly deserves a monopoly on the concept. However, it does show, once again, that a lack of official "prior art" shouldn't automatically be reason to grant a patent. Just because something hasn't yet been done commercially doesn't mean that it's not a fairly obvious idea to people in the space. Hopefully, the USPTO recognizes that and rejects the patent application, but given what gets approved these days, that doesn't seem likely.

Filed Under: ordering food, patents
Companies: apple

Dangerous Reasons To IPO

from the desperation,-not-growth dept

There's been some indication that the IPO market is beginning to open up again, what with profitless firms like NetSuite having successful offerings. At about the same time that was happening, Danger filed to go public as well, but perhaps for all the wrong reasons. Like NetSuite, Danger is losing money. However, the story of Danger is an instructive one, and it's surprising that the firm is trying to go public. Reading between the lines, it feels like Danger is trying to go public more as a desperation play to stay in business, rather than as part of a plan for strategic growth.

Danger, of course, launched its HipTop/Sidekick device way back in 2002 to much fanfare. I bought one the first day it was available, and used it for more than three years. It really was one of the first useful mobile devices for being able to do things like web surfing. However, while the company did an amazing job in designing the device, it made a series of strategic mistakes that have since limited the company's business chances. First, it took an early investment from T-Mobile. Initially, this might sound like a good idea for a device maker looking to have its device offered by a mobile operator -- and, indeed, T-Mobile offers the Sidekick. The problem was that almost no one else wanted to go near it, as they didn't want to help out a rival operator's investment. Danger picked up a few smaller operators, but never could get the device out to a large enough audience.

The second big mistake was in closing off the device. Early on, it didn't even have a developer kit for developers. Once it did, many developers had already moved on to other things. On top of that, Danger/T-Mobile still controlled which apps were available. You couldn't go around Danger/T-Mobile to load whatever app you wanted. That also turned off developers who knew they couldn't just write an app and push for viral adoption. They had to go through the gatekeeper. It certainly made the device a lot less useful. Whereas for other popular platforms there were tons of apps available, Danger had a very limited supply.

While the company built up a modest following, in part by getting famous young celebrities to carry the device (which backfired a bit when Paris Hilton's got hacked), many other devices eclipsed Danger's devices and the company has done little to push its way back into the discussion. It basically just bet on having a really cool design and continually making minor updates to that design. That was strong enough to keep the company afloat, but it's still losing money, not growing very fast, and still incredibly reliant on T-Mobile for a huge chunk of its business. It's certainly not a particularly compelling IPO story -- and it feels like an IPO out of desperation for new capital, rather than an IPO of a company that is growing and has strategic plans in place for the use of a capital influx. Perhaps the folks at Danger saw an opening in a market that's warming up to IPOs, but it wouldn't be surprising at all to later hear that the company ends up pulling the IPO.

Filed Under: ipos, mobile
Companies: danger, t-mobile

Student Films Principal Fighting Another Student... School Board Bans Mobile Phones

from the what-are-we-teaching-our-children? dept

A few years ago, we wrote a story about some students filming a teacher's angry outburst in a classroom and putting that film up on the web. Rather than disciplining the teacher for the outburst, the school disciplined the students and banned mobile phones. The lesson? It's okay for teachers to act inappropriately. It's not okay for students to reveal that behavior. It seems other schools want to teach that same lesson. The Agitator points us to another school that has banned mobile phones in school after a student filmed the principal in a physical fight with another student. At least in this case, the principal was put on leave. No matter what you think concerning mobile phones in schools, it seems pretty clear that this change in policy was brought about because of the principal getting filmed. If anything, that should be a reason to encourage more students to have mobile phones -- so that they can expose inappropriate behavior. Apparently, the school board believes its better to just pretend inappropriate behavior doesn't exist rather than to document it.

Filed Under: bans, mobile phones, schools

Why Would Any Company Trust Microsoft Over DRM Ever Again?

from the fool-me-once dept

It really was just last week, right, that Microsoft was last seen totally screwing over all those partners who had signed up to use its misnamed "PlaysForSure" DRM? Apparently, bygones are bygones and other companies have no problem stepping right up into Microsoft's embrace on a new DRM solution -- this time in the mobile space. Nokia is apparently agreeing to use Microsoft's mobile DRM offering dubbed "PlayReady" on a variety of Nokia devices. You would have thought that after the PlaysForSure debacle, Microsoft would avoid dubbing its DRM anything similar. Give it a few years and perhaps Microsoft will support some totally different DRM on its own phones (like it did with the Zune) and then we can ask again what Nokia was thinking.

Filed Under: drm, mobile, playready
Companies: microsoft, nokia

Forget Google, Watch Out For Chevron In The 700 MHz Auction

from the my-ISP-is-Chevron? dept

Everybody's been buzzing about the likelihood of Google bidding on the 700 MHz spectrum that's up for auction in a few weeks, that's allowed a few other interesting characters to get in on the auction below the radar. The FCC has now announced that 266 separate entities have filed to take part in the auction, so it's quite a long list. So far, only 96 applications have been accepted, but the others have until January 4th to get their applications in order. Everyone knew Google was on the list, and it's no surprise to hear names like Verizon Wireless, Alltel, MetroPCS, Vodafone and AT&T (who already got a head start buying some other spectrum in the 700 MHz realm earlier). There was some speculation about cable companies participating, and sure enough, Cox and Cablevision will show up at the auction. Then there are a few surprises. Qualcomm is planning to bid -- which could upset some of the US carriers who consider Qualcomm more of a partner than a competitor.

In a list of 266 companies, there are always going to be some long shots -- but it still doesn't hurt to point out some of the more interesting bidders. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen plans to bid via his Vulcan Spectrum LLC (reusing his favorite "Vulcan" name for companies). It's unclear what he would do with the spectrum. Perhaps even more surprising is the news that oil giant Chevron is planning to participate. What the company would do with the spectrum should it win (and it certainly has the money to win) is an open question, but there are a few intriguing ideas. As for Google, don't hold your breath for a win here. It has seemed pretty clear from the beginning that the company is only in the auction to bid $4.6 billion -- the lowest point necessary to force open access rules to kick in. It would be a huge surprise if the company bid much more than that, and it would be an even bigger surprise if no one outbid Google.

Filed Under: 700 mhz, fcc, paul allen, spectrum, spectrum auction
Companies: at&t, chevron, fcc, google, verizon

Facebook Settles Text Messaging Suit Even If It Probably Didn't Need To

from the less-of-a-hassle dept

Back in October we pointed to a totally pointless lawsuit against Facebook from a woman who blamed the company because her mobile phone was getting text messages from Facebook against her wishes. The problem with the lawsuit, however, was that it wasn't Facebook's fault, as the reason the woman was getting the errant text messages was because she had received a new phone number. The previous owner of the number had signed up to receive the text messages, and they carried over to the new subscriber. There's no doubt that this could be quite annoying and upsetting to the woman, but it's hard to see how Facebook really should have known about it or could be seen as the party liable here -- so it appeared to be yet another lawsuit where someone targets a hot company just because it's a hot company. In this case, though, it appears to have worked. Facebook has agreed to settle the lawsuit and pay the legal fees of the plaintiff, while also agreeing to make it easier to stop such text messages and working with mobile operators to learn about recycled numbers. While Facebook probably had a decent chance of winning the case, from a PR/user relations standpoint it probably made sense to settle and do everything possible to make this less of a problem.

Filed Under: class action, recycled numbers, text messaging
Companies: facebook

Security Firm Sophos Calls WiFi Piggybacking 'Stealing'

from the mischaracterizations dept

It should come as no surprise that a security firm, in this case Sophos, is casting the act of using a neighbor's unsecured Wi-Fi access point as a crime. The bigger the threat, the more money there is for security solution vendors and consultants. In the latest research, Sophos found that 54% of wireless users surveyed had "stolen" access at one time or another. The report then frames these casual users as thieves by lumping them in with the epithet "cybercriminals". Techdirt's position has been steady: If a hosting Wi-Fi owner transmits a signal into your property or public area, and that signal proactively announces an SSID which functions like an invite, yet the host has left the network unlocked, then the host's DHCP server actively accommodates the guest and offers an IP address for them to use... then why would any casual user suppose the host's intention is not to share that Wi-Fi? Certainly the host's actions indicate an intent to share. There is no lock breached, there is no violation of private property. There is no trespass. But forget these technical arguments, let's look at the Sophos data: a 54% majority of Wi-Fi users have shared someone's Wi-Fi (and I'd say more have but weren't aware). Are the majority of people really cybercriminals? Also, if victims need to be told that they were "robbed" by Sophos research and a press release, and sensationalist news stories, just how victimized were they? Yes, there are real risks to offering an open AP, so we advise most people to lock down their Wi-Fi. That doesn't make criminals of cybervisitors.

Obviously, the situation can be very different if just a few parameters are changed:

• If ANY kind of hack or bypass is needed to get through some form of security, then the innocence of the visitor is highly dubious. Even the easily hacked WEP is 100% functional as a signal that the host does not want "visitors".
• Any kind of viewing, or messing around inside the host's LAN, PCs, and other equipment is illegal through existing laws. Doing so is no longer a victimless activity.

What do Techdirters do? We would advise turning on some form of security for most people out there. It's damned easy, so check your manual. But, calling people who use open WiFi criminals is just wrong.

Filed Under: free-riding, security, wifi
Companies: sophos

Are Sprint And Clearwire Getting Back Together Over WiMax?

from the ain't-dead-yet! dept

A month ago, we noted that the end of Sprint and Clearwire's WiMax partnership was bad news for just about everyone involved. Almost no one could come up with a good reason for Sprint and Clearwire to end the partnership -- and now it appears that, just like A-Rod returning to the Yankees after a brief breakup, the rumors now are that Sprint and Clearwire are getting back together over WiMax. This really isn't all that surprising. Both companies had to realize it made more sense to work together on this than going it alone -- and with Verizon Wireless finally deciding to go with LTE for its next generation solution, both Sprint and Clearwire finally realized that they are going to have some competition out there for wireless broadband, and it would help both companies not to slow down the rollout. At least Scott Boras won't make any more money off of this deal. Update: Then again, maybe not. Apparently the original report on the potential of Sprint and Clearwire getting back together is incorrect. Still, it wouldn't be surprising if it did eventually happen anyway.

Filed Under: wimax
Companies: clearwire, sprint

Huge Phone Bills And Unsuspecting Customers; When Will Mobile Operators Communicate Clearly?

from the and-they-wonder-why-they're-so-hated dept

Just last week Consumer Reports was noting that mobile phone operators remained among the most disliked companies out there. There are any number of theories as to why this is, but here's a simple one: mobile operators are absolutely terrible at communicating with their customers. They make their customers feel stupid. They hide details in the fine print and make plans as confusing as possible. They add unnecessary fees. It appears that there's an inability or unwillingness for these firms to communicate clearly and honestly with their customers. It's so common throughout the industry, you have to wonder if the firms actually believe that this unwillingness to be straightforward with customers is strategically sensible.

However, all it really does is cause more bad blood. Two recent stories highlight this. Up in Canada, Bell Mobility is getting some awful press coverage for sending an $85,000 phone bill to a guy who signed up for a $10/month "unlimited" mobile browser plan. Like many mobile operators who offer similar plans, this plan only covered browsing if it occurred on the phone itself. If you used the phone as a modem, hooked up to a computer, then a different data plan kicks in. However, it's quite easy to be confused, as from a customer's standpoint, it's hard to see how this is a different situation and the plan did say it was "unlimited." In cases like these, it makes sense for the operator to admit its error, ignore the bill and move on. Actually, it would make the most sense to change its policies or marketing materials to make this stuff clearer -- but that's unlikely to happen. So far, Bell Mobility has only offered to lower the bill to $3,243, rather than get rid of it completely. In a similar (but less extreme) situation, Chris Anderson had his iPhone shut off by AT&T after he accidentally rang up a $2,100 bill simply by traveling to China. As many others have noted (including in a NY Times article), if you take your iPhone overseas, it will keep trying to check email every few minutes. And, it will do so by getting on a foreign GSM network, which will have exorbitant roaming fees... all of which will happen without the user even realizing it. In Anderson's case, AT&T sent him a text message warning him of problems, but without providing many details or a convenient way to get those details.

The thing is, these sorts of stories have gone on for years, generating plenty of press attention each time. At some point, you would think that the mobile operators would recognize that they're not communicating the details of the plans very clearly to consumers and start to do something different. But that doesn't seem to be the way mobile operators work. Maybe they've just come to the conclusion that these news stories serve that educational purpose instead -- though, the fact that the same thing keeps happening again and again suggests that kind of education isn't working very well.

Filed Under: excessive bills, mobile, phone bills
Companies: bell mobility