Make it a threesome : Amazon enters the online movie & TV show streaming war

Looks like things just got a lot more interesting. With a paid Amazon Prime account ($80 per year) you can now stream "5,000 movies and TV shows" right from Amazon's servers, all while still having that lovely two-day shipping. Netflix and Hulu, your move.

[Amazon]

Peace through Power! : download early Command & Conquer games free

EA has been letting people download C&C : Tiberian Dawn (aka C&C 1), C&C Tiberian Sun, and Red Alert for free for some time now. If you are a fan of modern RTS games, take some time to play the franchise that made RTS what it is today. Lets just pretend like they stopped making C&C games after RA2, OK? 

Peace through Power! 

[Command and Conquer]

For all you IE users out there...

Stop. Just stop. For the good of the Internet, please choose one of the browsers I've listed below to use. Or, you know, find your own... there are plenty out there.

And yes, I know you exist because I can see page view stats for my site. 

Google's Chrome

Mozilla's Firefox

Apple's Safari

What if Apple sold a $399 iPad?

Right now, click this link and check the price of the iPhone 3GS on new contract.... $49. For the past couple iterations, Apple has consistently kept the past versions of the iPhone around as a low-end model when introducing their new iPhone. This allows them to maintain the industry-standard price point of $199 on new two-year contract with their new phone while having a device at the lucrative $99 price point to snag customers who don't need the latest and greatest hardware. There is no reason to suspect they won't continue this practice once the iPhone 5 rolls around this summer and offer the current iPhone 4 at that same $99 price point. 

So here is the million-dollar question: why can't Apple do the same thing with the iPad?

Between the 'walled garden' of iOS and the 'fragmentation' of Android, competitors look for a middle ground

With Symbian all but dead and RIM loosing market share hand over fist, Apple's iOS and Google Android platforms look poised to become the dominate mobile operating systems for the near future. But the two companies have taken radically different approaches to the use of their software. Google has often described their mission as "creating the best version of Android we can and then giving it away" while Apple strictly controls every aspect of iOS. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, and neither solution is "perfect" for everyone. In fact, there is a gap between the strategies of the two companies that several competitors are already fighting to occupy.

Epic Fail - Motorola Xoom's $800 price tag

Ok, let's get something clear here: Any competitor to the iPad needs to launch with a low-end, WiFi only model at or below the WiFi iPad's $500. In the mind of the consumer, the iPad is the best (and maybe even only) tablet on the market and you have to both undercut it on price and beat it in specs to convince them to get anything else.

So what do you do if you are Motorola? Well, you price your competitor (and the standard-barer for Android 3.0 I might add) at an astronomical $800, which only undercuts the most expensive iPad you can buy (3G 64 GB model) by $30.  On top of that, you apparently force customers to sign up for at least one month of Verizon data service ($20 for 1GB) probably in the hope that most will forget about the charge and never bother to cancel.

I write over at Android Central, and to say the feedback has been less than positive would be and understatement. Here are some choice quotes from said freedback from the AC article on this news and from the Facebook page:

• "FAIL! Overpriced. Good luck with that Motorola."
• "Xoom = Kin"
• "Wow, are they for real?"
• "That price is ridiculous. I'm out."
• "Lol what a joke. I really shouldn't even be laughing because it's not funny. This is not even acceptable. Not that I was getting one anyway, I'm waiting to see what comes of the G Slate, but this concerns me."

Like that last commentator, this concerns me as well. I'm concerned that the carriers have got the manufacturers convinced that they need 3G in their device to compete with the iPad. I'm concerned that manufacturers look at impressive sales numbers of Android phones and take similar sales of Android tablets for granted. I'm concerned that the passiveness of Google when carriers and manufactures twist Android to serve their own greed will cause restrictions like this to become the expected, not the exception. And I'm concerned that all the mindshare gains that Android has made over the past year will start becoming undone thanks to unabashed corporate greed and stupidity. 

That all being said, Motorola did not officially announce any price yet. What we know so far is based on pricing from a leaked Best Buy flyer obtained by Engadget. So, Motorola, you still have a chance to make this right. Price the 3G version at or under $700 and get a WiFi only version at that $499 price point. You've already seen what the reactions from the Android fanboys are, do you really think the average consumer will react any better?

And if all of this ends up being true, I might take my tablet purchasing dollars elsewhere. Namely, HP and Palm, who by all indications actually know what they are doing. 

Android 3.0 Honeycomb impressions

Google has finally shown off their tablet-centric version of Android, and it is quite a looker. As opposed to what we have seen from Apple or even Microsoft in the tablet space, Honeycomb represents a complete UI overhaul of Android. Not only that, it may change what image people associate in their mind with the word "tablet."

While we are still waiting on HP and Palm to show off what they are doing to webOS for tablets, it is clear that Honeycomb will be far better at multitasking than anything else on the market. Honeycomb one of the best features of OS X - the menu bar across the top of the screen that updates dynamically based on what program you are using - and put an Android twist on it. Now you will see things like copy & paste options or share links at the top of the screen, rather than hidden past a menu button press. You also have buttons for your apps and homescreen customization along the top-right.

Along the bottom there are back, home, and multitasking buttons. The multitasking button is similar to the "preview" feature in Windows 7 when you hover over an active application in the taskbar. It also is somewhat similar to what RIM is doing with the PlayBook, but seems much quicker and more useful as it only takes up one side of the screen and can be accessed at any time without leaving an app. This feature finally brings quick and easy multitasking to mobile devices.

Also completely redone are notifications. Again, Google seems to have taken a couple cues from the Growl notification service in OS X but expanded it significantly. Notification pop up in a manner similar to phone versions of Android but are now located in the bottom left. They also allow larger previews than before and can even allow direct user interaction. Google showed the notification for the music player bringing up a set of controls for quick play/pause or fast-forwarding.

I have been very hesitant to jump on the tablet bandwagon because I have seen them as merely a content consumption device rather than a content creation device. But I think that the changes and improvements made to the Honeycomb UI open the door for it to become the first true tablet OS capable of content creation. All I need is for someone to make a robust text document editing program so I can write on the fly while being able to switch back to my browser or other apps in no more time than it would take me to alt-Tab in Windows or command-Tab in OS X.

So, Google, how about that native Google Docs app?

Check out the full video of Google's Honeycomb event here.

Why the iPhone is the Model T of the 21st Century

I have been thinking for a long time about how to exactly describe the iPhone and what it has done for mobile computing. Plus, there arises the question of how to describe its competitors, such as Android, WP7, and webOS. Then it came to me: the iPhone is the Ford Model T built for the 21st Century.

The following is taken directly for the beginning of the Model T's Wikipedia article: 

The Ford Model T ... is an automobile that was produced by Henry Ford's Ford Motor Company from 1908 through 1927. The Model T set 1908 as the historic year that the automobile became popular. It is generally regarded as the first affordable automobile, the car that opened travel to the common middle-class American; some of this was because of Ford's innovations, including assembly line production instead of individual hand crafting.

Does that sound familiar to a certain phone made by a certain fruit company? No? Let me help you out:

The Apple iPhone ... is a mobile device, or smartphone, that was produced by Steve Jobs's Apple, inc. from 2007 through the present day. The iPhone set 2007 as the historic year that the smartphone became popular. It is generally regarded as the first affordable smartphone, the device that opened mobile computing to the common middle-class American; some of this was because of Apple's innovations, including a touch screen-based application-centric mobile operating system.

It is quite scary just how much sense the iPhone makes when put into this context. The iPhone and the iPad put Apple on the leading edge of the two most rapidly growing markets in the tech industry: smartphones and tablets. Along the way, Apple has become the most valuable tech company in the world and the second most valuable company in the world of any kind behind Exxon Mobil.

Apple has achieved this success largely in spite of offering almost no customization choice when buying an iPhone or iPad. Every other computing product Apple sells offers many customization options -- 13, 15, and 17 inch MacBook Pros. 21.5 and 27 inch iMac's. The iPod Shuffle, Nano, Classic, and Touch. The iPhone offers no customization other than increased storage. But hey, you can always buy last-year's model!

The iPhone will likely remain the best-selling smartphone for many years. The iPad is probably in the same category. But that will increasingly become irrelevant as Android continues its incredible rise on the backs of multiple devices from multiple carriers. Apple may sell 5 million iPhones per month, which is an amazing figure and will surely bring them huge profits, but we will soon see Android phones selling 15 million phones per month or more. There are already at least 300,000 Android phones activated every day - that's 9 million per month, folks - and this number will continue to grow into 2011.

So Apple will retain the "best selling smartphone" and "best selling tablet" crowns for the near future. But there  is no denying that Android is the best selling mobile operating system. And in the war for application developers, that is the only number that matters at the end of the day.

Remember, any customer can have any iPhone in any color as long as it is black.

Fanboy time: a list of iOS features Android had first

So, the Verizon iPhone is all kinds of official. And without a doubt it will be a huge success with millions of people buying it and being satisfied while using it. And it is a great phone by any metric. When the iPhone came out in 2007 it was easily the best phone on the market and has only gotten better with time.

That being said, Apple gets a lot of undo credit for innovation these days. Android -- and other mobile operating systems -- has had numerous features that took years in many cases for Apple to get around to adding to their mobile OS. Here is a quick rundown:

• Copy and paste
• Custom wallpapers (seriously, even dumb phones have had this for years)
• Quick global search
• Folders
• Fast app switching
• Multi-tasking
• Front-facing camera for video calling (Evo 4G came out ~20 days before the iPhone 4)
• WiFi hotspot 
• Voice commands (still not implemented to the best of my knowledge)

What Apple does, they do very well. I doubt you would ever find someone that says and Apple product isn't easy to use the first time you lay your hands on it. Well, maybe not for long-time Windows users who can't comprehend the close, minimize, and expand buttons being on the left and not the ride side of a window. That said, Apple products are overall elegantly designed and easy to use. But that is only because Apple picks and chooses exactly what features you will have on your device. Apple does not innovate so much as simplify what others have already done in many cases. They go for ease of use over functionality.

And lets not forget Android still has numerous other software advantages such as widgets, custom launchers, open software development, live wallpapers, and deep integration with gmail and other Google services. Top that off with hardware innovation like 4G radios, larger screens, multiple form factors, microSD card support, and replaceable batteries.

And that's why I'm more than happy to keep using my Droid Incredible and throw down widgets on my 3.7 inch screen to my heart's content. 

Why 2011 will decide the 'winners' and 'losers' in mobile

I'll just come out and say it: 2011 will probably be the most important year in the history of mobile devices (smartphones and tablets). Let's run down the list of why:

• Verizon iPhone : The largest carrier in the US gets the most popular phone in the world. Once this happens, Apple will have few remaining places to expand but will get ~100 million potential new customers. 
• Gingerbread and beyond : Android is closing the gap in UI thanks to Matias Duarte (interview with Engadget from CES). In addition, OEMs continue to push the limit of hardware with larger screens, 4G radios, and dual-core processors. 
• Palm is back : HP and Palm are set to announce a wide array of new devices in early February. People have been clamoring for over a year for new hardware from Palm, and they are finally ready to deliver now that they are flush with HP's cash. 
• Microsoft is alive : Despite a slow start, WP7 mixes the best of Android (many form factors) with the best of iOS (unified UI experience across all devices). Plus, Microsoft has the cash to make WP7 work.
• RIM wakes up : The Playbook is a step in the right direction - towards consumers and away from business. Now, they just need to start pushing phones with the new QNX OS. If they don't act soon, many of their users will jump ship.
• Nokia's last chance : The European giant has been floundering in the high-end market for years. Now is time for them to put out or shut up. Losing means being regulated to the low-end (and low-profitability) market. 
• The tablet is cometh : I was wrong -- I didn't think the iPad would be a big success outside the nerd rings. But with tablets coming from every side (Android, webOS, QNX), expect to see them become the new netbook. 

In addition, the smartphone market as a whole is set to explode in 2011. Android alone is activating 300k devices per day and it is not hard to imagine that number reaching 500k or more by this time next year. Add in Apple, Palm, and all the other manufacturers and it is not unreasonable to imagine north of 1 million smartphones being activated around the world ever day. Toss in tablets and PMPs like the iPod Touch and we could be there sooner than anyone thinks. 

No, I'm not giving you my personal information to read your website

Let me start out by saying that I enjoy reading articles from the New York Times -- I have their app on my phone and their web app installed in Chrome (my browser of choice). They have their bias like any other news outlet, but typically they have great articles on the whole.

That said, they are really starting to piss me off.

Using their Chrome app or Android app, I can view any article I want to. However, when going to their website, I constantly find myself up against a wall demanding I register. The Times, like so many other companies caught in ageing and crumbling markets, does not know how to deal with the rise of the Internet. 

You can see it everywhere. From the major networks blocking Google TV to the infighting going on over at Hulu, the old media companies are doing everything they can to hold onto old revenue streams as they dry up. The Times stills thinks it can be the national source of news it used to be in decades past. That business model is dead and isn't coming back. 

It is no coincidence that the majority of the world's most innovative companies are centered around the web. Google, Apple, Facebook, Skype, and countless others are constantly pushing the envelope in cyberspace. The future is not in walled gardens of content, it is in open sharing of information. If you can't find a business model that works for the 21st Century, maybe you shouldn't be doing business.  

I'm not saying that all content must be free -- that would prevent people and companies from putting the time and effort into making high-quality content. But if you are going to charge someone (or make someone go through the hoops of registering for your site), you have to provide a service that no one else is offering. If the Times wants to charge money for their paper, they had better be doing a hell of a lot more than just reporting the news. They need to be breaking the news, making the news, and providing expert analysis on the news so that they create value and customers want to pay them for their service. 

Stop thinking about protecting old, wilting revenue streams. Start making news revenue rivers. 

Change or die.