Now that I have had my Nexus S for five months now, have rooted it, and installed custom ROMs, I thought I should give a bit of an update to personal peeves and enjoyable things I have found about it.
First off, the good. After tinkering with it for some time, I managed at one point to get a custom ROM/custom kernel combination that netted me 45 hours of battery life on one charge. I have since moved on to a newer ROM that isn't that great on battery life, but it shows with the proper settings and software that one can really crank out the battery life on this phone.
Secondly, the minor annoyances. There are really only three types of ROMs at the moment. There are tons of actual ROMs, but all come from the same variances. It's either CyanogenMod 7, AOSP (the basic stock option that comes with the phone initially), and MIUI (a Chinese derived variant with some blendings of Cyanogen and AOSP and custom UI).
I spent a lot of time with Cyanogen because of all the customization that worked so seamlessly. However, CyanogenMod has been unstable at times. It's slowly improving, but not fast enough considering Ice Cream Sandwich will be out by the end of the year and they haven't even managed to lock down 2.3.4 stably enough for daily use. It was my go to ROM until recently.
MIUI, on the other-hand, has just as much customization, if not more, than CM 7. However, I found that certain themes would cause my text to be rendered too dark to read. Because of many of the Chinese oriented themes which clash with my American sensibilities, I found I had to put together a hodge-podge theme. In the end, I couldn't really get the ROM the way that I wanted it in spite of its benefits. I still keep a backup just in case I want to upgrade to newer versions which are improving all the time.
Right now I'm rocking SuperAOSP 8.6 . It's a hybrid ROM combining AOSP with CM 7. This gives it the stability of AOSP with the customization of CM 7. I have to say that I passed up on this ROM for some time. I had a backup of it but did little with it. After dealing with Voodoo color issues, reboots, and other problems, I have abandoned CM 7 for the time being. My current ROM is the most up to date at 2.3.4 with only a few minor quirks like Voodoo color taking a second to kick on after turning my screen on.
Finally, the bad. There seems to an issue with the back capacitive button on my phone. It's fairly intermittent and it seems to span across all ROMs, but I'm not sure if it is a hardware or software related issue. Basically it seems that the button is either difficult to press or outright non-responsive. Sometimes though, like after playing Gem Miner for a bit, the button works flawlessly. My Zagg shield may be partially to blame, but I'm not sure right now.
I've had issues finding a decent case to keep it in. The lightweight plastic is a liability for me and my phone was purchased off contract so I'm not taking any chances with it. I initially used an Amzer Jelly case with my Zagg shield. It was decent, but I wanted to up the protection. I tried TPU cases, but they made it where I couldn't push the power button without difficulty. I already have issues with the back button so I chose to abandon these types of cases. I then moved on to a Trident Aegis case. The case itself is actually wonderfully designed and very unique. However, the plastic part of the case (two piece case) has soft touch material that began to flake off, likely because of how often I put it in and removed it from my pocket.
In the end, I went with the Seidio Convert case. It consists of a snap together soft touch plastic case (materials are better with this case than the Trident one), which can be upgraded to a second case that goes on top of it, making it like a Otterbox Defender case that I had with my Nexus One. It also comes with a belt holster which was something I decided to move to. Having the case on my belt actually saved battery because it was no longer next to my leg giving off heat which causes the processor to work harder. The battery itself heats up as well which is also not good for overall performance. So far the case has been great. The snap together case is difficult to get off if I need to, but not agonizingly so. The back button issue may be exasperated by the case, but I'll take the risk.
Aside from all this, the phone is really good. I'm disappointed that no companies have really jumped on the idea of using the NFC chip for debit transactions. Paypal was supposed to do this, but seems to be slow going to get to it. I was personally hoping that the whole NFC thing would take off, but as of now it is a useless feature that draws battery when its on. I likely see NFC getting big if the next iPhone adopts the technology like everyone predicts it will. Sad to see Apple dictating when people should be adopting technology.
I'm a little depressed at the limited accessory offerings. Unlike the Nexus One, that has a wonderful desktop dock and car dock, the Nexus S desktop dock is really rather bland, costly, and can only be ordered through Samsung's site. I don't really have an opinion of the car dock. Neither were available through the website for some time before the desktop dock was finally made available. I sense that the Nexus S isn't doing as well as one would hope from its limited accessory offerings. I see this as a problem from Google. Had they utilized a different chipset (the first gen Hummingbird could only do 7.2 mbps max), or chose to not try to cram in a NFC chip when the tech wasn't being adopted (it's the reason why the Nexus S doesn't have 720p recording because of the front facing camera and NFC taking up a great deal of space) they might have succeeded better. The loss of the SD card for this phone is really the baffling part as all Android phones, down to the crappiest one you can find, have SD card slots.
Still, the phone is good in spite of its shortcomings. It will definitely hold me until the rumored Nexus Prime comes later this year. Hopefully, Google is willing to do what they did with the Nexus One and push the bar while providing a good mix of future proof technology.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Our patent system is failing us...
It's become extremely apparent that our patent system has been hijacked by corporations. The patent system was intended to give the creators of their inventions the chance to profit from them for a predetermined period of time while licensing it out to others and preventing the creator from taking the invention with them in death. That giant sentence aside, the patent system as it stands now has been hijacked as a weapon by corporations against corporations (and people in certain instances).
Most of this hijacking is by tech companies patenting existing technology or obvious things. One just has to look at the recent lawsuits between Apple vs Samsung and HTC, Microsoft's shady mafia cut dealings, the absurdly abstract software patents of Apple, among others.
Of all these, Apple has to be the worst with Microsoft a close second. Apple has been on the warpath now that Android has eclipsed its market share in the smartphone arena. Apple and many others on the lawsuit wagon can't directly target Google with the exception of Oracle, so they hit the cell phone manufacturers. Apple started with HTC and moved on to Samsung. The problem is the fact that many of these disputes won't even be valid by the time the perceived patents are granted.
One of the biggest problems with patents in general is the time it takes to approve them. This is why you frequently see patent pending on products or why the patent number is usually in the millions these days. At the rate computer technology moves these days, most of the things we use are considered public domain long before the patent is even granted. Even worse, the patent office seems to have to real cataloging because they have granted already existing patents again.
What all this amounts to is corporations are suing each other to prevent losses on technology they don't even have patents to. Some of it has been played off as other arenas such as trade dress and outright theft, but the end result is still the same: corporations waging legal war to be top dog. Apple of all of them is the worst. For all of their advancement in the field of operating systems and the way we use our technology, they continue use underpowered hardware to create huge profit margins while suing their competitors to maintain their lead. They're anti-competitive, dirty, and by using these patent suits, driving technology in reverse by slowing down what could be great hardware.
However, let's not forget Microsoft. The software giant has learned from its previous mistakes in the 80s and 90s by no longer be overt about things. Recently, Microsoft has taken to making deals with Android phone manufacturers. By taking a small cut of the money sold on each handset, they won't sue for their patents. This isn't licensing, this is mafia style extortion. We've never, as a public, even been privy to what these patents are. Barnes and Noble however, are going to go ahead and fight it.
This madness needs to stop. The recent auction of Nortel's patents to a consortium of Microsoft, Apple, and others whom competed against Google for them showed that they are out to pummel the search engine giant. The patents are the guns and the judges are the generals. We are in need of dire patent reform and soon. Because eventually, innovation will be crushed and these corporations will have so much power from patents, legal loopholes, and mergers that the people will no longer have any recourse. Once you only have a couple of choices for the things you like, you're forced into purchasing from a business you had taken a stand against. Let's hope something gets done in favor of the consumer for once.
Most of this hijacking is by tech companies patenting existing technology or obvious things. One just has to look at the recent lawsuits between Apple vs Samsung and HTC, Microsoft's shady mafia cut dealings, the absurdly abstract software patents of Apple, among others.
Of all these, Apple has to be the worst with Microsoft a close second. Apple has been on the warpath now that Android has eclipsed its market share in the smartphone arena. Apple and many others on the lawsuit wagon can't directly target Google with the exception of Oracle, so they hit the cell phone manufacturers. Apple started with HTC and moved on to Samsung. The problem is the fact that many of these disputes won't even be valid by the time the perceived patents are granted.
One of the biggest problems with patents in general is the time it takes to approve them. This is why you frequently see patent pending on products or why the patent number is usually in the millions these days. At the rate computer technology moves these days, most of the things we use are considered public domain long before the patent is even granted. Even worse, the patent office seems to have to real cataloging because they have granted already existing patents again.
What all this amounts to is corporations are suing each other to prevent losses on technology they don't even have patents to. Some of it has been played off as other arenas such as trade dress and outright theft, but the end result is still the same: corporations waging legal war to be top dog. Apple of all of them is the worst. For all of their advancement in the field of operating systems and the way we use our technology, they continue use underpowered hardware to create huge profit margins while suing their competitors to maintain their lead. They're anti-competitive, dirty, and by using these patent suits, driving technology in reverse by slowing down what could be great hardware.
However, let's not forget Microsoft. The software giant has learned from its previous mistakes in the 80s and 90s by no longer be overt about things. Recently, Microsoft has taken to making deals with Android phone manufacturers. By taking a small cut of the money sold on each handset, they won't sue for their patents. This isn't licensing, this is mafia style extortion. We've never, as a public, even been privy to what these patents are. Barnes and Noble however, are going to go ahead and fight it.
This madness needs to stop. The recent auction of Nortel's patents to a consortium of Microsoft, Apple, and others whom competed against Google for them showed that they are out to pummel the search engine giant. The patents are the guns and the judges are the generals. We are in need of dire patent reform and soon. Because eventually, innovation will be crushed and these corporations will have so much power from patents, legal loopholes, and mergers that the people will no longer have any recourse. Once you only have a couple of choices for the things you like, you're forced into purchasing from a business you had taken a stand against. Let's hope something gets done in favor of the consumer for once.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
The Beginning of the End of the First Round That Leads Up to the End
Confusing title aside, the first of what will likely be many meetings with AT&T, T-Mobile, other companies, and congress took place. Needless to say, it was just fucking hilarious. Most of the proceedings can be read on tmonews (AT&T Senate meeting).
Try as they might, AT&T and T-Mobile's CEOs couldn't sneak in an inch on the first round of senators. Some highlights I thought were fun were:
* AT&T claims merger will help rural areas with better converage - Franken (comedian who used to be on SNL) launched this one out of the park by saying that AT&T advertises nationally, not locally so why should the deal be looked at as such. Totally valid but not a blockbuster point. Building rurally tower-wise is more of an issue with the land owners. Many rural people don't want towers in their backyard because they are visible like a sore thumb unlike urban areas where towers can be concealed. Plus, I've rarely had issues with coverage in rural areas. I didn't have high speed data, but I was able to make calls and texts which are really the primary functions of the phone. This merger is more about data than coverage, after all AT&T says they cover 97% of Americans.
* Dan Hesse, CEO of Sprint tells the committee that this merger will likely spell the end of Sprint through a Verizon merger...potentially - Very true. Both AT&T and Verizon would cover 82% of Americans if this deal passes. Sprint will have about only a third of the customers that the Big Two would. Eventually, Sprint would no longer be able to compete as the companies now have basically buyout other companies until there is more spectrum up for sale. Sprint would find themselves merging with Verizon since they use the same technology for their 3G network and have loads of spectrum to use. Of course, this could be a bit of fear-mongering, but is a very realistic future.
* AT&T continues to ignore T-Mobile's position as a competitor - AT&T is still saying that the smaller companies (with less than a tenth of AT&T's customer base) are competitors while almost refusing to admit that T-Mobile is one. Senator Kohl finally blurted out that they were competitors, asking them to just admit it. This is something I don't fully understand. I fail to see how AT&T thinks all of these regulators and politicians are simply going to believe that a company with 33 million customers isn't a competitor to AT&T. T-Mobile has maintained consistent build out of their network and generate excellent data speeds at affordable prices. My only guess is that AT&T has to downplay T-Mobile in order to convince everybody that T-Mobile needs them. Truthfully, they don't. HSPA+ and HSPA Evolved have the capabilities to reach 680 Mbps. Not as fast as LTE, but still very good with minimal impact on battery life. Just because T-Mobile may not have the capital to upgrade to LTE doesn't mean they are out of the game.
* The deal is worth a total of six billion dollars if it fails - This is the three billion dollars in money, two billion in spectrum, and one billion in roaming charges that T-Mobile gets if the deal fails. Certainly I would like to believe that T-Mobile is just playing AT&T, but the truth is more than likely this is the limit in how much AT&T will push in bribes, lobbying, and advertising to make this deal look good to politicians and officials. Technically the actual value of T-Mobile is only about half as much as AT&T is paying. It shows how desperate AT&T is for TMo's spectrum. I doubt AT&T even cares about the customers so much as it is in keeping up with Verizon that already has their 4G network building out rapidly. Even Clearwire, the company that Sprint rents spectrum from, has gone on to say that switching to LTE is nothing more than having the proper phone and a software upgrade for their towers. AT&T runs the risk of falling behind and losing customers with it.
There are plenty more of interesting tidbits, but these are what I find most interesting. As more of these bits of information come out, I realize how badly AT&T wants T-Mobile's spectrum. The reality is that AT&T's spectrum issues are not quantity, but quality. They own spectrum at tons of frequencies, but not many that are close to each other. This results in dropped calls, data loss, etc. While T-Mobile on the other hand, pooled their spectrum close together (mostly in the 1700 MHz band range for 3G/4G) which is why their network suffers a bit in buildings but has far fewer dropped calls and issues.
The thing is, AT&T wants to use the 1700 MHz spectrum from T-Mobile to build their LTE network. While it's common knowledge now that LTE is the future of cellular technology, why waste time reconfiguring an entire network when they could just get pentaband phones and build on top of T-Mobile's existing network? It would be cheaper, faster to do, and wouldn't alienate the T-Mobile customers that swing over after the merger from having their smartphones rendered useless. AT&T sure isn't thinking this through. I only hope the deal gets rejected.
Try as they might, AT&T and T-Mobile's CEOs couldn't sneak in an inch on the first round of senators. Some highlights I thought were fun were:
* AT&T claims merger will help rural areas with better converage - Franken (comedian who used to be on SNL) launched this one out of the park by saying that AT&T advertises nationally, not locally so why should the deal be looked at as such. Totally valid but not a blockbuster point. Building rurally tower-wise is more of an issue with the land owners. Many rural people don't want towers in their backyard because they are visible like a sore thumb unlike urban areas where towers can be concealed. Plus, I've rarely had issues with coverage in rural areas. I didn't have high speed data, but I was able to make calls and texts which are really the primary functions of the phone. This merger is more about data than coverage, after all AT&T says they cover 97% of Americans.
* Dan Hesse, CEO of Sprint tells the committee that this merger will likely spell the end of Sprint through a Verizon merger...potentially - Very true. Both AT&T and Verizon would cover 82% of Americans if this deal passes. Sprint will have about only a third of the customers that the Big Two would. Eventually, Sprint would no longer be able to compete as the companies now have basically buyout other companies until there is more spectrum up for sale. Sprint would find themselves merging with Verizon since they use the same technology for their 3G network and have loads of spectrum to use. Of course, this could be a bit of fear-mongering, but is a very realistic future.
* AT&T continues to ignore T-Mobile's position as a competitor - AT&T is still saying that the smaller companies (with less than a tenth of AT&T's customer base) are competitors while almost refusing to admit that T-Mobile is one. Senator Kohl finally blurted out that they were competitors, asking them to just admit it. This is something I don't fully understand. I fail to see how AT&T thinks all of these regulators and politicians are simply going to believe that a company with 33 million customers isn't a competitor to AT&T. T-Mobile has maintained consistent build out of their network and generate excellent data speeds at affordable prices. My only guess is that AT&T has to downplay T-Mobile in order to convince everybody that T-Mobile needs them. Truthfully, they don't. HSPA+ and HSPA Evolved have the capabilities to reach 680 Mbps. Not as fast as LTE, but still very good with minimal impact on battery life. Just because T-Mobile may not have the capital to upgrade to LTE doesn't mean they are out of the game.
* The deal is worth a total of six billion dollars if it fails - This is the three billion dollars in money, two billion in spectrum, and one billion in roaming charges that T-Mobile gets if the deal fails. Certainly I would like to believe that T-Mobile is just playing AT&T, but the truth is more than likely this is the limit in how much AT&T will push in bribes, lobbying, and advertising to make this deal look good to politicians and officials. Technically the actual value of T-Mobile is only about half as much as AT&T is paying. It shows how desperate AT&T is for TMo's spectrum. I doubt AT&T even cares about the customers so much as it is in keeping up with Verizon that already has their 4G network building out rapidly. Even Clearwire, the company that Sprint rents spectrum from, has gone on to say that switching to LTE is nothing more than having the proper phone and a software upgrade for their towers. AT&T runs the risk of falling behind and losing customers with it.
There are plenty more of interesting tidbits, but these are what I find most interesting. As more of these bits of information come out, I realize how badly AT&T wants T-Mobile's spectrum. The reality is that AT&T's spectrum issues are not quantity, but quality. They own spectrum at tons of frequencies, but not many that are close to each other. This results in dropped calls, data loss, etc. While T-Mobile on the other hand, pooled their spectrum close together (mostly in the 1700 MHz band range for 3G/4G) which is why their network suffers a bit in buildings but has far fewer dropped calls and issues.
The thing is, AT&T wants to use the 1700 MHz spectrum from T-Mobile to build their LTE network. While it's common knowledge now that LTE is the future of cellular technology, why waste time reconfiguring an entire network when they could just get pentaband phones and build on top of T-Mobile's existing network? It would be cheaper, faster to do, and wouldn't alienate the T-Mobile customers that swing over after the merger from having their smartphones rendered useless. AT&T sure isn't thinking this through. I only hope the deal gets rejected.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Apple sues Samsung - Samsung sues Apple, hilarity ensues...
Oh the hilarity. It seems like the mobile tech world is just rife with stupidity and lawsuits. This is pretty much how lazy companies prosper and how competent companies stay relevant.
Apple just recently filed a lawsuit against Samsung for their Galaxy S cell phone line that includes not only the base model and the unique American carrier offerings, but also the Galaxy Tab and the Nexus S. The first thing that strikes me as odd is the fact that this lawsuit is coming right before Samsung releases the Galaxy S II line, the successor to the first in much of Europe and Asia and about a year or so after the release of the original Galaxy S.
The lawsuit goes on to describe the Galaxy S infringing upon the overall appearance of the iPhone, particularly in the UI department, but also pertaining to just the overall shape and buttons on the phone. First off, I have a hard time seeing the hardware copying here. Yes the base model Galaxy S does indeed have a single home button on it....surrounded by two other buttons on each side of it. There's also that big old Samsung logo on it, so there's no confusing this with an iPhone. Now Touchwiz, yes, it's a shameless imitation of iOS. Depressingly so, in fact. Considering that Touchwiz 2 (Touchwiz 3 is the iOS look-a-like) looks and behaves nothing like the iPhone, it makes me wonder why Samsung would take this route.
However, the most telling thing of this lawsuit is that they included the Galaxy Tab and Nexus S in the lawsuit. Unless there is some underlying tech element I haven't read up on, the Galaxy Tab bears almost nothing in common with the iPad or the iPhone. More importantly, is the Nexus S aka my phone, in this lawsuit. For the record, the Nexus S is extremely uniquely designed in comparison to any of its Galaxy S cousins and runs stock Android. There is absolutely no way you could confuse a Nexus S for an iPhone.
What does all this tell me? Apple is flanking Google. Plain and simple, they're getting ready to go after Google for Android. Apple has already went after HTC and Motorola for various phones that they say violate their patents. Each case cites different patents, a certainly odd maneuver, but painfully obvious. Apple knows they can't go after Google directly. They lost the "look and feel" lawsuit with Microsoft and they've been bitter about it ever since. So instead, they are targeting the rest of the Open Handset Alliance. They figure if they put enough holes in the manufacturers, they'll bail from the whole Android scene. Problem is, these companies are also billion dollar corporations.
So, obviously, Samsung retaliated with their own suit. Their lawsuit claims they infringe on ten different patents. I don't know about HTC, but Motorola is one of the forerunners to cell phones at all. I know they're packing a shit ton of patents. These are electronic giants, not fly-by-night companies that will back down and pay whatever you ask. Plus the way I understand it, Samsung may have a few edges in this case. One is a lawsuit Apple lost to a company called Meizu whose phone looked nearly identical to the iPhone and the other is the Samsung F700 which was coming out at the same time as the iPhone. Either way, Apple has a long journey on these suits and the companies aren't going to back down so easily. Combine that with the fact that the Oracle vs. Google (aka the elephant in the room) case may be wrapping up sooner than anticipated thanks to a recent statement by the judge presiding over it and Android may be coming out on top in the future.
Either way, Google has the money to defend itself against Apple. It also helps that the people in general like Android. Shutting down an OS that is installed on over 30 million handsets and growing is no easy feat. Worst case scenario is settlements and payouts, but even then Apple is just going to have to get used to the fact that the iPhone isn't the top dog OS (not that it ever was, that distinction goes to RIM and Nokia, but Apple doesn't know any better).
My take? Apple is trying to stay relevant (hence the second sentence of this post). They've had to delay the iPhone 5 for a few months longer than they would like and need to remain a presence in everyone's minds. In the tech world today, a few months can spell success or failure. Apple will still be around, but their potential dominance in the mobile market will be in jeopardy which is why they are mounting the offensive against the OHA. Either way, it's hilarious to watch Android vs. Apple fans fight over it, ridiculous lawsuits get filed on overly vague patents, and multibillion dollar companies crying about things rather than continuing to push the envelope in innovation. At the same time, it's pretty depressing the state of affairs, especially with the patent office since if their were some reform and restructuring, these type of lawsuits would go away.
Apple just recently filed a lawsuit against Samsung for their Galaxy S cell phone line that includes not only the base model and the unique American carrier offerings, but also the Galaxy Tab and the Nexus S. The first thing that strikes me as odd is the fact that this lawsuit is coming right before Samsung releases the Galaxy S II line, the successor to the first in much of Europe and Asia and about a year or so after the release of the original Galaxy S.
The lawsuit goes on to describe the Galaxy S infringing upon the overall appearance of the iPhone, particularly in the UI department, but also pertaining to just the overall shape and buttons on the phone. First off, I have a hard time seeing the hardware copying here. Yes the base model Galaxy S does indeed have a single home button on it....surrounded by two other buttons on each side of it. There's also that big old Samsung logo on it, so there's no confusing this with an iPhone. Now Touchwiz, yes, it's a shameless imitation of iOS. Depressingly so, in fact. Considering that Touchwiz 2 (Touchwiz 3 is the iOS look-a-like) looks and behaves nothing like the iPhone, it makes me wonder why Samsung would take this route.
However, the most telling thing of this lawsuit is that they included the Galaxy Tab and Nexus S in the lawsuit. Unless there is some underlying tech element I haven't read up on, the Galaxy Tab bears almost nothing in common with the iPad or the iPhone. More importantly, is the Nexus S aka my phone, in this lawsuit. For the record, the Nexus S is extremely uniquely designed in comparison to any of its Galaxy S cousins and runs stock Android. There is absolutely no way you could confuse a Nexus S for an iPhone.
What does all this tell me? Apple is flanking Google. Plain and simple, they're getting ready to go after Google for Android. Apple has already went after HTC and Motorola for various phones that they say violate their patents. Each case cites different patents, a certainly odd maneuver, but painfully obvious. Apple knows they can't go after Google directly. They lost the "look and feel" lawsuit with Microsoft and they've been bitter about it ever since. So instead, they are targeting the rest of the Open Handset Alliance. They figure if they put enough holes in the manufacturers, they'll bail from the whole Android scene. Problem is, these companies are also billion dollar corporations.
So, obviously, Samsung retaliated with their own suit. Their lawsuit claims they infringe on ten different patents. I don't know about HTC, but Motorola is one of the forerunners to cell phones at all. I know they're packing a shit ton of patents. These are electronic giants, not fly-by-night companies that will back down and pay whatever you ask. Plus the way I understand it, Samsung may have a few edges in this case. One is a lawsuit Apple lost to a company called Meizu whose phone looked nearly identical to the iPhone and the other is the Samsung F700 which was coming out at the same time as the iPhone. Either way, Apple has a long journey on these suits and the companies aren't going to back down so easily. Combine that with the fact that the Oracle vs. Google (aka the elephant in the room) case may be wrapping up sooner than anticipated thanks to a recent statement by the judge presiding over it and Android may be coming out on top in the future.
Either way, Google has the money to defend itself against Apple. It also helps that the people in general like Android. Shutting down an OS that is installed on over 30 million handsets and growing is no easy feat. Worst case scenario is settlements and payouts, but even then Apple is just going to have to get used to the fact that the iPhone isn't the top dog OS (not that it ever was, that distinction goes to RIM and Nokia, but Apple doesn't know any better).
My take? Apple is trying to stay relevant (hence the second sentence of this post). They've had to delay the iPhone 5 for a few months longer than they would like and need to remain a presence in everyone's minds. In the tech world today, a few months can spell success or failure. Apple will still be around, but their potential dominance in the mobile market will be in jeopardy which is why they are mounting the offensive against the OHA. Either way, it's hilarious to watch Android vs. Apple fans fight over it, ridiculous lawsuits get filed on overly vague patents, and multibillion dollar companies crying about things rather than continuing to push the envelope in innovation. At the same time, it's pretty depressing the state of affairs, especially with the patent office since if their were some reform and restructuring, these type of lawsuits would go away.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Tethering: The Carriers' New Double Dipping
I have a very hard time feeling any sympathy for corporations. They take in billions of dollars a year from their consumers, they're allowed to break anti-trust laws (see Microsoft), mergers that are anti-competitive (NBC/Comcast, AT&T/T-Mobile, etc), and gain major tax breaks from the government. So I don't shed a tear when corporations are taking it up the ass from the consumers (file sharing). The newest thing in the last coupld of years in the cellular industry is tethering.
Tethering, in relevance to cell phones, is just using the data connection on the phone to connect to a computer like a portable modem of sorts. There's also WiFi Hotspot which allows you to use the WiFi chip in your smartphone to allow multiple people to connect to your data connection. Before the 3G movement hit, tethering was really not anything to be paid attention to. Carriers didn't care if you did because their networks weren't even close to being bogged down. Plus, the barely 56 Kbps modem speed you could get hardly made it worth it.
This was what I would call the golden age of data. Unlimited plans were the norm because the consumers rarely used their internet connections. The connections were slow, had horrible lag, and the phones had terrible browsers to work with. All in all, the carriers were making out like bandits on data plans. They were virtually worthless to the consumer at the time, more of gimmick really, but the carriers could make huge bank on it.
As the golden age of data is now fading, the end of 3G movement and into the newly christened 4G movement have brought us a much greater use for our smartphones now. Android and the iPhone are the biggest contributors of this. With full-fledged browsers, Flash on Android, and higher speed connections, consumers are now getting greater use out of the data plans.
Carriers are now charging varying rates for their tethering plans, but the fact of the matter is that they are bullshit. Tethering, specifically in Android 2.2 and greater, is native to the operating system. It's built-in for free along with WiFi Hotspot. So let's just get the whole costing the carriers' anything argument out of the way.
Secondly, and most importantly, data connections are mostly limited. Carriers are moving away from unlimited data because they can no longer handle the network load. This is largely their fault. They had years of government tax breaks to improve their infrastructure, but chose to take the low road with purchasing other companies to obtain spectrum and towers. So in response, we now have limited plans (AT&T being the worst with a paltry 2 GB).
What this amounts to is the carriers double dipping. They are charging consumers for the same data twice. Only in the case of AT&T are consumers being allotted more data for taking on the plan. Never mind the fact that a user could run out their data streaming HD video on YouTube or instead WiFi Hotspot some friends. Either way, the user only has a limited amount of data to work with. This is the crux of the case. If users still had unlimited data, I could understand such a charge (partially), but since the data is capped, why should the carriers charge twice for it?
This is why the recent declarations by the FCC on net neutrality are complete shit. They provided an outline for what the land line companies could and could not do in order to preserve neutrality, but wireless carriers were exempt. Their reasoning even included the fact that Android was open which has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. By allowing the wireless carriers to define whatever terms they want, they effectively screwed the customers. Just look at recent events such as AT&T promising fines and fees to iPhone users that were tethering, a kernel in the Samsung Fascinate that was coded to report tethering, or a recent text message my girlfriend received about how tethering would be blocked.
Carriers are trying to police their consumers' data use with bullying tactics that are outright deceitful. Why should it matter how I use my allotted data? Would you really buy a DSL or Cable internet plan if they said you couldn't use a router to provide internet for the entire household? Why are we holding wireless carriers to different standards that land line providers? What is the point of net neutrality when we arbitrarily make the rules up as we go?
The charging for tethering has to stop. Carriers and service providers are supposed to be a dumb pipe. They are simply there to open the pipes for use. Allowing them to dictate how we use our data is the beginning of the end of net neutrality. It can only get worse from here folks.
Tethering, in relevance to cell phones, is just using the data connection on the phone to connect to a computer like a portable modem of sorts. There's also WiFi Hotspot which allows you to use the WiFi chip in your smartphone to allow multiple people to connect to your data connection. Before the 3G movement hit, tethering was really not anything to be paid attention to. Carriers didn't care if you did because their networks weren't even close to being bogged down. Plus, the barely 56 Kbps modem speed you could get hardly made it worth it.
This was what I would call the golden age of data. Unlimited plans were the norm because the consumers rarely used their internet connections. The connections were slow, had horrible lag, and the phones had terrible browsers to work with. All in all, the carriers were making out like bandits on data plans. They were virtually worthless to the consumer at the time, more of gimmick really, but the carriers could make huge bank on it.
As the golden age of data is now fading, the end of 3G movement and into the newly christened 4G movement have brought us a much greater use for our smartphones now. Android and the iPhone are the biggest contributors of this. With full-fledged browsers, Flash on Android, and higher speed connections, consumers are now getting greater use out of the data plans.
Carriers are now charging varying rates for their tethering plans, but the fact of the matter is that they are bullshit. Tethering, specifically in Android 2.2 and greater, is native to the operating system. It's built-in for free along with WiFi Hotspot. So let's just get the whole costing the carriers' anything argument out of the way.
Secondly, and most importantly, data connections are mostly limited. Carriers are moving away from unlimited data because they can no longer handle the network load. This is largely their fault. They had years of government tax breaks to improve their infrastructure, but chose to take the low road with purchasing other companies to obtain spectrum and towers. So in response, we now have limited plans (AT&T being the worst with a paltry 2 GB).
What this amounts to is the carriers double dipping. They are charging consumers for the same data twice. Only in the case of AT&T are consumers being allotted more data for taking on the plan. Never mind the fact that a user could run out their data streaming HD video on YouTube or instead WiFi Hotspot some friends. Either way, the user only has a limited amount of data to work with. This is the crux of the case. If users still had unlimited data, I could understand such a charge (partially), but since the data is capped, why should the carriers charge twice for it?
This is why the recent declarations by the FCC on net neutrality are complete shit. They provided an outline for what the land line companies could and could not do in order to preserve neutrality, but wireless carriers were exempt. Their reasoning even included the fact that Android was open which has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. By allowing the wireless carriers to define whatever terms they want, they effectively screwed the customers. Just look at recent events such as AT&T promising fines and fees to iPhone users that were tethering, a kernel in the Samsung Fascinate that was coded to report tethering, or a recent text message my girlfriend received about how tethering would be blocked.
Carriers are trying to police their consumers' data use with bullying tactics that are outright deceitful. Why should it matter how I use my allotted data? Would you really buy a DSL or Cable internet plan if they said you couldn't use a router to provide internet for the entire household? Why are we holding wireless carriers to different standards that land line providers? What is the point of net neutrality when we arbitrarily make the rules up as we go?
The charging for tethering has to stop. Carriers and service providers are supposed to be a dumb pipe. They are simply there to open the pipes for use. Allowing them to dictate how we use our data is the beginning of the end of net neutrality. It can only get worse from here folks.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
AT&T acquires T-Mobile...and it will likely never happen
Yep, it's just like it sounds. AT&T in all of their infinite insanity worked out talks with Deutsche Telekom, aka T-Mobile's German owner, to purchase T-Mobile for $39 billion. Of course, it will likely never happen. There's too much riding on the fact that adding in T-Mobile's 35 or so million customers would make AT&T the biggest wireless provider (sounds eerily familiar as to what happened when they got themselves broken up) with over 130 million customers. Next in line is Verizon with about 102 million customers. Finally, followed by Sprint with 40 million.
See the problem here? The term oligopoly comes to mind. When AT&T switched to tiered data plans or raised the prices on text messaging, all other carriers followed suit. More commonly called collusion, it's a disaster for consumers. With no real competition left in America, the wireless companies can charge outrageous prices for their services and no one can oppose them. As of last check, the big four (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint) controlled 89% of all wireless in the USA. Sounds pretty rough, but hey, at least you had four choices or sometimes more depending on your location. In my town, there are really only three. There are things like Boost Mobile, Virgin, etc, but these are really just derivatives of the big four (possibly three now).
Of course, T-Mobile, in a bid to protect AT&T's investment, released the press junket with a Q & A on what was going to happen. This is just subterfuge for the reality of the situation in that all T-Mobile customers are going to get fucked.
It's funny how you can correlate specific events in your life to other events totally unrelated and make sense of something. My example here is my time working for Ryan's Steakhouse. I came in right around the fall of our Ryan's here in my town of Kokomo. Mismanagement, corporate fuckery, sagging sales, and stronger competition had led to the restaurant on the verge of collapse. Still, the place did have its moments and could show off some pretty nice numbers around the holidays.
A few months before the store closed down, word came to us that Old Country Buffet had acquired with Ryan's Restaurant Group. For months, rumors swirled at our business that they were going to shut down the weaker stores (ours had became one of them). However, we never knew it was coming until the very day it happened. The managers all told us it was a simple merger at the time and to not worry about it. This is the same logic that T-Mobile is doing right now. They're assuring the customers that nothing is going to change, but we all know that it is.
If AT&T does manage to get this through, you can say good-bye to the affordable rate plans, unlimited data, unique offerings that only T-Mobile had (UMA and WiFi calling, EM+ plans, etc), and of course, customer service. This is a bad deal in the making and the worst part is that if they do push it through, my choices and those of other consumers in my town and elsewhere, is extremely limited. Verizon's plans are expensive and their CDMA network is slow and outdated plus they are ridding themselves of unlimited data. Sprint has unlimited data, but suffers from poor signal where I live.
This is why we need solid competition. Monopolies and oligopolies strip the consumers of any choice, freedom, or buying power. Wireless communications is the future with more people abandoning land lines for it, and that future is dark indeed. We need this to be blocked because when we lose a competitor, everyone loses.
See the problem here? The term oligopoly comes to mind. When AT&T switched to tiered data plans or raised the prices on text messaging, all other carriers followed suit. More commonly called collusion, it's a disaster for consumers. With no real competition left in America, the wireless companies can charge outrageous prices for their services and no one can oppose them. As of last check, the big four (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint) controlled 89% of all wireless in the USA. Sounds pretty rough, but hey, at least you had four choices or sometimes more depending on your location. In my town, there are really only three. There are things like Boost Mobile, Virgin, etc, but these are really just derivatives of the big four (possibly three now).
Of course, T-Mobile, in a bid to protect AT&T's investment, released the press junket with a Q & A on what was going to happen. This is just subterfuge for the reality of the situation in that all T-Mobile customers are going to get fucked.
It's funny how you can correlate specific events in your life to other events totally unrelated and make sense of something. My example here is my time working for Ryan's Steakhouse. I came in right around the fall of our Ryan's here in my town of Kokomo. Mismanagement, corporate fuckery, sagging sales, and stronger competition had led to the restaurant on the verge of collapse. Still, the place did have its moments and could show off some pretty nice numbers around the holidays.
A few months before the store closed down, word came to us that Old Country Buffet had acquired with Ryan's Restaurant Group. For months, rumors swirled at our business that they were going to shut down the weaker stores (ours had became one of them). However, we never knew it was coming until the very day it happened. The managers all told us it was a simple merger at the time and to not worry about it. This is the same logic that T-Mobile is doing right now. They're assuring the customers that nothing is going to change, but we all know that it is.
If AT&T does manage to get this through, you can say good-bye to the affordable rate plans, unlimited data, unique offerings that only T-Mobile had (UMA and WiFi calling, EM+ plans, etc), and of course, customer service. This is a bad deal in the making and the worst part is that if they do push it through, my choices and those of other consumers in my town and elsewhere, is extremely limited. Verizon's plans are expensive and their CDMA network is slow and outdated plus they are ridding themselves of unlimited data. Sprint has unlimited data, but suffers from poor signal where I live.
This is why we need solid competition. Monopolies and oligopolies strip the consumers of any choice, freedom, or buying power. Wireless communications is the future with more people abandoning land lines for it, and that future is dark indeed. We need this to be blocked because when we lose a competitor, everyone loses.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
My Nexus S Review
Well, it's finally here. After waiting breathlessly for three months, my taxes arrived and I purchased my Nexus S. This will be my review of the phone based on heavily technical perspective along with one of custom builds as I rooted the phone.
The overall appearance of the Nexus S is that of a faceless black slate. The extremely responsive capacitive buttons beneath the screen are not visible without the screen being on. There are only two hardware buttons, a volume rocker and a power button. The back has only one noticeable feature which is a chrome bezel around the camera lens, harkening back to the Nexus One. Needless to say, Google has intended this phone to be more art than industrial.
Like all Galaxy S phones, the Nexus S has the 4" Super AMOLED screen. This is one of the best looking screens on the market today. Its closest competitor is the IPS Retina display on the iPhone 4. While the SAMOLED display doesn't match up in the sharpness department, it more than makes up for it in the color production, contrast, blacks, and power saving departments.
Sadly, the phone is made with slick, glossy, lightweight plastic. After only a couple days of owning it, I already have a minor scuff mark on the rear. I've ordered a silicone case for it. Sure it reduces the overall sex appeal of the Nexus S, but I'd prefer to keep my phone scratch free. The only other thing of external note was the curved glass screen. I've heard that it is for ergonomics and to reduce glare from sunlight. Personally, I can't say whether either of these are true, but it certainly makes the phone unique.
Internally, the phone is powered by the same 1 GHz Cortex A8 processor known as the "Hummingbird". Performance wise, the phone is pretty much better than first generation Snapdragon processors and roughly equal to second generation versions. The big claim to fame however, is the PowerVR SGX540 GPU powering the phone. Every game, benchmark, and user interface element is made smooth and fast by the 200 MHz GPU.
The phone comes with much of what you would expect out of a modern smartphone. It has Wifi (b/g/n), Bluetooth (2.1, forsaking 3.0 on the original Galaxy S), A-GPS, Accelerometer, and 5.0 MP rear camera. The unique features are the near-field communication (NFC) chip, gyroscope, and front facing camera. Clearly Google has intended this phone to set the bar for future Android phones. It doesn't lead the pack like the Nexus One did, but it does set the standard.
There are some drawbacks to the hardware, depending on your point of view. The Nexus S lacks an SD card slot. Some will find this a deal breaker, but I never used up my 16 GB card on my Nexus One so I wasn't bothered by it. The plus to it though is the 16 GB iNAND chip inside the Nexus S has ridiculous read/write speeds near 20 MB to 32 MB per second. The Nexus S also lacks 720p recording due to a hardware limitation. Personally, I didn't see this as an issue as it can do 480p which is sufficient for videos on the fly. Finally, the Nexus S only has 7.2 Mbps data speed and not HSPA+ or 4G speeds. Depending on your location, this will or will not make a difference. Either way, I achieved 2 to 4 Mbps speeds with the Nexus S and I have no issues loading up webpages quickly.
Hardware
I was pleasantly surprised when I pulled the Nexus S out of the box for the first time. Whoever did the photos for the product page needs to be fired. The photos make the Nexus S appear to be some morbidly obese phone that would make hardware keyboard sliders blush. The reality is that it is an incredibly slim phone. Except for the reverse chin that the Galaxy S phones are known for, this phone is less than half an inch thick.The overall appearance of the Nexus S is that of a faceless black slate. The extremely responsive capacitive buttons beneath the screen are not visible without the screen being on. There are only two hardware buttons, a volume rocker and a power button. The back has only one noticeable feature which is a chrome bezel around the camera lens, harkening back to the Nexus One. Needless to say, Google has intended this phone to be more art than industrial.
Like all Galaxy S phones, the Nexus S has the 4" Super AMOLED screen. This is one of the best looking screens on the market today. Its closest competitor is the IPS Retina display on the iPhone 4. While the SAMOLED display doesn't match up in the sharpness department, it more than makes up for it in the color production, contrast, blacks, and power saving departments.
Sadly, the phone is made with slick, glossy, lightweight plastic. After only a couple days of owning it, I already have a minor scuff mark on the rear. I've ordered a silicone case for it. Sure it reduces the overall sex appeal of the Nexus S, but I'd prefer to keep my phone scratch free. The only other thing of external note was the curved glass screen. I've heard that it is for ergonomics and to reduce glare from sunlight. Personally, I can't say whether either of these are true, but it certainly makes the phone unique.
Internally, the phone is powered by the same 1 GHz Cortex A8 processor known as the "Hummingbird". Performance wise, the phone is pretty much better than first generation Snapdragon processors and roughly equal to second generation versions. The big claim to fame however, is the PowerVR SGX540 GPU powering the phone. Every game, benchmark, and user interface element is made smooth and fast by the 200 MHz GPU.
The phone comes with much of what you would expect out of a modern smartphone. It has Wifi (b/g/n), Bluetooth (2.1, forsaking 3.0 on the original Galaxy S), A-GPS, Accelerometer, and 5.0 MP rear camera. The unique features are the near-field communication (NFC) chip, gyroscope, and front facing camera. Clearly Google has intended this phone to set the bar for future Android phones. It doesn't lead the pack like the Nexus One did, but it does set the standard.
There are some drawbacks to the hardware, depending on your point of view. The Nexus S lacks an SD card slot. Some will find this a deal breaker, but I never used up my 16 GB card on my Nexus One so I wasn't bothered by it. The plus to it though is the 16 GB iNAND chip inside the Nexus S has ridiculous read/write speeds near 20 MB to 32 MB per second. The Nexus S also lacks 720p recording due to a hardware limitation. Personally, I didn't see this as an issue as it can do 480p which is sufficient for videos on the fly. Finally, the Nexus S only has 7.2 Mbps data speed and not HSPA+ or 4G speeds. Depending on your location, this will or will not make a difference. Either way, I achieved 2 to 4 Mbps speeds with the Nexus S and I have no issues loading up webpages quickly.
Software
Much can be said about the Nexus S and its version of Android. The phone runs the latest version of Android (2.3.3 as of this post), code named Gingerbread. Mechanically, Gingerbread isn't really superior to Froyo. It does have better battery life thanks to an enhanced presence in killing unneeded apps, plus the JIT engine has been improved. No, most of what make Gingerbread unique is the UI overhaul. Google has traded out much of the silver-grey appearance for black and green. Icons have been changed along with a few other aesthetic changes. The two most prominent are the "force field barrier" when one hits the end of a menu and the CRT-like screen off animation. Both are wonderful, but largely Gingerbread is incremental rather than exponential like Froyo was.
The real weak spots in Gingerbread are really not related to the OS itself, but the apps. Many apps don't yet take advantage of Gingerbread's newer drivers and guts. My favorite launcher program, Launcher Pro, runs choppy at times compared to the butter smooth appearance that it had with my Nexus One running Froyo. Until the developers catch up to the newest version of Android, it will continue to seem incomplete. Also, bear in mind, that it took until 2.3.3 to fix some very devastating bugs in the OS.
Battery Life and Performance
In terms of battery life, after rooting and installing a custom kernel and OS, my battery life is probably anywhere from 16-20 hours of light use. This is not nearly as good as the 24-32 hours I could achieve with my Nexus One, but decent enough to make it through a day without issue.
Data speeds tend to remain constant in my area at 2 Mbps+. Peaks are usually around 4. Signal strength is weaker with this phone compared to my Nexus One. I found myself losing signal in areas that my former phone wouldn't.
Voice quality has been excellent. Callers sound distinct and clear and have had no issues with hearing me. The Nexus S excels in call quality.
Conclusion
The Nexus S once again shows the cutting edge of Android. It isn't the most powerful out there as new dual cores overtake it, but it does have the newest version of Android and a huge developer community behind it. The phone probably isn't for a novice however. It is better suited to an advanced user that either wants to root or develop for Android.
Pros: Beautiful screen, artsy design, excellent performance, future proof for NFC, good battery life, easy to root.
Cons: No HSPA+, no SD card slot, no 720p, many programs not up-to-date with Gingerbread, no native video chat yet, plastic body is a liability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)