Early Warning Signs: App Usage On Mobile Phones Still Not That Impressive
from the don't-get-swept-up dept
Like many people, I recently got an Android-powered smartphone, and had plenty of fun seeking out various apps to make the phone "better." It can be pretty cool at times, but even I've realized that I use a very small percentage of the apps I got, and I rarely go looking for new apps these days. Nearly two years ago, we discussed a study highlighting how many iPhone apps were installed, but went unused, and wondered if that might be an early warning sign that apps aren't quite as popular as people think they are. Of course, these days, app hype has reached ridiculous levels, with many companies literally betting their business models on the success of apps. There definitely is value in apps, but I do worry that the focus on apps is leading people to overestimate their importance.Some new evidence echoes that study from a couple years ago, and again suggests that those who are now obsessed with apps may wish to be at least a bit cautious about the opportunity. Nate was the first of a few to point us to the latest Pew study, which also shows an awful lot of people with smartphones that have apps, just don't use them. Of course, some of it may be semantics. The study notes that there may be confusion over whether or not pre-installed functionality is an app or not. Still, it should remain at least a cautious warning sign that app downloads does not mean app usage...
Filed Under: apps, smartphones, usage
Google Sued For Nexus One Suckiness
from the people-sue-for-anything dept
Eric Goldman points us to the news that Google has been sued, in a class action lawsuit, over problems with the Nexus One, the Android phone (made by HTC) that Google released directly, in an attempt to get others to release better Android-powered phones. As with many new products, there were some bugs, and Google (and T-Mobile, on which the Nexus One worked) didn't quite know how to handle customer support for the device -- a pretty massive mistake. However, is it really against the law to sell a product with a few bugs and to to have really dismally crappy customer service? It seems like a stretch. You can make the argument that the product didn't do what was promised, but, like so many class action lawsuits, this one seems like a case of "gee, can we squeeze a bunch of money out of this company?"Filed Under: class action, nexus one
Companies: google, t-mobile
Court Says Gov't May Need To Get A Warrant To Get Cell Phone Location Data
from the well,-it's-a-start dept
Considering that our government has regularly abused requirements for oversight and due process in getting private data about people, it's always nice to see the courts push back at least some of the time. The latest is that an appeals court has ruled that a court can deny the government's request for cell phone location data if the government fails to show probable cause. The ruling isn't a total win. It does reject the magistrate judge's original ruling blocking the release of the data. However, it does say that the law doesn't require the courts to approve such requests, as the government believes. Still, it's good that the court at least realizes that courts may reject such requests:Filed Under: 4th amendment, mobile phone data, privacy
Judge Rejects Gov't Request For Cell Tower Data, Noting Recent 4th Amendment Rulings
from the probable-cause dept
We recently wrote about a somewhat surprising ruling by the appeals court in the DC circuit saying that long-term use of a GPS to track someone without a warrant violated the 4th Amendment. What was surprising about this is that, while state courts had ruled similarly, the federal courts had almost universally ruled that such tracking was legal. While that case will almost certainly be appealed and seems to have a decent likelihood of ending up before the Supreme Court, it's apparently already impacting some rulings elsewhere. Chris Soghoian notes that a federal magistrate judge recently rejected the governments' request for historical cell site data from Sprint, because the government failed to show probable cause (as required under the 4th Amendment):The decision in Maynard is just one of several rulings in recent years reflecting a growing recognition, at least in some courts, that technology has progressed to the point where a person who wishes to partake in the social, cultural, and political affairs of our society has no realistic choice but to expose to others, if not to the public as a whole, a broad range of conduct and communications that would previously have been deemed unquestionably private....Nice to see some judges recognizing this, though it remains to be seen how many others will agree... and how the Supreme Court reacts to all of this.
As a result of such decisions, I believe that magistrate judges presented with ex parte requests for authority to deploy various forms of warrantless location-tracking must carefully re- examine the constitutionality of such investigative techniques, and that it is no longer enough to dismiss the need for such analysis by relying on cases such as Knotts or, as discussed below, Smith v. Maryland.... For the reasons discussed below, I now conclude that the Fourth Amendment prohibits as an unreasonable search and seizure the order the government now seeks in the absence of a showing of "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation[.]"
Filed Under: 4th amendment, cell tower data, privacy, probable cause
Companies: sprint
Is There A Better Way To Text While Driving?
from the or-should-there-be? dept
Perhaps I'm strange, but I have to admit that I've never even considered sending a text message while driving. I will admit to reading a text message while sitting at a traffic light, but that's about the extent of it. Still, with more and more people seemingly unable to resist the temptation, is the best thing to do to fret and complain about this trend, or to try to come up with a technological solution? Is there a technological solution that would let people text safely? I'm not entirely sure, but it does seem a bit surprising that we haven't even heard of the equivalent of the "hands free" kit for texting. There are, of course, plenty of voice recognition offerings out there, but the quality still suffers (and most people still want to check over the results to make sure they work). I could see attempts at "augmented reality" where the screen on the phone shows what's happening on the road, but your focus would still be off. So, are there any technological solutions? My guess is that we're going to wait until we really get autonomous driving vehicles that have an "autopilot" mode before we reach a stage where any sort of texting while driving is safe.Does Checking Your Email On Your BlackBerry Count As Overtime?
from the according-to-some... dept
We've had plenty of stories over the years about how the whole barriers between "work" and "life" continue to blur, and that's causing problems in some areas. Two years ago, we noted that some employees were upset to have to sign documents making it clear that checking email on Blackberries would not count towards overtime work. Last year, we questioned if paying employees hourly wages still made sense in many cases because of situations like this. The issue has come up again, as a Chicago police officer is suing for overtime for use of his Blackberry during off-hours. Obviously, there are some jobs where paying hourly could make sense, but if it's a job that's going to require a Blackberry and regularly checking in, it seems like it shouldn't be paid hourly, but as an exempt employee that gets paid a straight salary.Filed Under: blackberry, email, overtime
Apple Pulls Grooveshark From App Store, Because Universal Music Doesn't Like It
from the time-to-move-to-the-open-app-market dept
As a whole bunch of you have been submitting, apparently Apple yanked Grooveshark's iPhone app after receiving a complaint from Universal Music, one of the record labels who has sued Grooveshark, and is claiming that it has not properly licensed the music. Grooveshark has argued for years that what it's doing is legal, but multiple record labels have disagreed. Still, Apple wants to keep the major record labels happy, so bye-bye Grooveshark. Perhaps they should explore creating a web app and putting it on something like the OpenAppMkt, since that's outside of Apple's control...Filed Under: apps, copyright, music
Companies: apple, grooveshark, universal music
Now That The Ringtone Market Is Collapsing, Are There Lessons For Those Who Are Jumping On The App Bandwagon?
from the this-won't-save-your-business dept
Back in 2003/2004, both the music and the mobile industries became infatuated with ringtones. These short snippets of music were selling for 2.5 times (or more) what a single (full) music file was selling for, and the market was growing rapidly. Of course, some of this was due to incredibly shady practices, such as tricking people into thinking they were buying a single ringtone, when they were really signing up for a monthly subscription. However, from the very beginning of the ringtone revolution, we were amazed at how many folks in the industry talked about ringtones as a savior. As we pointed out in 2004, it wasn't hard to predict that ringtone sales would peak and fall. First of all, it would become increasingly easy to take music that people had from elsewhere (authorized or not) and convert it to a ringtone, and secondly, it wouldn't be all that long until unauthorized ringtones became easy to set up as well.But the industry has a way of overhyping a fad that's happening "now," and betting it will be its savior.
And, of course, exactly what was predicted way back when is now coming true. The ringtone market has been on the decline for a few years now, as people realized they didn't need to pay exorbitant prices for a tiny snippet of music anymore.
This is why we should think carefully whenever we hear people claiming that "app stores" are the new saviors of various content industries (or, for that matter, the mobile industry). While app stores are a bit more defensible than pure ringtones, it's likely to still face the same basic trajectory, as people realize that apps are just data, and there are increasing opportunities for more open solutions to route around locked-down versions. People seem to think there's some sort of magic in "apps," but they're really just the same sort of digital content that has been hard, economically, to monetize long term. There are ways to do it, but simply assuming that apps alone will be the answer is likely to end in disappointment.
Google vs. Google On Wireless Net Neutrality
from the we-were-for-it-before-we-were-against-it dept
While I still think that uproar over Google and Verizon'sOn the flip side, Google is trying to defend itself against these attacks by pushing back on a few points. Unfortunately for Google, there's a wonderful search engine called Google, which can be used to dig up things said by a company called Google in the past. Over at Broadband Reports, Karl Bode has noted some of the... changing sentiment of Google policy lawyer Richard Whitt. For example, in the latest blog post defending the Verizon
First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from. Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively. Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.But... here's the very same Richard Whitt in 2007 (pdf), making the argument that mobile providers were already abusing mobile networks and required more openness:
wireless providers block many common Internet applications and services outright, frequently do not allow network attachment of any device but their own, and reserve the right to terminate service arbitrarily for using other services that do not conform to a short and vaguely-defined listAs Bode notes, nothing has magically changed to make this competitive market any better. Instead, what's changed is Google's heavy investment in the mobile space:
So what changed? Google did. In 2007, Android wasn't a major mobile OS, and Google didn't have multi-billion-dollar wireless advertising relationships with Verizon and AT&T. You'll also recall that Google had hopes of bypassing the carrier retail experience completely -- hopes that flamed out rather spectacularly with the death of the Nexus One and their online phone store. The policy shift is clear and indisputable, as is the motivation: Google doesn't want consumer protections (be they privacy, or network neutrality) to impact wireless ad revenues.Again, none of this should be seen as a surprise, but just a reminder that, in the end, Google is going to do what it believes is best for Google. There's nothing wrong with that -- it's just that, in the past, Google tended to realize that what was best for consumers was also best for Google. Now... it doesn't seem quite as sure of that. I think this is generally a mistake that Google may come to regret. Even if this
Filed Under: contradictions, net neutrality
Companies: google, verizon
