Australian agency taking Apple to court over iPad '4G' label

High-speed wireless networking in Australia uses different 4G frequencies than those the new iPad supports, and a consumer commission will seek fines and injunctions barring sales.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said today Apple is violating the Australian Consumer Law by misleadingly labeling its new iPad as 4G-capable, and it will try to get a court to impose fines and an injunction against sales.

The commission will apply to the Federal Court in Melbourne for orders tomorrow morning against Apple, it said in a statement:

The ACCC alleges that Apple's recent promotion of the new "iPad with WiFi + 4G" is misleading because it represents to Australian consumers that the product "iPad with WiFi + 4G" can, with a SIM card, connect to a 4G mobile data network in Australia, when this is not the case...
The ACCC is seeking urgent interlocutory relief to ensure consumers are made aware of the correct technical capabilities of this device.

Additionally, the ACCC is seeking final orders including injunctions, pecuniary penalties, corrective advertising, and refunds to consumers affected.

Apple offers two varieties of the third-generation iPad, one with only Wi-Fi networking and one with wireless network service provided through mobile phone networks. In the United States and some other areas, the wireless network can work with the higher speeds of the LTE standard for 4G networking.
In some parts of the world, though, 4G hasn't arrived, so the new iPad works just at slower 3G speeds. In Australia, though, there is 4G service from Telstra--but it uses an 1800MHz frequency band, ZDNet Australia reports. The new iPad's 4G requires 700MHz or 2100MHz for 4G.

"Consumers who have purchased or are considering purchasing an 'iPad with WiFi + 4G' should ensure that they have a proper understanding of the mobile data networks which this iPad can directly access by a SIM card," the ACCC said.

Apple didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Apple store in Australia uses the standard product naming for the 4G-capable model, but the fine print makes mention of using 4G networks only overseas.

"The iPad with Wi-Fi + 4G model can roam worldwide on fast GSM/UMTS networks, including HSPA, HSPA+, and DC-HSDPA. When you travel internationally, you can use a micro-SIM card from a local carrier. You can also connect to the 4G LTE networks of AT&T in the U.S. and Bell, Rogers, and Telus in Canada," the Apple store iPad product page said today.

Read more »

FTC seeks Apple testimony in Google antitrust probe

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has reportedly taken an interest in the mobile side of a business relationship between Apple and Google, and wants it on the record.

Citing two people familiar with the matter, Bloomberg reports that the U.S. regulatory group has subpoenaed Apple in hopes of getting details about its mobile-search deal with Google. That includes information on the agreement that has made Google the default search engine on Apple's iPhone, iPad, and iPhone since 2007, the report said.

The subpoena, which Apple did not confirm or comment on to Bloomberg, is part of a larger investigation by the FTC to figure out whether Google has used unfair or deceptive business practices. The FTC and the U.S. Senate already have investigations under way focused on concerns that Google unfairly promotes its own services in its search results.

A Google spokesman declined comment on the report.

While Google has long been the default search engine on Apple's iOS, there are other options. In the United States, that includes Yahoo and Microsoft's Bing, the latter of which became an option in mid-2010. Just ahead of that addition, there was a rumor that Microsoft had won a deal with Apple to become the iPhone's default search provider, although it was quickly squashed.

Read more »

Apple tightens its tablet grip on enterprises ahead of Windows 8

A new survey finds tablet adoption increasing among corporate tech buyers, with Apple extending its lead over rivals as Microsoft readies its tablet-friendly operating system.

Apple's iPad is strengthening its grip on corporate buyers as Microsoft continues to put the finishing touches on Windows 8, its first operating system to enthusiastically embrace tablet computing,

A new survey conducted by ChangeWave Research shows that companies are stepping up their tablet purchases, and that a growing number intend to buy iPads. ChangeWave said its survey of 1,604 corporate tech buyers shows the highest level of corporate iPad demand it's ever found in a survey.

Apple's iPad

The results can't bode well for Windows 8. PC growth, and by extension Windows growth, has slowed over the years, while the market for tablets, primarily the iPad, has soared. Windows 8 is a touch-friendly operating system designed to help Microsoft tap that market.

While the consumer market will be tough to crack, given the lead that Apple has there, the corporate business has been seen as one where Windows 8 tablets could make inroads. That's largely because of Microsoft's long history of selling to enterprises and the manageability that corporate buyers expect in devices that run Windows.

The new survey, though, suggests that the iPad is increasingly meeting the needs of those potential customers. ChangeWave found that 22 percent of the respondents plan to purchase tablets for employees during the second quarter, and that 84 percent of those companies are planning to buy iPads. That's a seven-point gain from a survey the firm did in November. Some of that interest is no doubt fueled by anticipation of the new iPad's debut this Friday.

What's more, those buyers are increasingly shying away from tablets made by companies other than Apple. The interest in buying devices from every other tablet manufacturer, from Amazon to Samsung, declined from the November survey. So while buyers are increasingly looking to buy tablets, more often than not, they're only looking at picking up iPads.

The second most popular tablet-maker among corporate buyers is Samsung. ChangeWave found that 8 percent of respondents that are planning to buy tablets for employees intend to pick up a Samsung device, down from 10 percent in November.

Read more »

Goodbye cruel Google Ex-employee's Lament

It's not quite a Google version of the now famous peanut butter manifesto, but it's still worth reading this angry tirade from a Googler leaving the Googleplex because he feels the corporate culture has changed for the worse. In his very public adios, engineering director for Google+ APIs James Whittaker explains why he's moving on after three years after leaving Microsoft to join Google. He has since rejoined Microsoft.

    The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovate. The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus.

Yeah, big duh. In case you missed it during orientation, I'm sure that someone, somewhere along the line explained the business mission. If not, I doubt very much that Google would have achieved what it's achieved.

    Technically I suppose Google has always been an advertising company, but for the better part of the last three years, it didn't feel like one. Google was an ad company only in the sense that a good TV show is an ad company: having great content attracts advertisers.

Technically, you're right. Pardon the sarcasm, but where was this guy buried? The other stuff, like cars which drive themselves, is good for kicks but there's just one business at the Big G that pays for all the free lunches that you ate. Hint: the word starts with an "A."

    Under Eric Schmidt ads were always in the background. Google was run like an innovation factory, empowering employees to be entrepreneurial through founder's awards, peer bonuses and 20% time. Our advertising revenue gave us the headroom to think, innovate and create. Forums like App Engine, Google Labs and open source served as staging grounds for our inventions. The fact that all this was paid for by a cash machine stuffed full of advertising loot was lost on most of us. Maybe the engineers who actually worked on ads felt it, but the rest of us were convinced that Google was a technology company first and foremost; a company that hired smart people and placed a big bet on their ability to innovate.

Welcome to the real world and now face facts: After 10 years, companies will change, though I doubt that Larry Page is any less of a technologist than Eric Schmidt.

    But that was then, as the saying goes, and this is now. It turns out that there was one place where the Google innovation machine faltered and that one place mattered a lot: competing with Facebook. Informal efforts produced a couple of antisocial dogs in Wave and Buzz. Orkut never caught on outside Brazil. Like the proverbial hare confident enough in its lead to risk a brief nap, Google awoke from its social dreaming to find its front runner status in ads threatened.

    Google could still put ads in front of more people than Facebook, but Facebook knows so much more about those people. Advertisers and publishers cherish this kind of personal information, so much so that they are willing to put the Facebook brand before their own. Exhibit A: www.facebook.com/nike, a company with the power and clout of Nike putting their own brand after Facebook's? No company has ever done that for Google and Google took it personally.

    Larry Page himself assumed command to right this wrong. Social became state-owned, a corporate mandate called Google+. It was an ominous name invoking the feeling that Google alone wasn't enough. Search had to be social. Android had to be social. You Tube, once joyous in their independence, had to be & well, you get the point. Even worse was that innovation had to be social. Ideas that failed to put Google+ at the center of the universe were a distraction.

Larry Page as the second coming of Vladamir Lenin? Say it ain't so, comrade. Seriously, if this guy was running the show, is he saying that Google would not do anything and everything short of breaking the law to leverage its existing strengths to battle Facebook? Google was late to the game and still has an uphill battle wiping the smirk off Zuckerberg's face. Only a village idiot would take a pass at making those ancillary parts of the company, once so "joyous in their independence," work more closely together in support of the bigger objective.

    Suddenly, 20% meant half-assed. Google Labs was shut down. App Engine fees were raised. APIs that had been free for years were deprecated or provided for a fee. As the trappings of entrepreneurship were dismantled, derisive talk of the old Google and its feeble attempts at competing with Facebook surfaced to justify a new Google that promised more wood behind fewer arrows. The days of old Google hiring smart people and empowering them to invent the future was gone. The new Google knew beyond doubt what the future should look like. Employees had gotten it wrong and corporate intervention would set it right again.

Oh, cry me a river. To be fair, nostalgia for the good old days is a very human trait. Folks since Aristotle have bemoaned the shortcomings of the new generation. Not that it makes for accuracy but it's good fodder for a bar conversation.

    Google+ and me, we were simply never meant to be. Truth is I've never been much on advertising. I don't click on ads. When Gmail displays ads based on things I type into my email message it creeps me out. I don't want my search results to contain the rants of Google+ posters (or Facebook's or Twitter's for that matter). When I search for London pub walks I want better than the sponsored suggestion to Buy a London pub walk at Wal-Mart.

Now he gets to the crux of the matter. Hey, advertising bores me silly, too. I'd much rather write about new technology but you knew what you were getting into when you signed on the dotted line. Sorta late in the day to claim innocence.

    The old Google made a fortune on ads because they had good content. It was like TV used to be: make the best show and you get the most ad revenue from commercials. The new Google seems more focused on the commercials themselves.

Don't kid yourself. TV's "golden age" was a Fig Newton of our collective imagination. Ditto for this lachrymose line about the "good content" that once predominated.

    Perhaps Google is right. Perhaps the future lies in learning as much about people's personal lives as possible. Perhaps Google is a better judge of when I should call my mom and that my life would be better if I shopped that Nordstrom sale. Perhaps if they nag me enough about all that open time on my calendar I'll work out more often. Perhaps if they offer an ad for a divorce lawyer because I am writing an email about my 14 year old son breaking up with his girlfriend I'll appreciate that ad enough to end my own marriage. Or perhaps I'll figure all this stuff out on my own.

Welcome to 1984. But didn't we arrive there years ago?

Read more »

Does it still make sense to buy DVDs?

With services like Netflix, iTunes, and Amazon offering a wealth of on-demand viewing options, do DVDs still have a place in the world?

I'm on vacation for the next couple days, so I'll see you back here on Thursday. In the meantime, I have a nice, meaty topic to tide you over.

A few weeks ago I asked if it still made sense to buy CDs, what with so many download and streaming options.

Today, let's turn our attention to those other silvery platters of goodness: DVDs (and, by proxy, Blu-rays). Do they still have a place in the world?

Despite the physical similarities of the media, music and movies aren't quite the same thing. I think people tend to buy a lot more of the former, or at least they did when CDs ruled the music-distribution roost. Personally, I probably own 10 times as many audio CDs as I do DVDs.

On the other hand, I know folks who have massive movie libraries, who don't think twice about plunking down $20 for their own copy of "Napoleon Dynamite." And don't forget parents, who are very likely to spring for movies that the younger kids will watch repeatedly (which explains why many of the movies I do own have Pixar on the label).

But that was then. Today we live in a world where iTunes slings movies to our iPhones and iPads, Amazon Instant Video provides on-demand rentals for those outside the Apple ecosystem, and Netflix streams to nearly every device known to man. How can the DVD compete?

With simplicity, for starters. It doesn't get much easier than dropping a disc into a tray and pressing Play. Granted, Netflix isn't exactly complicated, but it does require a certain level of tech competency--along with a fast, reliable Internet connection. Many of us take the latter for granted, but plenty of people in this country (and others) barely have Internet at all. DVDs require no connectivity, and their image quality isn't dependent on bandwidth.

(Ironically, Blu-rays do require Internet access, at least if you want certain online extras. And don't forget the seemingly endless player firmware updates required to accommodate the latest DRM protections. Did I just say discs were simple?)

Of course, as with CDs, DVDs and Blu-rays offer advantages their digitally delivered counterparts can't match (not yet, anyway). The most obvious: outtakes, deleted scenes, director commentary, and other extras.

Even more important for some viewers: image and audio quality. No video stream or download comes close to the razor-sharp picture and 5.1-channel sound afforded by Blu-ray. Even upscaled DVDs look better than a lot of what you can stream.

Still, just as a 256Kbps MP3 is "good enough" for many listeners (myself included), I find myself satisfied with what I'm getting from the likes of Amazon Instant Video and Netflix. Recently I've been rewatching "Battlestar Galactica" via the latter, and to my eyes it looks terrific--especially considering that I watched much of the series in standard definition when it was first broadcast.

And in my house, we rarely fire up the Blu-ray player anymore. Occasionally we'll rent something from Redbox, which makes up for its two-trip hassle with change-under-the-sofa-cushions prices, but mostly we're done with discs. Even the minivan's DVD system has largely gone dark in favor of iPods and iPads.
So that's the trend in this cheapskate's world--and, I suspect, the world at large. What do you think? Are DVDs soon to join laser discs and VHS tapes in three-for-$5 garage-sale obscurity, or will they survive in the way print books will--marginalized by electronic alternatives, but still treasured and coveted by the faithful?

While you're prepping your comment on that, answer me this: What's your all-time favorite DVD that you own? My pick: "Firefly: The Complete Series."

Read more »

Zuckerberg turns up at home of Linsanity

It's a holiday weekend in America and, this week, the most important issue hasn't been the national debt or the dearth of novel political thought.

It's the entry of Jeremy Lin of the New York Knicks into the national consciousness.
Just this morning, ESPN announced that it had fired an online headline writer for offering this on Lin's first defeat as a starter: "Chink in the Armor."

And now, as I am torn between my affection for a former Golden State Warrior (most do better when they leave) and my fondness for the Cubans that own the Dallas Mavericks, I am suddenly assaulted by a very odd sight: Mark Zuckerberg.

Yes, behind the Knicks bench at Madison Square Garden, there sits the Facebook CEO who, thus far, has been to ball sports what Genghis Khan was to peace talks.

Indeed, Zuckerberg's only fondness for sports seems to have been of the bloody variety. After his declaration that he would only eat meat that he had personally killed, one wondered whether any animals would be safe from his sights.

So why the sudden interest in the NBA and, presumably, Lin?

Yes, they both went to Harvard. But Lin was there long after Zuckerberg was off to be Silicon Valley's new point guard. And the Knick, well, graduated.

So some might assume this is beautiful marketing from Facebook. As mortal enemy Google is mired in ever more suggestions that its iniquity knows no bounds, someone must have whispered to Zuckerberg: "Get next to the saint."

And there he is in the second row on the Knicks side, bathing in secondary beatification.

I am excluding the slight possibility that he is there to witness the arrival of J.R. Smith, one of the less charming players in the NBA. So I have contacted Facebook to see whether its CEO got his tickets from Lin or merely bought them on StubHub.

In the meantime, Twitter has begun to shudder with this extraordinary sighting--both through the misspelled "Zuckerburg" hashtag and the more accurate "Zuckerberg."

I wonder if Zuckerberg and Lin will pop out for a cup of tea--and, perhaps, some freshly killed bison--after the game.

Read more »

Facebook not a virtual shopping mall after all?

Despite retailer GameStop's initial enthusiasm about opening a storefront in Facebook, it looks like it's Game Over for the effort--and perhaps for such Facebook stores in general.

Bloomberg published a story this week that chronicles the closings, during the past year, of Facebook stores opened by GameStop, the Gap, Nordstrom, and others.

When GameStop cut the virtual ribbon on its Facebook storefront last April, the company's vice president of e-commerce seemed to think the move was a no-brainer.

"Social commerce on Facebook is a natural complement to our trusted store and online networks," Kelly Mulroney said in a statement at the time. "We have millions of customers already engaging with us on Facebook, and [the technology behind the Facebook store] gives those loyal fans more reasons than ever to shop GameStop across multiple channels."

Others agreed, says Bloomberg, with some investors guessing that Facebook--thanks to its hordes of users--had the mojo to strike fear into the heart of Amazon and PayPal, and one business consultancy predicting, in January 2011, that sales of physical goods through Facebook and other social networks would jump from $5 billion to $30 billion by 2015.

Facebook, of course, did its best to contribute to the buzz. According to Bloomberg, the company's director of business development, David Fisch, said that since Facebook is such a social experience, it would be a natural shopping mall. "This is where people are hanging out," Bloomberg quotes Fisch as having said at a retailer's conference in June.

But the Bloomberg piece suggests there are different kinds of hanging out, and that not all of them may be conducive to shopping:

"There was a lot of anticipation that Facebook would turn into a new destination, a store, a place where people would shop," Bloomberg quotes Forrester Research analyst Sucharita Mulpuru as saying. "But it was like trying to sell stuff to people while they're hanging out with their friends at the bar."

Another factor may have been that despite GameStop's philosophy of providing shoppers with "multiple channels" for acquiring goods, a Facebook storefront may have been a channel that was simply unnecessary.
Bloomberg offers up GameStop Vice President of Marketing and Strategy Ashley Sheetz' comment that shopping on the GameStop site itself was already easy enough--customers had no real reason to shop via Facebook. The Gap, too, told Bloomberg that its customers preferred shopping at the company's own sites.
Bloomberg says retailers continue to send ad dollars Facebook's way, that they continue to maintain Facebook pages ("For us, it's been a way we communicate with customers on deals, not a place to sell," GameStop's Sheetz said), and that the Gap, at least, is keeping its options open as far as trying Facebook storefronts again somewhere down the line.

And one of the sources quoted in the Bloomberg piece, Wade Gerten, whose company has developed commerce strategies for Delta Airlines, Ticketmaster, and others, published a piece in Forbes that says that though the Facebook storefronts might have been misguided, creatively leveraging social networks to reach customers isn't.

Read more »