Apple Warns Palm Pre Users: We're Going To Break Your iTunes Syncing

from the shot-across-the-bow dept

I have to admit that I've never really understood Apple's ongoing efforts to block any sort of compatibility with both iPod devices and iTunes. You may recall a few years back the big fight between Apple and RealNetworks when Real tried to let its software connect to iPods, which Apple treated as a gross injustice. Now Palm is doing the opposite, by letting the Pre connect and sync with iTunes software by making the device pretend it's an iPod when connected to a computer. Apple, however, has responded with a neat little message that never actually mentions Palm, even if it's entirely transparent who it's about, warning people that Apple can easily break syncing when it updates its software. Of course, Apple did it in a way that it can claim wasn't meant nefariously at all. All the company really meant was to make people understand that it has no control over how the Pre syncs with iTunes, and it's possible that an update could break that syncing. Sure. Right. Except most people assume this means Apple intends to break it.

But I don't understand why. For people who bought the Palm Pre, that's only going to piss them off and drive them to use other software, taking them away from Apple's products. Why does that help Apple? Having Palm Pre syncing with iTunes increases the value of iTunes. What's wrong with that, other than being the latest example of Apple's dislike of anyone doing anything not invented in Cupertino?

Filed Under: itunes, pre, syncing
Companies: apple, palm

Senators Sniff Around Exclusive Handset Deals

from the lurking-with-intent dept

A group of senators has announced they'll hold a hearing in Washington on Wednesday to examine exclusive deals between mobile handset vendors and operators, and has asked the FCC to look into the practice. The senators want to know if the deals (such as those that make the iPhone exclusive to AT&T and the Palm Pre to Sprint) "unfairly restrict consumer choice or adversely impact competition". Exclusive deals are becoming a big part of the operators' strategies as they look to grab users from their rivals. As prices, coverage and other competitive factors reach a degree of parity, exclusivity on certain devices is a major way the operators seek to differentiate themselves. Smaller and rural carriers argue this puts them at a disadvantage, because of their small size, which makes it impossible to compete for hot devices if a bigger operator wants an exclusive deal. The senators seem to be capitalizing on the recent outcry from some iPhone owners regarding AT&T's upgrade policy, as well as its lack of support for new features in the latest version of the iPhone software. It's unclear just how far the senators want to take this. For instance, if exclusives are banned, would manufacturers be forced to build variants of a handset for any operator's network? Say the exclusive deal for the iPhone was abolished. Would Apple be forced to build a CDMA version for Verizon and Sprint? Would it have to make a model that supported the frequencies used by T-Mobile's 3G network? Hopefully the attempt to gain some publicity by seizing on a hot topic won't lead to rushed legislation that brings unintended consequences.

Filed Under: exclusive deals, handsets, senators

IRS Wants To Tax Your Work-Provided Mobile Phone As A Fringe Benefit?

from the searching-for-cash-under-the-cushions dept

It appears that the Federal Treasury really is searching for cash under the cushions these days. Its latest idea? Claiming that mobile phones provided by employers are actually a "fringe benefit" that should be taxed. So even if your company pays for your mobile phone, you may owe the IRS taxes on it. The mobile operators are fighting this, but given the state of the economy, it shouldn't be much of a surprise if the IRS moves forward with this.

Filed Under: fringe benefits, irs, mobile phones, taxes

In Defense Of Mobile E-Mail 'Addiction'

from the Best-Use-Of-Your-Time dept

There is an interesting Reuters article about how former NY state Democratic Majority Leader Malcolm Smith had a meeting scheduled with billionaire Tom Golisano, a major political fund contributor. (Eschewing the issue of how political contributions are accepted without question, as paid access to our elected officials,) the article describes how Mr. Smith spent enough time on his Blackberry to offend Golisano. The billionaire has clout, and subsequently engineered the ouster of Smith. The article's true focus, then, is how dangerous it is for people to use their mobile email devices during meetings, during social engagements, in the car with family, etc. It points out how rude it can be, and also point out how it can actually be less efficient, because a person's attention is split.

That is all true, but whenever one of these opinion pieces comes out, it ignores the other case: that oftentimes at meetings, our attention simply isn't necessary or productive. In any given multi-person meeting, for what % of the time is each person's participation and attention truly productive? Is every topic related to you? Could a quick check of email be more productive? I would argue that optimal participation is usually less than 100%. Same goes for conferences: Sometimes the conference agenda will include a speaker that is just not very relevant to your individual interests. Yes, you could learn something by listening, but perhaps you could be more productive by responding to your clients, staff, or boss on your mobile device. I've met a few people who take offense at every sighting of a Blackberry, but that's usually attached to a big ego that takes offense too easily. Not every word you say is golden, or even directed at me. In a one on one meeting, obviously one should be focused on the person in front, and one should not feign listening while actually reading. But in multi-party meetings, there are good opportunities to mentally duck out. A blanket Blackberry backlash isn't well-reasoned. As in most debates, a balance needs to be struck.

Filed Under: attention, email, meetings, mobile email

iPhone Owners Discover, Lo and Behold, It's Just Another Cell Phone

from the no-special-treatment? dept

You probably noticed that Apple announced the latest incarnation of the iPhone, the 3GS, earlier this week. It features mostly incremental upgrades over the existing model's features, alongside software enhancements that will work on earlier models, but it's still creating a lot of demand from existing iPhone 3G owners who want to upgrade. One speed bump, though: like any other handset it subsidizes, AT&T is only offering the lowest price for the new device to new customers, or people who are in the last six months of their contract. Since the iPhone 3G came out less than a year ago, that means users of the latest iPhone that want to upgrade will have to pay an extra $200. Which, of course, is making some of them unhappy. The iPhone's upfront price benefits from a hefty subsidy, like other devices AT&T sells, so the operator's going to treat its subsidy, and how it recovers it, pretty much like any other device. It may come as a shock to some iPhone users, but the device really is just another phone in the eyes of operators, and won't get them any special treatment. Another piece of evidence: the fact that some of the new features in the iPhone 3.0 software that Apple touted -- such as support for faster HSDPA data networks, MMS, and data tethering -- aren't yet available on AT&T, because the operator isn't supporting them (or hasn't figured out how to bill for them). That's more like the mobile world we're used to: innovation and new features from handset vendors making it to customers only with the approval of operators.

Filed Under: iphone, phone, subsidies

Ticketmaster Takes Another Stab At Shutting Down Scalpers With Paperless Tickets

from the two-sets-of-rules dept

When it's not been busy trying to get into the scalping business itself, Ticketmaster has been trying to push scalpers aside. It claims it does this for altruistic reasons, but those claims generally fall on deaf ears, with many people believing it's simply trying to capture the scalpers' revenues. It's escalating the battle now by expanding its use of paperless tickets for concerts, and will use them for the upcoming Miley Cyrus tour, after an earlier series of shows sparked a flurry of complaints about scalpers. Ticketmaster has been testing the program for a little while, and trying to sell it as a convenient solution: instead of getting a paper ticket for a show, buyers don't receive one before the show, and instead must present the credit card they used to purchase their seats to get in. On its surface, this seems like a fairly effective way of cutting out scalpers by making their transactions with their customers much more difficult. But it's still not clear why Ticketmaster sees such a need to interfere with the market -- beyond its own self-interest, of course. It's hard to imagine that Ticketmaster really cares that scalping goes on, except for the fact that it's not making any money from it.

One inevitable (and legitimate) complaint about this system is that it not only takes out scalpers, but other secondary transactions, too. Want to buy tickets as a gift, or for your kid? You'll have to take the recipient to the show and go up to the gate with them. Buy tickets for yourself, but then can't go to the show and want to give them to a friend? You're out of luck, unless you and your credit card can get there (and, of course, there are no refunds). It seems likely that Ticketmaster will have to do something to rectify this, particularly given the political scrutiny they've attracted lately, and the solution seems obvious: Ticketmaster sets up a secondary market that lets people resell their tickets and reassigns them to a new credit-card holder (taking a cut for all the hard work, of course). The company has been growing its reseller business, in particular making efforts to become the "official fan resale" partner of various sports leagues and teams, and it's hard to see it not using paperless tickets as a way to expand this business. Ticketmaster hates scalping -- unless it's the one doing the reselling. But if it wants to benefit from the free market, the market should really be free, and not one established and controlled by Ticketmaster.

Filed Under: events, paperless tickets, scalping, tickets
Companies: ticketmaster

The Jitterbug Phone...Turns Out It's For Seniors

from the Embarrassed-About-Our-Own-Customers dept

Mobile Health is a growing trend in the mobile application industry. There is a lot of interest around the potential to use mobile devices as medication reminders, and as local hubs of a Personal Area Network (PAN or BAN for 'Body') which can relay body sensor data to a central system, or medical personnel. Imagine a glucose sensor affixed to a diabetic tracking real-time blood sugar levels and relaying those to a doctor or a parent. With that, the MobileHealthNews blog has sprung up to cover the sector, and I read a good interview there with Jitterbug CEO David Inns. Jitterbug makes a phone that is pictured at the preceding link, which is designed to be easy to use for seniors, and provides associated services which older subscribers may find useful. Good. I have a lot of respect for a good segment strategy.

But when I saw them at trade shows, Jitterbug managers would say: "No, we're not just for older people, we're really for anybody who wants a simple experience." I reply "No, you're not. You boast bigger keys, a wizard interface, simple Yes No buttons, an audible dialtone, a three button model, hearing aid compatibility, operator assist, one touch 911 calling, and large fonts. Ergo, you're targeting seniors." They would deny it, so I'd pursue, "OK, so where's your marketing spend. I've seen you in AAA magazine, but haven't come across your ads on MTV yet. Where else do you advertise?" Knowing full well they advertise in the AARP magazine and launch products at AARP conferences [pdf]. But no soup for me. For years, I couldn't get the Jitterbug reps to admit that it was a phone for old people. I'll give them points for rigorous PR training, and keeping on message, but I don't agree with the strategy.

I get it. Great Call (Jitterbug) has decided that they don't want to look "uncool" by identifying their segment. But I'm not sure that is good business. If you're embarrassed about your customer base, are you likely to be serving it as well as you could? Is it that you are worried about scaring off young potential customers because your product "smells like old people"? Get over it. Most young people don't want a Jitterbug, just as most seniors wouldn't want a Nokia N95. If you completely believed in market segmentation, you'd get over yourselves, and get real.

That's why the recent interview with the CEO was such fun. The potential revenue of the Mobile Health sector is a powerful lure, but it's hard to play a central role when you are in denial of your attractive customer base of aging baby boomers. As a result, Jitterbug is scrambling to finally admit -- nay, boast of -- who their customer base is. CEO Inns says, "So many examples of wireless health services are being shown running on iPhones,... [is opportunity] really with the 30-year-olds? ...If you want to get serious about tackling the healthcare problems in this country where they actually exist, which is in the 60+ age group, then you should be working with us to develop services that are easy to use so they get compliance."

Jitterbug has built a community that has value, but has distanced itself from that community. That's not the way to open up opportunities in the 21st century, and that notion just clicked back at the Jitterbug Boardroom. Thank you, Jitterbug. It's taken about four years, but you've finally admitted who your customers are. Was that so bad?

Filed Under: jitterbug, seniors

If Everyone Likes The Palm Pre, Why So Much Hedging?

from the I'm-Totally-Sure...Well,-Maybe dept

The Palm Pre launches at Sprint this Saturday, and you've probably been seeing an increasing amount of buzz on the subject [that is a Google search link, and today will show buzz, but if you're reading this later, will be meaningless]. I wrote about the Pre on Techdirt after being very impressed with the phone at CES and MWC Barcelona. I wrote, "I'm not sure when the bandwagon is going to hit the trail for this device, but I'm saddling up right now." And in the intervening months, I've noted that more and more reviewers were, like me, heaping praise on the device. But there was something else: many reviewers couched the endorsement of the Pre with caveats. At the end of every glowing article was a conclusion that seemed out of sync with the review. Here were mine, "I can't predict whether the developer community will rally around the Pre, or whether Sprint and Palm will be successful in selling big volumes, but I want to call this one early: the Pre is a great smartphone." Walt Mossberg at the WSJ wraps up his glowing review with, "All in all, I believe the Pre is a smart, sophisticated product that will have particular appeal for those who want a physical keyboard. It is thoughtfully designed, works well and could give the iPhone and BlackBerry strong competition -- but only if it fixes its app store and can attract third-party developers."

The caveats were reasonable. Developers have limited resources, and collective uncertainty in Palm and Sprint performance has us hedging our bets. Sure, we could assert that the device is great, but we could not be sure if the ecosystem would grow around it. But I think I'm in a better position to do that now. When 98 out of every 100 reviews say the device is great, isn't that one hell of a consensus? I haven't seen that kind of agreement in this industry since AFTER the launch of the iPhone. That's exactly the kind of community consensus that seeds an ecosystem. I officially retract my hedge. What content developer wouldn't be at least attracted to a device that gains such consistently high grades? Is it just hype? No. A landslide of positive reviews from people who actually tested isn't hype - it's straight As. That's good news for Palm, good news for consumers in that we get another competitive device to run alongside the iPhone, but only marginally good news for Sprint. Verizon took the wind out of Sprint's sales [sic] by announcing they, too would carry the Pre by year end, and AT&T is rumored to want a GSM version.

Filed Under: palm pre
Companies: palm

Verizon: US Broadband Is Really Competitive, If You Just Redefine The Market The Way We Want...

from the that-whole-'and-wireless'-bit dept

Almost all of the issues facing broadband in this country (our slow speeds and high prices relative to other countries, questions about "neutrality" and things like customers being forced into broadband tiers) are really symptoms of a lack of significant competition in many markets. Many customers really only have one or two options, neither of which they like (I'm in that camp myself). Yet, the broadband providers want to make everyone believe it's a really competitive market. That's why they've done everything possible to block the FCC from getting accurate data about actual broadband deployments and competition over the years. Their most recent plan has been about pitching the idea of an organization called "Connected Nation" to "map" broadband penetration. However, as has been discussed previously, Connected Nation seems more like a front for the big telcos to try to pretend there's significant competition... and an increasing number of doubts are being raised about Connected Nation's efforts -- even as it seems to remain a darling of DC politicians. However its "mapping" still won't look at house-by-house penetration and competition (by demand from the broadband providers) and the collected data will remain proprietary, rather than open.

Meanwhile, Verizon has put up a video claiming to explain why there's plenty of competition in broadband in the US, but it does so by pulling a neat little trick: rather than defining the market as DSL and cable providers, it dumps wireless providers into the mix... So when you add mobile data providers, yes, there are more players in the space, but that ignores the fact that (1) many of the mobile players and broadband players are actually connected (i.e., AT&T has both, as does Verizon) and (2) that the cellular wireless broadband providers are all greatly limited, and use terms of service that tend to forbid using the data account as a primary connection. In other words, they're not really part of the same market at all.

But, most importantly, the video fails to back up its thesis that the US is "one of the most successful broadband markets in the world." It says there's lots of competition, investment in new technologies and consumers are getting more as prices go down. That suggests there is, in fact, some competition in the market -- a point pretty much everyone agrees on. But it does nothing to compare the US to other markets around the world that have much more competition, much more investment and much greater consumer value per dollar spent. Just saying that because there's some competition, the US is one of the most successful in the world, doesn't back up the thesis at all. It's like saying that you won a baseball game because you fielded nine guys. You forgot about the actual game.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband competition, us, wireless
Companies: verizon

Do Morons In A Hurry Play Games On Their iPhones?

from the use-in-commerce? dept

A whole bunch of people have been sending in the story of a guy named Tim Langdell, who claims to own the trademark to the word "edge" when its used in the name of any video game, and has used that to force a popular iPhone game, called EDGE, out of the app store. As the article points out, Langdell's last game was released in 1994, which makes you wonder if the name is still being used in commerce (a requirement for a trademark claim). And, of course, there's the question of confusion. Considering how few people have heard of Langdell's company, was there really any chance that "a moron in a hurry" would confuse a fun block game with Langdell's title's like "Snoopy: The Case of the Missing Blanket." Kotaku points out that Langdell appears to spend a lot more time these days talking to people about how he owns the word "edge" in any video game than producing or selling video games...

Filed Under: app store, edge, iphone apps, tim langdell, trademark, video games