Into Tech

Yet another day and yet another odd attempt by Apple to arbitrarily control what’s in the App Store for the iPhone. A bunch of folks have submitted the news of a podcasting app that’s been blocked because Apple claims it competes with iTunes. This should, of course, scare of iPhone developers even more than previous bans. After all, it means that should an app get particularly popular, Apple would most likely just create its own competing version and remove the popular app from the store.

While some are decrying this as being an abuse of power, Apple certainly has the right to do it. It’s just not a particularly good long term strategy — and likely to backfire badly. Pissing off your developers or making them worry isn’t going to get very many good apps written going forward. Also, limiting competition is actually going to hurt Apple, because it no longer has anyone driving them to be better. What if this podcasting app had certain features that were really cool and useful — and not available in iTunes? Right now, Apple has no incentive to include that functionality, thus making its own software worse.

In the meantime, you’ve got to imagine that a number of iPhone developers may be eagerly awaiting the launch of Google’s Android platform which won’t have such arbitrary restrictions.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Over the last few years, we’ve followed the ongoing efforts of gov’t officials to figure out the whole “blogging” thing. It started off poorly with gov’t officials insulting bloggers and trying to pass a law that would have required all bloggers to register with the government. After that failed, the ruling party looked, for a bit, as if it might be trying to understand and embrace blogs. It set up an agency just to respond to blogs and even told certain of its own candidates for office that they needed to blog themselves. However, apparently it was the opposition party that embraced blogging much more — and even a few of the bigger name bloggers got themselves elected. In response? The government demanded that ISPs block certain blogs, including the very popular Malaysia Today.

The latest news is that the government has rescinded the ban… but has arrested the site’s founder. That doesn’t seem like the best way to get bloggers on their side. It never fails to amaze me why politicians seek to shut up those who oppose them. What’s wrong with actually responding and letting people understand the multiple positions? If you’re confident that your position is the correct one, then why not convince people that’s the case?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Napster, which now has almost nothing other than its brand to connect it to the revolutionary music sharing service Shawn Fanning launched nearly a decade ago, is about to undergo its latest shift, as Best Buy has bought what remains of Napster for $127 million, representing a hefty premium on the already pretty weak valuation of the company. Ever since Roxio bought Napster — and renamed itself Napster — the company has tried to position its music subscription offering as a huge success, but there’s been little evidence to back that up. Now selling off to Best Buy for such a low price pretty much confirms that there wasn’t much there.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We’ve long known that the boundary between US law enforcement and the enforcement wings of certain lobbyist organizations like the RIAA is way too blurry, but TorrentFreak is raising some important questions about why the police will call in RIAA investigators on certain cases, such as one where a speeding stop in Illinois resulted in a cop calling in the RIAA after spindles of writeable DVDs and CDs was found in the car. While the RIAA and law enforcement have a history of working closely together (and many people go back and forth between the two), the RIAA is still a highly biased party here, and shouldn’t be involved in investigations where it has a personal stake. While some politicians are trying to turn US law enforcement into the private police of the entertainment industry, that doesn’t mean that police should just consider RIAA investigators their peers. So can anyone explain why RIAA investigators should be allowed to be involved in such cases and why no one’s called US law enforcement on things like this before?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

With the Justice Department getting closer and closer to going after Google for supposed antitrust violation, we’re going to see more and more articles like the one in the New York Times this weekend that tries to highlight the story of a company “harmed” by Google’s market power. In this case, it’s the story of a guy who runs a directory site that was based entirely on Google arbitrage. He bought ads on Google’s search engine to drive people to his directory page, and then littered the page with AdSense to collect revenue from people clicking through. The NY Times presents this as being somewhat harmful, but I have to side with Jeff Jarvis who doesn’t see what Google did wrong.

Google arbitrage sites are a problem for the end user. They’re based on the simple concept of forcing people to go an extra click to siphon some money away. If I’m looking for a particular site on Google I don’t first want to go to a directory — I want to go directly to the site. That’s true for many, many users — and Google’s efforts in punishing arbitrage sites isn’t anticompetitive, it’s about improving the user experience, which is something that should be praised, not sued. The only problem noticed in the scenario was that the guy chose a bad business model, where he was totally reliant on a single company for both all of his traffic and all of his revenue. He made the decision to base his entire business on a single supplier, and that supplier has every right to change the terms of its deals in an effort to make a better consumer experience. This isn’t Google being anticompetitive — it’s Google serving its customers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

I know plenty of folks (including my wife) who have purchased the Nike+iPod device to use with non-Nike sneakers. The device puts a sensor in your shoe, which communicates with a separate dongle connected to your iPod (or built in to the new iPod Touch), and tracks your running stats, which you can then upload. Many Nike sneakers have a little cutout underneath the insoles where you can stick the sensor, but you can buy (or make) a little pouch and connect it to shoelaces on non-Nike shoes. However, not only is Apple thinking about ways to stop this — it’s trying to patent those ways. It’s got a patent application in for smart garments which would create basically a DRM for devices — forceably pairing a device like the Nike+iPod sensor to a specific shoe.

This seems odd for a whole variety of reasons. First, it seems positively silly for Apple to do this, as it severely limits the market for the devices, and lessens the value of the iPod. You can see why Nike might ask for it, but it’s hard to see why Apple would implement it. Second, however, is that this seems highly questionable as a patent. I mean why would you patent something that makes your product less desirable? Would Apple actually sue someone else (say, Microsoft) for doing the same thing? That would (oh no!) force Microsoft to make its product more useful and more valuable. Finally, as a patent, how is this not “obvious”? It seems like a bad idea to implement, but that doesn’t make it non-obvious. If any engineer wanted to create such a system, it wouldn’t take much thought at all. The whole thing seems rather pointless.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Samsung seems to have been quite active in the Blu-ray market recently, with director Andy Griffiths commenting on the future of the format on the same day it announced the release of the BD-P2500 player.

Its latest flirtation with everyone’s favourite disc-based HD medium comes in the form of a notebook aimed at multimedia users with enough extra features to offer an impressive all-round solution.

It seems that every few years the entertainment industry thinks that if it can just create a better new form of DRM, all its business model problems will be solved. Usually, it talks about how DRM will somehow enable new business models, when all it really does is remove value from content, shrinking a market, annoying legitimate customers — all while doing absolutely nothing to slow down unauthorized downloading. It’s a huge waste of time, money and energy, but the entertainment industry still doesn’t realize it. Because here we go again. The movie industry is working on yet another DRM standard, which it insists will be much better than everything before, because it will be more open and interoperable. But, the problem is that it will never be as open or interoperable as no DRM. Until the industry recognizes that, it will continue to throw away more money and more time when it could actually be focusing on improving its business.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The holy grail of projector technology is not HD but making projectors small enough to fit inside your pocket or, even better, inside a mobile phone.

DLP inventors Texas Instruments have been pushing a tiny one around the various trade shows but now, from left field, 3M is about to launch the first actual pico projector in a few weeks.

On September 30, the MPro110 mini projector, looking like a mobile phone, goes on sale in the US first for around £190. Even Optoma should be caught hopping on that one.

Declan McCullagh has a somewhat scary report about how the UN’s International Telecommunication Union has been quietly working away on a proposal for new core internet technology that would allow a “traceback mechanism” to effectively get rid of anonymity, and allow those with access to identify who provided any particular piece of content. Not surprisingly, the proposal for such a technology was first suggested by a Chinese official, who has long tried to control the use of the internet in that country. The leaked documents related to this effort even indicate that one potential reason for such a mechanism would be to crack down on gov’t opposition.

It is true that not everyone agrees that anonymity is a good thing, but it’s taking it to another level to try to block out the possibility of anonymity altogether. While some are trying to position this as way to track down “bad” players (such as those running DoS attacks), the problem is that the definition of who’s “bad” may depend heavily on who’s in control. Regardless of whether any such anti-anonymous technology gets very far, pursuing it is probably a wasted effort. Plenty of folks have already learned to spoof and hide themselves and pretend to be others. It wouldn’t take long for the same thing to happen with any “traceback mechanism” as well. Also, as the article notes, the ITU has no power over the internet these days, but has been pushing to get more power, which is why it’s worth following what they’re discussing behind the scenes.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story