Judge Says 'There's An Ad For That...' And It's Ok For Now

from the let-it-play dept

Recently, AT&T sued Verizon over its "There's A Map For That" ad, that mocked AT&T's 3G network coverage, while playing on the Apple iPhone slogan of "there's an app for that." It seemed like an odd thing for AT&T to do, as it really just called more attention to the ad and the differences in 3G networks. Now, to make matters even worse, a judge has refused to issue an injunction stopping the ad. That doesn't stop the lawsuit, though, and the ad might still get taken down if AT&T wins, but it's unlikely Verizon's ad campaign is going to last until the lawsuit is finally decided, anyway. So for now, all it's done is driven a lot more attention to the ad, in which Verizon comes out favorably.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

MPAA Gets Town To Turn Off Free Muni-WiFi Over Single Unauthorized Movie Download

from the the-internets-must-die dept

Dan alerts us to the news that the free muni-WiFi system used around the Coshocton’s County Courthouse in Northern Ohio was shut down over a complaint by the MPAA over a single unauthorized movie download. Amazingly, rather than admit that perhaps that was going a bit too far in punishing everyone in that town over a single individual's usage, the MPAA couldn't resist the opportunity to complain about the evils of movie piracy again. The MPAA doesn't seem concerned at all about the collateral damage, and just thinks that it's a good opportunity to push ahead with its misguided complaint against file sharing.

53 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Time For Palm To Drop WebOS And Embrace Android

from the the-time-has-come dept

It appears that Wall Street is giving up on Palm after sales of the Pre have been massively disappointing, and Sprint (their only US partner) appears to be focusing more and more on HTC Android-powered phones these days. At the same time, developers are recognizing that if they're creating mobile apps, they need to decide which platforms to work on, and the markets for the iPhone and Android smartphones look a lot more exciting.

This is, in large part, due to poor planning on the part of Palm and Sprint. First, Palm was way too slow in really opening up its developer program. By the time it finally got around to it, more and more Android phones were hitting the market, with much more of a marketing push. Developers, given the choice, will go for the platform that actually has users. That's why I still say it was a huge mistake for Palm and Sprint not to have figured out a way to give away the Palm Pre for free. The thing that Pre needed more than anything else was market share. With market share it could attract developers and a loyal following. Without that, Palm is dead and everyone knows it. Having failed at that, and now thrown away its head start over the rush of Android-powered devices hitting the market, Palm is quickly looking like an afterthought, just months after the Pre was released.

I actually stopped by a Sprint store earlier this week, because I was interested in seeing its recent Android-powered phones in person. I played around with them, and then picked up the Palm Pre as well -- and I have to admit that the hardware on the Pre is really nice. It's just a much nicer overall package than the HTC Hero (an Android-powered phone) -- more compact, had a more solid feel, and the slide out keyboard is actually quite nice (if a bit small). But, after seeing all the developer support moving towards Android, I have no interest in betting on a dying OS. And that's when I wondered why Palm didn't just release an Android-powered Pre as well. I recognize that it's got a lot invested in webOS, but it's a sunk cost and a losing strategy.

A few years back, after years supporting its own Palm operating system, the company started offering Treo's that supported Windows Mobile. It's time to do that again, but for Android, letting the company actually make use of a much larger, committed developer community, rather than trying to keep the whole thing in-house.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AT&T Sues Verizon Over 'There's A Map For That' Ad Campaign

from the doesn't-like-the-maps dept

Recently, Verizon came up with a rather clever ad campaign, mocking the iPhone ads that claim "there's an app for that" with ads that showcase Verizon's wider 3G footprint, claiming "there's a map for that," and showing the two services' 3G coverage maps side by side:

It does a nice job poking fun at one of AT&T's weaker points: its mobile network infrastructure. But apparently, AT&T is not happy with the ad campaign and has sued Verizon over those ads, claiming that it uses an unfair comparison. That's because the maps only show 3G coverage, and Verizon has significantly greater 3G coverage. However, AT&T feels that the map showing its coverage implies, falsely, that AT&T has no coverage outside of its 3G coverage areas. While you can see why AT&T would make this complaint, it does make you wonder if it's really worth the effort to sue. All it's really doing is attracting a lot more attention to the original ad, which does accurately state that it's talking about 3G coverage, not overall coverage, though you can see why some people might not realize that AT&T's network also includes non-3G areas.

50 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Reason To Have A Distinct Ringtone? So You Can Find Your Mobile Phone At The Dump

from the that's-not-my-normal-ringtone dept

A guy in Aspen accidentally dropped his mobile phone into the piles of leaves he was raking up, and scooped up the phone and sent it off to the dump... But, amazingly, he was reunited with the phone by calling it and hearing it ring in the piles and piles of recyclables. Apparently, it took about half an hour of dialing/listening/sifting. Of course, there are times when you wonder if it wouldn't just be smarter to go get another phone...

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

David Brooks: Mobile Phones Are Destroying Courtship

from the why,-I-do-declare... dept

It looks like David Brooks has officially entered into the old curmudgeonly "well, back in my day" phase of his NY Times op-ed columnist career, with a rant about how mobile phones are breaking down the proper social rules of courtship between a man and a woman. What is his basis for this? Would you believe the "sex diaries" of NY Mag? Seriously. Brooks apparently has been spending time perusing the lurid details of what people send into NY Mag for its "sex diaries" feature, and decided that it's a representation of how the modern single person uses mobile phones for the process of hooking up (er... courtship):

Once upon a time -- in what we might think of as the "Happy Days" era -- courtship was governed by a set of guardrails. Potential partners generally met within the context of larger social institutions: neighborhoods, schools, workplaces and families. There were certain accepted social scripts. The purpose of these scripts -- dating, going steady, delaying sex -- was to guide young people on the path from short-term desire to long-term commitment.

Over the past few decades, these social scripts became obsolete. They didn't fit the post-feminist era. So the search was on for more enlightened courtship rules. You would expect a dynamic society to come up with appropriate scripts. But technology has made this extremely difficult. Etiquette is all about obstacles and restraint. But technology, especially cellphone and texting technology, dissolves obstacles. Suitors now contact each other in an instantaneous, frictionless sphere separated from larger social institutions and commitments.

People are thus thrown back on themselves. They are free agents in a competitive arena marked by ambiguous relationships. Social life comes to resemble economics, with people enmeshed in blizzards of supply and demand signals amidst a universe of potential partners.

The opportunity to contact many people at once seems to encourage compartmentalization, as people try to establish different kinds of romantic attachments with different people at the same time.

I have to admit, in reading this, even as he's condemning it, it sort of feels like Brooks is... envious? Does he feel like he missed out on his opportunity to have been a young player?

But, seriously, he presents no evidence other than the "sex diaries" quotes to support this. He seems to assume that, thanks to technology, suddenly everyone out there is a player with multiple partners, all lined up via mobile phone to figure out who makes the best pairing for the night. I know plenty of single people these days, and I don't know anyone who does anything remotely like this. I'm sure there are some, but is it really that different from people who went out to bars and compared their different options in the past? This has nothing to do with mobile phone technology at all.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Google Going Better Than Free On Navigation? Will That Set Off Antitrust Alarms?

from the should-it? dept

A few friends have passed along Bill Gurley's excellent (as usual) analysis of how Google is disrupting the navigation market by ditching the two big players in the space (Tele Atlas and Navteq), going it alone and also (the big news) offering its navigation info for free. Gurley points out that the truly disruptive part is that Google is actually offering mobile operators a deal that is better than free, in that they get to share in some of the ad revenue associated with anyone using the services. The point is pretty clear: those who are relying on the old business model of getting paid for navigation info are likely in serious trouble.

Of course, there are some perception issues. Plenty of companies who have tried a "we'll pay you" approach to marketing often find that it actually breeds some level of mistrust, as partners/users start wondering why, and if there's some sort of nasty catch. Google, of course, has a pretty good reputation, and ought to be able to overcome that issue. However, it does make me wonder if this will set off the Justice Department (and Google's enemies) on some silly witchhunt, claiming that this is somehow "predatory pricing." That, of course, is ridiculous if you actually think it through. The only real problem with predatory pricing is if it's used purposely to drive others out of business to then jack up prices. But Google's idea is to just give it more opportunity to make ad revenue. It's not predatory, it's just smart from a business sense. However, with so much scrutiny on Google these days, you could certainly see this backfiring.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wrong Number Phone Call Results In Shooting; Some People Need To Chill Out

from the oops dept

Every so often, I get wrong number phone calls (one of my numbers is apparently listed in a LensCrafters book of other stores, so I get calls from LensCrafter stores asking if I've got things in stock). It's not that difficult to say "you have a wrong number" and everyone goes on their merry way. Apparently, not for some. In Georgia, someone accidentally dialed a wrong number, and it resulted in someone getting shot. Apparently, following the wrong number, angry phone calls and texts were exchanged between the two guys, before they agreed to meet in a drug store parking lot, where one of them got shot (and the other got arrested). The story doesn't indicate who dialed the wrong number first, but, seriously, would it have been that hard to have just said, "hey, wrong number" and left it at that?

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Canada Decides That Canadian Ownership Is More Important Than Real Telco Competition

from the regulatory-failure dept

The biggest problem in the telco world is the lack of competition. Most of the worst abuses by various telecom providers is because there really isn't enough competition to make it worthwhile to treat customers better. The best thing that governments can do to encourage better broadband/telco services is to encourage competition. Apparently, Canada has different priorities. A new mobile firm was set to open up shop in Canada, called Globalive. However, Canada apparently has some rules about how telcos need to have Canadian ownership. And while Globalive was originally judged to meet the criteria in bidding on spectrum, a different government bureaucracy has now said that it doesn't meet the Canadian ownership requirements. In other words, to the Canadian government, having local ownership is more important than real competition. This is basically a form of protectionism that (like most forms of protectionism) ends up harming consumers.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Do Some Politicians Want To Ban You From Putting New Software On A Prepaid Mobile Phone?

from the protecting-business-models? dept

The EFF points out that some prepaid mobile providers have apparently convinced some politicians to introduce a bill, The Wireless Prepaid Access Device Enforcement Act of 2009, that would ban buyers of prepaid mobile phones from installing their own software for the purpose of working on another network. Basically, this is a bill specifically to protect the business model of Tracfone, which sells subsidized phones assuming that the buyers will keep buying prepaid minutes from them. The problem is that this might just be a bad business model -- and once someone has bought a device, it should be theirs, and they should be free to do with it what they want. Congress shouldn't be protecting anyone's business model.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Recognizing That Voice Is Just Data (Or How Google Voice Could Be Disruptive)

from the voice-is-data-too dept

Karl Bode, over at Broadband Reports, wrote up a great article a little while back about why Google Voice was more disruptive than anyone (especially the telcos) were willing to give it credit for being. The key underlying point: voice is just a form of data. Once you realize that, you realize that no one needs to be tied to any telco's own dialing system. Your mobile phone service provider really could just be a dumb pipe.

For years, I've always felt that the calls for "triple play" or "quadruple play" was incredibly misleading. All of the different "plays" (voice, video, data) were actually all just data. And when things are all just data, and its on an open network, then anyone can provide the services on top of that data. The telcos recognize this, somewhat -- which is why they've tried to block out others from offering certain telco services (it's why Google Voice was blocked on the iPhone), but it could be really game changing. Imagine if you could just buy a mobile phone that had no calling plan at all -- but it was all in the software? You could even use different dialers (with different numbers?) depending on what made the most sense or was cheapest.

The telcos hate thinking of themselves as dumb pipes, but there's something to be said for focusing on the pipes and making them as strong as possible, while letting everyone else innovate at the service level, and just selling good data plans. The more others innovate, the more valuable those data connections become.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How To Get Spectrum Back From TV For More Useful Purposes

from the property-rights? dept

If you look at how our radio spectrum is allocated today, you discover that TV broadcasters have a huge chunk of spectrum (that chart doesn't directly display how much spectrum is actually included -- I remember seeing another chart, which I can't find now, that shows proportionally how much more spectrum broadcasters have). This was given to them -- entirely for free -- years ago, when spectrum wasn't used for much. These days, however, spectrum is precious for so many different things, and certainly much of it could be put to better use. Of course, the broadcasters aren't thrilled with giving up any of their windfall. For years, they dragged their feet, kicking and screaming, about switching from analog to digital broadcasting, which was needed to reclaim some spectrum. More recently, they've been fighting attempts to use "white space" spectrum -- which is spectrum that's unused, but close to used spectrum. The broadcasters insist there will be interference, while technologists insist the technology is good enough to block interference.

So, it's interesting that, just as we're hearing of the first tests of white space networks, the FCC is also talking to broadcasters about other ways to reclaim some spectrum and put it to use on something more useful and productive. Apparently, the plan on the table right now would be for broadcasters to give up the spectrum in return for a cut of the revenue the government would get in auctioning off the spectrum for wireless use. Of course, some may find it distasteful that public spectrum that was given to these companies for free can then get sold off with at least some of the money going to those who never bought or truly "owned" the spectrum in the first place. But, given that the FCC set things up in a way where it basically created a de facto ownership structure of the spectrum, it's difficult to see any reasonable way to get that spectrum back without paying for it.

In the link above, Adam Thierer suggests we just give the current holders property rights in the spectrum, and assume that they'll then sell it off to those who can do something more innovative with it (or change and do something more innovative themselves). I've long been a proponent of giving up the ridiculous idea of having the government decide how each slice of spectrum must be used. Why not let the companies who control the various slices of spectrum make use of it as they see fit? It seems more likely that we'd get more efficient uses of the spectrum. So, it's good to see more thinking about ways to put some of that spectrum to better use, but it would be nice if we allowed the market, rather than the government, to figure out how to best use it.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Nokia Getting Killed In The Smartphone Market... So Of Course It Sues For Patent Infringement

from the if-you-can't-innovate,-litigate dept

Funny how this works, right? Just a week or so after it's first ever quarterly loss and an admission that it totally screwed up in the smartphone market, Nokia suddenly sues Apple for patent infringement over the iPhone. It looks like the old adage is true again: if you can't innovate, litigate! It's the same story all over again. A company that was a leader in the market but got complacent and lazy, suddenly finds that it lost its lead to a more innovative upstart. Since it's so far behind, even scrambling around doesn't help it to catch up, so it just starts suing over patents.

This story nicely highlights a few other points as well. We keep hearing from patent system supporters how the patent system is necessary because, without it, the market leader would always just immediately copy the upstart and "steal" their idea. Of course, Nokia has had two plus years to "steal" Apple's idea, and where is it in the smartphone market? It's not so easy to just copy someone else's idea -- especially if you're a huge player like Nokia, who will often view the disruptive innovator as not being worthy of paying attention to (which basically was Nokia's reaction to the iPhone).

Separately, remember how confused we were when Steve Jobs proudly hyped up the fact that Apple had over 200 patents on the iPhone concept? We've pointed out that it's hardly done anything to stop lawsuits. Apple has been sued over and over and over and over and over and over again for patent infringement. Welcome to the tragedy of the anti-commons, where it becomes impossible to do pretty much anything innovative without facing massive legal costs. Basically, if you build anything even remotely innovative these days, you're going to get sued for patent infringement, probably multiple times. It's become a massive tax on innovation, rather than a lever for innovation.

37 Comments | Leave a Comment..

If Per Byte Pricing Is 'Only Fair' Why Have Telcos Ditched It For Mobile Data Plans?

from the hypocrisy-in-action dept

For the past couple of years, telcos and cable companies have been pushing for metered broadband, usually with the bogus claim that "it's not fair" for a light user to be subsidizing a heavy user. This is a neat little disingenuous trick that implies "light users" would see their bills decrease under metered billing plans. However, the same telcos pushing for metered broadband on connections are the same telcos who have wireless operators as well... and for mobile users, they're doing away with the metered billing option at the lower end, forcing everyone into a much higher priced all-you-can-eat model. Oops. Metered billing has nothing to do with fairness. It's an attempt by telcos to squeeze more money out of customers in a market where they often have little in the way of competitive options. Because, as we've seen, when there's real competition, it's a lot more difficult for providers to offer such plans.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Again? Wal-Mart's Straight Talk 'Unlimited' Mobile Data Plan Actually Quite Limited

from the that's-not-straight-talk dept

And I thought the days of companies claiming "unlimited" data plans when they really were very very limited had died out after Verizon Wireless got fined and started backing away from claiming "unlimited" data for plans that were actually quite limited. However, with Walmart teaming up with TracFone to offer the misleadingly-named "Straight Talk" mobile phone service, some are noticing the return of very limited mobile data offers advertised as "unlimited." As is pointed out in that link, beyond simply being flat-out wrong and more than a bit deceiving, it's pretty ridiculous for a brand called "Straight Talk" to lie in its advertising, and hide the details in the very very fine print.

54 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Comes With Music... But No One Cares

from the thank-you-drm dept

Nokia got a lot of attention when it launched its "Comes With Music" concept -- where you buy a phone that comes with "free" all-you-can-eat music downloads for one year. Of course, the music comes wrapped in annoying DRM, though the music will keep playing (thankfully), after the year is up. Still, it seems like people aren't buying for the most part. A recent report shows only 107,000 users worldwide. This must be a blow to the major record labels who always seem to insist that "free music" drives pretty much every other business model. For example, BPI continues to insist that ISPs are basing their own business model on people sharing "free music." And you have record labels who are pissed off because they think that video games Rock Band and Guitar Hero aren't paying enough for all the benefit they get from the music. And, of course, there are all those collection societies claiming that every business that plays any kind of music needs to pay more, because it must be all that music that brings in the business. Well, it looks like Nokia is proving them all wrong. The music, by itself, doesn't seem to attract all that much business at all. Perhaps everyone should be asking for a refund.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK ISP Shows Why Kicking People Off The Internet Based On An IP Address Is Dumb

from the let's-use-some-logic dept

UK ISP TalkTalk has been a strong critic of the way the recording industry has tried to turn ISPs into copyright cops in the past. A year and a half ago it swore it would not be a copyright cop, and scolded BPI for suggesting it had any responsibility to enforce the entertainment industry's poor excuse for a business model -- while also complaining about "the most unbelievably rude letter" that BPI sent TalkTalk in demanding it do so. At the time, he told them:

"They're not just shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted -- the horse has left town, got married, and started a family."

Well said. Then, earlier this year, TalkTalk's CEO also pointed out how naive it was to think that the industry could do anything to stop unauthorized file sharing, noting:

If you try speed humps or disconnections for peer-to-peer, people will simply either disguise their traffic or share the content another way. It is a game of Tom and Jerry and you will never catch the mouse. The mouse always wins in this battle and we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid....

If people want to share content they will find another way to do it....

TalkTalk is continuing to show how silly the recording industry's plans are, by doing a little demonstration. The company sent out a security expert on staff to an ordinary street in Stanmore, Middlesex. Then it had him find all the WiFi connections there -- noting that many were totally open, and many others used weak security. From a few open ones, he went and downloaded some songs including Barry Manilow's hit Mandy and the soundtrack to the 1992 film Peter's Friends -- those two choices in honor of Peter Mandelson, the UK Business Secretary who suddenly became a supporter of kicking file sharers off the internet using a three strikes provision after dining with entertainment industry mogul, David Geffen.

To be clear, in this case, the music downloads were both done legally -- and the company checked with the WiFi access point owners first to make sure they were okay with it -- but the point is still clear. Just because you have an IP address, it doesn't act as any sort of proof. TalkTalk's director of strategy and regulation, Andrew Heaney made the point clear:

"The Mandelson scheme is every bit as wrong-headed as it is naive. The lack of presumption of innocence and the absence of judicial process combined with the prevalence of wi-fi hacking will result in innocent people being disconnected."

This, of course, is the same point that plenty of people have been making for ages, but the recording industry never has a good response. They also haven't been able to respond to a more important point: how will kicking people off the internet make anyone more interested in buying music?

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How Did Danger Not Backup Its Servers? How Did Microsoft Allow Such A Failure?

from the one-of-those-times-where-epic-fail-applies dept

I bought the very first Danger smartphone the day it came out (rare for me -- I'm not so much of an early adopter on mobile phones). One of the features I liked the best was the fact that all of the data on the phone was immediately and automatically backed up to Danger's servers. Since then, I've always been amazed that other providers didn't make similar features standard. Danger never fully lived up to its hype, and eventually sold out to Microsoft. It was never entirely clear why Microsoft would want Danger, but at the very least you would think that it would make sure that the servers were pretty safe and redundant. Or so you would think. Apparently Danger had a massive server failure and is warning people that their data may be completely lost. The company is telling people not to turn off their devices, as the only way to keep the data alive is to keep the phone going.

It's difficult to think of a system failure that makes a company look quite this bad. Tons of people have Sidekick phones and rely on server backup to keep their data. Not having a working redundant backup is a stunning sort of failure for Microsoft, and should remind people of the inherent dangers in relying on a cloud based service. While there are lots of cloud-based solutions that are quite useful, people are definitely going to need to be able to have alternative local and remote backups to make sure that, in this kind of situation, they're not totally relying on a company who should do things right, but perhaps did not.

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Evidence Suggests That iPhone App Store Doesn't Really Sell That Much...

from the ain't-looking-so-good dept

Among people who really, really want to believe that there's a huge market out there for selling content directly, the iPhone App Store has recently become "Exhibit A." The thinking is that all you have to do is slap together that perfect Steve Jobsian user interface that just makes it so easy to buy, and people will start forking over their money. It was part of David Carr's argument when we debated newspaper micropayments. Except... there really isn't that much evidence to support even the claim that the iPhone App Store really sells that much. We were a bit skeptical of the early reports that people claimed offered "proof" that people would buy all sorts of apps. Then, earlier this year, we suggested that it was an early warning sign that so many apps on iPhones were never used at all or were used once and abandoned. Basically, that meant that people would test stuff out when they first got the phone, but sales would likely dwindle after that. More evidence was provided by an analyst firm that figured out how little money Apple was making from app sales (which is fine -- Apple is in it just to sell hardware, but it suggested that app sales weren't quite as amazing as people were claiming).

Newsweek is presenting some more evidence -- albeit anecdotal -- that the iPhone App Store isn't making very many people very much money at all. There are, certainly, a few folks at the top who are doing okay, but for most people there just aren't that many sales -- or the cost of getting those sales greatly outweighs the revenue that came in from them.

This isn't to say that the iPhone App Store is a failure. In fact, I'd argue it's been a huge success in making the iPhone significantly more valuable. But as evidence that there's a huge market out there of people willing to pay for content if it's just packaged up nicely? There's just not enough there to be convincing.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Steve Ballmer Declares 'Free Is Not A Business Model' -- Apparently Unfamiliar With Microsoft's Free Products

from the check-'em-out,-steve dept

Josh W points us to an article about Microsoft new mobile phone software that contains an odd quote from Steve Ballmer, responding to a question concerning Microsoft's plans to compete with Google's free Android mobile operating system:

"Free is not a business model," he said. "We are a commercial company, we will look to gain revenue and profit from our activities. You'll have to ask our competitors if they'll make money on free things."

Internet explorer. Bing. Microsoft's new security software. All free. All offered by Microsoft. Is Steve Ballmer admitting that he doesn't know about any of these things... or is he just expecting that the reporter and the readers of the article are flat-out stupid? Clearly, Microsoft seems to recognize that free is a part of lots of smart business models, so why is its CEO apparently acting clueless on this front? As clearly anyone who thought this through knows, free by itself is not a business model, but free, in combination with a larger business model often makes a lot of sense. That's what Google is doing, and it's what Microsoft is doing as well. So why is Steve Ballmer pretending otherwise?

60 Comments | Leave a Comment..