Sponsoer by :

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Phone companies present rural broadband plan (AP) : Technet

Sponsored

Phone companies present rural broadband plan (AP) : Technet

Phone companies present rural broadband plan (AP)

Posted: 29 Jul 2011 03:33 PM PDT

By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer – Fri Jul 29, 6:33 pm ET

WASHINGTON – AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and four other telecom companies are offering a proposal to overhaul the $8 billion federal phone subsidy program to pay for high-speed Internet connections in rural and other underserved areas.

They say the plan, which was filed with the Federal Communications Commission Friday, would bring broadband service to nearly all Americans within five years.

The proposal is one of dozens that the FCC will likely receive as it seeks to bring the federal program, called the Universal Service Fund, into the digital age. The agency voted unanimously in February to begin drafting a blueprint to modernize the fund.

But the new plan is particularly significant since it has the backing of six key telecommunications companies that are some of the biggest recipients of Universal Service dollars. In addition to AT&T and Verizon, the nation's two largest phone companies, the plan is supported by CenturyLink Inc., Fairpoint Communications Inc., Frontier Communications Corp. and Windstream Corp.

"To truly bring broadband services to all Americans, the rules of the road for the black rotary phone desperately needed to be updated for today's competitive, high-speed communications networks," said Hank Hultquist, vice president of federal regulatory at AT&T.

The Universal Service Fund was created to ensure that all Americans have access to a basic telephone line. It is supported by a surcharge on long-distance phone bills. The program subsidizes phone service for the poor and pays for Internet access in schools, libraries and rural health clinics. But more than half the money goes to pay phone companies that provide voice service in rural places where phone lines are unprofitable.

The FCC now wants to tap the rural program, called the High Cost Fund, to pay for broadband too. It envisions gradually transforming the High Cost program into a new Connect America Fund that would underwrite the cost of building and operating high-speed Internet networks in places that are too sparsely populated to justify costly corporate investments.

The agency's actions could have profound consequences not just for rural Americans still stuck with dial-up links or painfully slow broadband connections, but also for rural phone companies that rely heavily on Universal Service funding.

The telecom company proposal takes aim at several key criticisms of the Universal Service Fund, including complaints by Republicans that the program promotes waste by subsidizing multiple rural phone companies in places where the free market doesn't support even one and by giving telecom carriers little incentive to keep their costs down.

The telecom company plan would cap the size of the new Connect America Fund at $4.5 billion annually, provide subsidies for only one provider in an area and target funding at places where there is no business case for companies to provide service on their own. In addition, it would create an Advanced Mobility/Satellite Fund to provide mobile broadband access in some of the hardest-to-serve areas.

The new proposal also seeks to overhaul the multibillion-dollar "intercarrier compensation" system, the Byzantine menu of charges that phone companies pay each other to connect calls and link their networks. Any changes to the Universal Service Fund would also require changes to intercarrier compensation because rural phone companies tend to rely heavily on both funding sources.

The existing intercarrier compensation program is widely seen as outdated and irrational since phone company payments vary widely based on the type of carrier involved, the type of network traffic being exchanged and the distance that the traffic travels. The new telecom plan would set one low, uniform rate for these payments.

The FCC welcomed the companies' proposal and the industry's efforts to tackle Universal Service reform. "We're pleased that many have taken up that challenge, and we will consider those proposals as we finalize reforms," the agency said in a statement.

That was echoed by the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. "I am pleased to see such a diverse group of small and large telecommunications providers working together to find consensus, which is no small feat on this complex and difficult issue," she said. "I urge the FCC to continue the momentum generated by this proposal and to keep our nation's rural communities in mind as it moves forward with the reform process."

Google buys about 1,000 IBM patents (AP)

Posted: 29 Jul 2011 02:55 PM PDT

By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer Peter Svensson, Ap Technology Writer – Fri Jul 29, 5:55 pm ET

NEW YORK – Google Inc. has bought about 1,000 pending and issued patents from IBM Corp. in its quest to shore up its defenses against suits by other technology companies, according to documents filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Google and IBM spokesmen wouldn't comment Friday on the purchase.

The patent transfers were recorded two weeks ago and cover a range of technologies, many of which have little to do with Google's Internet search and advertising business. One covers ways of automatically adjusting a clock, another deals with surface treatments for electrical contacts.

But even patents that have little do with Google's business can be useful ammunition in the hyper-litigious technology world.

If it's sued over patents by a company whose business relies on technologies covered by Google's patents, Google can file a retaliatory lawsuit.

Phone makers that use Google Inc.'s Android software are being sued by Apple Inc. and Microsoft Corp. As a young company, Google has few patents of its own to counter with.

Kent Walker, Google's general counsel, wrote in a blog post in April that the explosion in patent litigation threatens to stifle innovation.

"But as things stand today, one of a company's best defenses against this kind of litigation is (ironically) to have a formidable patent portfolio, as this helps maintain your freedom to develop new products and services," Walker wrote.

Earlier this month, Google participated in an auction for a collection of 6,000 patents from Nortel, a bankrupt Canadian maker of telecommunications equipment. It was outbid by a consortium including Apple that paid $4.5 billion.

In the past year, Google has also bought patents from Verizon Communications Inc. and Motorola Inc.

The patent sale was first reported by the blog SEO by the Sea, which follows Google.

F-16 Fighter Jet Crashes On Runway [VIDEO] (Mashable)

Posted: 30 Jul 2011 10:11 AM PDT

Charlie White Charlie White – Sat Jul 30, 1:11 pm ET

[More from Mashable: Our Favorite YouTube Videos This Week: The Birthday Edition]

An F-16 fighter jet ran off the end of a runway and crashed at the EAA AirVenture convention in Oshkosh, Wisconsin on Friday.

The lucky Alabama Air Guard pilot wasn't injured, but it looks like that $20 million F-16 Fighting Falcon might need a serious overhaul.

[More from Mashable: Surprise! Old Spice Guy Isaiah Mustafa Keeps His Crown [VIDEO]]

The cause of the crash is unknown, but it appears that for some reason the pilot simply ran out of runway. As you can see, after a few tense seconds the pilot exited the aircraft and jogged away to safety. He was taken away in an ambulance and found to be unhurt.

An Air Force team has begun an investigation into the cause of the accident.

EAA AirVenture, originally known as the Experimental Aircraft Association's Fly-In Convention, is an annual event in Wisconsin, billed as "the world's greatest aviation celebration."

[Via WBAY]

This story originally published on Mashable here.

Float Reader aims to make reading social, courtesy of Scribd (Appolicious)

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 10:30 AM PDT

Why Android Isn't Popular (ContributorNetwork)

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 01:31 PM PDT

Jared Spurbeck Jared Spurbeck – Sun Jul 31, 4:31 pm ET
Contribute content like this. Start here.

There are more smartphones powered by Android, Google's operating system for smartphones and tablets, than there are iPhones or BlackBerries right now. Because of that, a lot of people (like Alex Wagner of Phonedog) have started calling it the "most popular" mobile operating system.

If by "popular" they mean "well-liked," though, then Android fails. Hard.

It's not easy being green

According to a study conducted by ChangeWave Research, 50 percent of Android smartphone users are "very satisfied" with Android. This is a heck of a lot better than BlackBerry and Windows Phone users' satisfaction ratings, which hover around 25 percent. And if 50 percent of Android users are "very satisfied" with it, one can only imagine that even more than 50 percent are at least a little satisfied with their phones.

The iPhone's satisfaction rating, though, is much higher, at 70 percent. And John Biggs of TechCrunch reports that, according to "a person familiar with handset sales for multiple manufacturers," the return rates for many Android smartphones are "approaching 40 percent."

While anecdotal and not supported by evidence, this story rings true to me. Because Android wasn't designed for most people to use, in my opinion. Instead, it was designed for two groups of people:

Smartphone manufacturers and wireless carriers

Make no mistake. While the iPhone was designed to be the perfect smartphone -- perhaps because Steve Jobs was annoyed by existing smartphones -- Android was merely designed to make the carriers and manufacturers money.

Because of this, both do a number of things that are hostile to their customers. The wireless carriers load their Android phones down with "trashware" apps, like trial versions and services that cost money, which you can't uninstall without rooting your phone. (And if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't try to do it yet, either.)

Meanwhile, smartphone manufacturers take a shotgun approach to designing smartphones, making a colossal assortment of phones that are designed for the dump and meant to be thrown away in a year or two.

Not only is it hard to tell which Android phone is the "best," it's hard to even tell which would be best for you. And the most affordable handsets are also the most disposable, and the least capable of running games and apps.

I'm not surprised to hear that some of these smartphones may have sky-high return rates.

Is Android for you?

Just because everyone's using it doesn't mean you should. I'm personally an Android fan; I use an HTC Aria that I bought last year, and I love it.

I'm tolerant of its quirks, though, in a way that others might not be. That's because, as a side effect of Android being "open" to the carriers and manufacturers, it's also open to people like the "community knowledge workers" who help poor farmers in Uganda. And to anyone else, who wants to build or improve an Android device. I think the iPhone is great, but I support open-source software like Android because I feel the next Steve Jobs may need it to work his or her magic.

If you're not the next Steve Jobs, though, you ought to buy what you'll be the happiest with ... not just what's the most popular, or what the salesperson recommends. It's more environmentally friendly to keep the same smartphone for a long time, and it's friendlier to your wallet as well.

Jared Spurbeck is an open-source software enthusiast, who uses an Android phone and an Ubuntu laptop PC. He has been writing about technology and electronics since 2008.

Hashable Android app helps remember people you've met (Appolicious)

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 12:00 PM PDT

Amazon flies high, may rise 25 percent more: Barron's (Reuters)

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 08:44 AM PDT

– Sun Jul 31, 11:44 am ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Amazon.com Inc shares, just below their all-time high, could rise 10 percent to 25 percent if its capital spending translates to fast growth in its retailing, Kindle e-readers and cloud-computing businesses, Barron's said in its August 1 edition.

On July 26, the online retailer posted a 51 percent jump in quarterly revenue to $9.91 billion, while saying profit fell 8 percent to $191 million, or 41 cents per share.

The profit decline was smaller than analysts expected, however, and Amazon shares reached an all-time high of $227.20 the next day. They closed Friday at $222.52. A 25 percent increase from their projects to a $278.15 stock price.

Barron's said investors often worry about a disconnect between higher revenue and lower profit.

But it said Seattle-based Amazon has a 14-year history of driving higher revenue at the expense of margins by investing aggressively in technology, distribution and real estate.

It said Amazon was now spending money to build fulfillment and distribution centers, build data centers for its Amazon Web Services cloud unit, and expand its Kindle franchise.

The newspaper said that while Amazon stock trades at close to an "unthinkable" 107 times expected 2011 profit, it may be "pragmatic" to compare Amazon with Wal-Mart Stores Inc 20 years ago, when the latter's revenue grew 35 percent to $44 billion.

It quoted an analyst as saying Amazon's revenue could in 2011 increase 43 percent to $49 billion, but that "it's better" than Wal-Mart because its storeless business model could result in higher long-term economic returns.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel, editing by Maureen Bavdek)

Roboto leads iPad Games of the Week (Appolicious)

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 01:00 PM PDT

Apple expected to launch line of HDTVs in 2012 (Digital Trends)

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 07:39 PM PDT

Adam Rosenberg Adam Rosenberg – 1 hr 45 mins ago

Bose VideoWave

Analysts are the soothsayers of the business world, so take this news with the appropriate helping of salt grains. Trip Chowdhry of Global Equities Research informed investors today that he believes Apple will launch a line of HDTVs starting next year, Apple Insider reports. The belief is based on "details culled from a number of developer events he attended," the site writes.

Chowdhry believes that the new TVs will launch in March 2012, with training sessions to follow that summer at Apple's Worldwide Developer's Conference. The product being prepped apparently compares the closest with the Bose VideoWave, a 46-inch set with built-in stereo surround speaker. That's the only model Bose sells, with an attached cost of $5,200. Chowdhry's prediction accounts for three Apple televisions, with multiple sizes and price points.

The analyst makes a number of other predictions about the TV, claiming that it will be one-third the thickness of the six-inch VideoWave and that it will come packing 16 speakers, just like the Bose set. The Apple offering is also believed to sport a DSP chip, which is “a brand new chip based on Apple’s acquisition of PA Semi,â€

Take none of this as fact of course, though signs are pointing more and more toward Apple eventually releasing some kind of TV-like device. The tech specifications will probably surprise us in a few ways, but the big question at this point is "when?" Do you think March 2012 is an accurate estimation?

at 9:48 PM 0 comments

Engadget News

Sponsored

Engadget News

Logitech officially drops Revue price to $99 today, clarifies 'more returns than sales' remark

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 10:28 AM PDT

Google TV not worth 300 bones to ya? How's about a cool Benjamin? As promised, Logitech has slashed the price of its Revue set-top box from $299 to $99 on its own site and at retailers like Best Buy, giving prospective customers something awfully tempting to consider alongside the prospect of running Honeycomb on their TV right away. Oh, and the much-reported nugget from its earnings about "returns exceeding sales"? It should probably be noted that wasn't about returns from end users, which the company claims "have averaged at levels comparable to other Logitech products", but from the distributors and retailers it sells most of its hardware to. So, you in, or are you still holding out for the 90 percent off sale that may or may not ever materialize?

Show full PR text

Since you recently wrote about the Logitech Revue, I wanted to let you know that the device will be available for $99, starting on Sunday, July 31.
Also stay tuned for the expected release of Version 2 of Google TV later this summer.

When Google TV version 2 goes live, all new and existing Logitech Revue users will automatically receive the update, built on Android 3.1. Among other benefits, V2 will offer a simplified user experience and access to the Android Market.

Additional Clarification from Logitech
When Logitech's Q1 financial results were reported last week, we stated that returns for Logitech Revue were greater than sales. Some people thought this meant that there were more consumers returning their Logitech Revue products in Q1 than were purchasing the product. This is simply not the case. Remember that Logitech sells mostly to distributors and retailers, not consumers. Since we introduced Logitech Revue in October 2010, consumer returns for the product have averaged at levels comparable to other Logitech products.

LG Optimus 3D review

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 09:00 AM PDT

Cilantro might be the most polarizing thing on this planet. Some people can't eat a fish taco without it, others cry frothy tears of dishsoap at its mere mention. The same may well be true of the LG Optimus 3D (known as the Thrill 4G in the US). We already felt a little torn about the device when we first got our hands on it back in February. Sure, it packed some extra heft and, ahem, Android 2.2.2. But its stupor-inducing, 3D display (combined with some truly poignant marketing) was just enough to whet our appetites. Plus, after having already scarfed down a bowl of HTC's EVO 3D, we were more than a little keen on tasting LG's take on the glasses-free 3D recipe – a young and intriguing smartphone genre. Now that we finally have, we're ready to tackle a question for the ages: dishsoap or delicacy?
LG Optimus 3D review


Hardware



There's no way to say this without hurting someone's feelings, so we'll just get it out there: the Optimus 3D is pretty... porky. At 128mm (about five inches) long and 68mm (2.67 inches) wide, it's not exactly the most pocket-friendly phone we've toted and, at 11.9mm (almost half an inch) thick, it's even a bit chunkier than the Optimus Black. The handset and its nearly six ounces of bulk could also benefit from a few extra hours on the treadmill. If you're looking for a larger device or don't mind carrying a little extra weight, it won't pose a problem. If, on the other hand, you expect your phone to do things like fit in your pocket, you may be disappointed.

From a design standpoint, the device sports a streamlined look. Its rather ample, 4.3-inch LCD makes good use of the Optimus 3D's girth, spanning almost the entire storefront. Just above the screen is a silver LG logo, centered next to a 1.3 megapixel front-facing camera. Looming large over both of them is a trapezoidal earpiece that peeks out from the bottom of the upper bezel. Straddling the bezel's southern regions are four, understated Android buttons, backlit and waiting to illuminate upon command.


Around back, you'll find a pair of stereoscopic 3D, five megapixel cameras, with an LED flash nestled in between. Both cameras sit on a stainless steel strip that runs left-of center down the phone's back side. They're also submerged slightly below the phone's back surface, providing some extra (and appreciated) protection. As on the front, LG kept its branding to a minimum, leaving as corporate droppings only a light gray logo and stereoscopic 3D engraving. These are both placed around a loudspeaker, which sits in the southwest quadrant. The speaker delivers clear sound, but it's far from a main attraction.

The device is all curved edges and rounded corners, though the back side, strangely enough, is split into two levels, with the cameras sitting on the higher end of the ridge. This architectural curiosity didn't pose any significant ergonomic challenges, but it's not the prettiest design, either. It's worth noting that the entire back shell can be lifted with remarkable ease, requiring barely a fingernail. Inside, you'll find SIM storage and a slot for a microSD card, which can be easily removed without disturbing the 1500 mAh battery lodged within.


Along the left side sits a micro-USB port, stacked atop an HDMI socket. Either can be accessed by opening its respective hinged cover, but because both flaps are so close together (and unfold in opposite directions), it can be a little cumbersome to open both at the same time. These are positioned just below a thin silver layer that lazes along the phone's perimeter, providing a sleek border between the capacitive touchscreen up front and rubbery matte plastic covering its derriere. On the opposite side, you'll spot a volume toggle and a dedicated hot-key that takes you directly to LG's 3D Zone (more on that later). Up top is the power button and a 3.5mm headphone jack.

At the center of all this, of course, is that skating rink of a capacitive touchscreen. It's large and in charge, but its ho-hum 480 x 800 resolution left us somewhat disappointed. Don't get us wrong – the display is sufficiently responsive, handles direct sunlight with grace and can muster some decent brightness of its own. But for a phone that promises such a dazzling visual experience, a more state-of-the-art panel could've paid serious dividends.


Camera



We couldn't find much of a reason to complain about the Optimus 3D's camera setup, but we couldn't find a lot to praise, either -- it's just there. It won't produce the same detail you'd get from the eight-megapixel lens on the Galaxy S II, but the Optimus' five megapixel sensor delivered a satisfactory performance, responsively adjusting to both low and high light. 3D shots turned out surprisingly well, with the phone's cameras delivering some pretty gnarly visuals. Images don't exactly jump out of the screen and into your face, but the relief is still sharp enough to invite intense gazing. Once you've captured your 3D pics, you can save them in either MPO or JPS formats, depending upon whom you're sharing them with. It's also worth mentioning that any 2D image can be converted into an extra dimensional shot, and vice versa.
LG Optimus 3D review


The phone's video capabilities, on the other hand, are much more compelling. Moving 2D images are captured in 1080p, at 24 fps, with 3D video in 720p, at 30 fps. We may have been over-caffeinated, but we had a difficult time keeping a steady shot in 2D, while the Optimus' stabilizing feature helped right the ship during 3D tests. Shooting in the third dimension, however, posed quite different challenges. When filming a person slowly walking toward the lens, the effect came out quite well. But as soon as faster-moving subjects unexpectedly entered the frame, video quality quickly deteriorated into patchiness and doubled images.




However challenging they were to harness, the phone's 3D capabilities were ultimately more compelling than they were discouraging. We spent hours experimenting with various angles and mise-en-scenes, though it didn't take long for us to recognize the cinematic potential for more creative users to harvest.

3D


The question, however, is whether the medium is stunning enough to warrant a purchase, which brings us to the Optimus 3D's most cilantro-like quality: the glasses-less 3D experience. It's not for everyone. To be fair, it's definitely cool (in the "let me whip out my phone at a bar and make conversation" sort of way), and the novelty can be genuinely intriguing... for about five minutes. After that, spectators may either get bored with it, or end up feeling like their eyes were just juggled through a meat grinder (our experience skewed heavily toward the latter).


You could attribute this evanescence to the relative lack of glasses-free 3D content, but LG's tech still has a ways to go before achieving universality. Whether we were playing games or watching video, we consistently noticed severe shifts in image quality with even the slightest of movements. When holding the device in landscape mode, the most innocuous of turns resulted in unsettling flickers. The same went for any vertical shifts toward and away from the display. Of course, LG carefully specifies all this in its pre-installed 3D guide, warning you about spending too much time in front of the display, but that doesn't make it any less jarring. And, while it doesn't take a Herculean effort to hold a phone still, our optic nerves shudder at the thought of trying to play a 3D game on a crowded, rush-hour subway.


If you're planning to watch a ton of 3D content on your smartphone, you should probably look elsewhere – especially considering the aforementioned implications for battery life. For content creators, on the other hand, the experience would be slightly different, largely because of the filming capabilities mentioned above, along with the Optimus' content sharing features. The HDMI port enables direct connections to any 3D TV, which could be a cool perk for amateur filmmakers looking to add some spice to their home video collection.
LG Optimus 3D sample shots (3D)


Performance


One of the Optimus 3D's most commendable qualities is its speed. Lurking within its bowels is an OMAP 4430 from Texas Instruments – you know, the 1GHz dual-core ARM A9 SOC that (briefly) ruled the benchmarking roost. Graphics come courtesy of a PowerVR SGX540 GPU, and there's 8GB of onboard memory, along with 512MB of dual-channel RAM.

The device also performed impressively on benchmark tests, racking up over 2200 on Quadrant, 57.1 fps on Nenamark, 58 fps on Neocore and hovering between 35 and 40 MFLOPS on Linpack. Transitions between screens were about as seamless as we could've hoped, and the native browser performed admirably, smoothly and swiftly handling Flash and other online demands. We did notice some glitches and slow-downs when closing 3D applications and quickly executing a function on the homescreen, and there was some occasional freezing during app transitions. But they certainly weren't deal-breakers.


Much of LG's marketing has centered around the Optimus 3D's "Tri-Dual" architecture – a configuration combining dual-core, dual memory and dual-channel. This design effectively doubles the number of conduits through which data can travel, theoretically allowing for faster performance and more efficient power usage. We noticed speedy processing on web pages and apps, though the configuration certainly didn't do much for battery life.

Endurance, in fact, may be the Optimus 3D's most glaring weakness. Though our everyday use consisted of nothing more than checking e-mail, updating Twitter and occasional 3D gameplay, we still found ourselves recharging the device every ten to 12 hours. As you'd expect, depletion rapidly accelerated when we used the 3D features more heavily. After conducting formal tests, we found that it takes about seven hours to completely drain the phone's battery, when put under slightly more strain. Keep in mind, however, that we conducted these battery tests without even touching any of the phone's power-sucking 3D content – which isn't a good sign, considering that 3D is the device's signature feature.

Reception over an HSPA network in France was refreshingly stellar, even in our Bermuda Triangle of an apartment. On average, the device received about one to two bars more than what an iPhone 4 picked up on the same network. At 75 percent volume, the earpiece carefully toed the line between loud and tinny and no one reported connection issues on the other end.

Software


The Optimus 3D already entered the software game at a serious disadvantage, by virtue of the fact that it ships with Froyo. Who knows if that'll change by the time it hits the US, but for the moment, the lack of Gingerbread is pretty unfortunate. The layout is depressingly sterile, and its limited functionality made the overall experience seem unremarkable.

That said, it's an entirely functional OS – everything does what you'd expect, without too many bells and whistles. To unlock the phone, you just have to slide the screen upward. It's a simple enough gesture, but we noticed persistent chops in the animation, making the icon unfold more like a creaky garage door than a crisp can of sardines. Arriving at the home screen, you'll find the second generation of LG's Optimus UI on full display, with weather and clock widgets bannered across the top of the screen, and a smattering of standard apps growing along the bottom. Scrolling one panel to the right, you'll find the browser, music app, photo gallery and dedicated 3D games app, while the easternmost panel houses a clean, large calendar, which you can sync with your Google account. On the far left lives a social media widget, which aggregates feeds from your various accounts, right next to a panel of your "favorite contacts" – the illuminati from your phonebook with whom you want umbilically instant contact.


It's all very simple. Very... plain. But LG has gone the extra mile to emphasize the ostensible crown jewel of its new headset: 3D. As we mentioned above, there's a dedicated hot-key that will whisk you away to LG's "3D Space" – a pleasant little carousel full of games, videos and epilepsy. The pre-loaded content provides a relatively smooth introduction to glasses-less 3D, and there's a widget devoted exclusively to 3D clips on YouTube. The 3D Store, meanwhile, connects you to LG's browser-based marketplace, where you can purchase more games or multimedia.

It's clear that software isn't the Optimus 3D's best side, though we'd be eager to see how a Gingerbread update would influence its complexion. It's also clear that LG put almost all of its Froyo muscle behind its 3D features – which says a lot about the Optimus 3D.

Wrap-up



All told, the Optimus 3D is a perfectly serviceable, largely inoffensive smartphone that just so happens to possess 3D capabilities. Like the idiot savant math whiz, or the high school phenom with a poisonous crossover, LG's latest creation occasionally shows flashes of brilliance, but still lacks some fundamental qualities -- in this case, sophisticated software and a grittier battery.

To LG's credit, the Optimus 3D isn't trying to be something it's not. It's certainly not reaching for the Samsung Galaxy SII's heights, nor is it looking to out-duel its Gingerbread-less brethren, like the Droid X2. Instead, the device seems to realize that it's a one-trick pony, and devotes all of its energies to harvesting that comparative advantage. For most people, that one trick probably won't be enough to justify buying an otherwise vanilla (and large) handset. 3D pioneers, on the other hand, may be more willing to shell out the £500 (about $820), as long as they're not expecting much more than extra-dimensional eye candy. At this point, it's hard for us to call LG's 3D technology anything other than a gimmick, but it's still a fun gimmick -- even if it leaves a somewhat soapy aftertaste.

LG's Thrill 4G rumored launch pushed back to August 21st?

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 07:06 AM PDT

LG's Thrill 4G rumored launch pushed back to August 21st?
Good old Radio Shack just can't seem to keep its hands on internal memos. A little over a week ago, we were treated to a pair of leaked documents, slating an August 7th rollout for the LG Thrill 4G, and now another official looking missive has surfaced, pushing the release date back to August 21st. As per the document, customers will still be able to reserve their own 3D-enabled handset with the purchase of a $50 gift certificate before August 15th. Of course, we could still see this thrilling 4G phone pop up ahead of that date, perhaps from AT&T, but if you've already got a $50 gift certificate in hand, it looks like it's time for another round of the waiting game.

Iceland's crowdsourced constitution submitted for approval, Nyan Cat takes flight over Reykjavik

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 04:03 AM PDT

Iceland's crowdsourced constitution submitted for approval, Nyan Cat takes flight over Reykjavik
A committee of 25 Icelanders submitted the first draft of a rewritten constitution to the country's parliamentary speaker Friday, and despite our recommendations, Rebecca Black was conspicuously absent from the proceedings. The democratic experiment bravely asked citizens to log on to Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, and Twitter to engage with the committee in a discussion about the nation's future. While the project's Facebook page played host to pleads for free ice cream and more volcanoes, the constitution's creators managed to stay on task, focusing on issues of decentralization and transparency in government. The draft is slated for review beginning October 1st.

Judge shoots down Personal Audio's second Apple infringement case

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 12:57 AM PDT

Talk about swift justice. It's been less than a week since we reported on Personal Audio's second infringement suit against Apple, and an East Texas judge has already put an end to the litigation. In a statement regarding the company's complaint that the iPad 2, iPhone 4, and latest generation iPods infringed on the same patents put forth in its initial suit, Judge Ron Clark said the $8 million already awarded to the plaintiff should do just fine. He went on to deny the company's request for a second trial. It may not be the last we hear of Personal Audio, but it is a refreshing change of pace from the usual goings on in Eastern District courtrooms.

Netflix plugin for ChromeOS hits v1.0.2, is an official release around the corner?

Posted: 30 Jul 2011 09:48 PM PDT

When Google Chromebooks started arriving without the Netflix streaming we'd been promised we were predictably bummed, but that may be rectified soon. While Chromebook owners attuned to beta channel updates first noticed an entry for a Netflix plugin last month, it still couldn't actually play movies and didn't appear on older, single-core Atom powered Cr-48 laptops. Fast forward to the present, where one of our friendly comment moderators, masterofrandom has spotted this updated v1.0.2 plugin lurking in the depths of his murdered out 12-incher. There's still no playback to be had, but we're figuring Netflix didn't update the version number past 1.0 because it's finally figured out the perfect queue management system. Chromebook owners or prospective owners (and by extension, Linux users) still awaiting Watch Instantly streaming -- your alert level is at Vermilion.

[Thanks, masterofrandom]

Ask Engadget: what's the best deal in prepaid wireless?

Posted: 30 Jul 2011 07:29 PM PDT

We know you've got questions, and if you're brave enough to ask the world for answers, here's the outlet to do so. This week's Ask Engadget inquiry is coming to us from Alejandro, who's looking to cash in on the sudden glut of absolutely respectable prepaid smartphones. If you're looking to send in an inquiry of your own, drop us a line at ask [at] engadget [dawt] com.

"I'm looking to grab a new phone using a prepaid service. What's the best prepaid phone service in terms of overall price, phone selection and other bells / whistles. Thanks!"

We're guessing he's looking for a smartphone here, so before you yell "Cricket!" and run for the hills, give a bit of consideration to folks like Virgin Mobile and Boost Mobile, amongst others. Any of you had a particularly charming experience with a prepaid provider? Speak up in comments below!

Orange Switzerland is expecting Nokia's N9 on September 15th

Posted: 30 Jul 2011 06:06 PM PDT

Release date info for Nokia's sweet slab of Meego has been scarce, but now Orange Switzerland's webpage announces the N9 is coming its way September 15th. Last month Swedish carrier 3 Group promised it would arrive there September 23rd, while some retailer in Kazakhstan is apparently listing them for sale August 19th. We're not quite ready to whip out our passport and translator for a taste of the (not) zombie OS's brains yet, but we'll keep an eye out for any more release date information as it comes.

[Thanks, StinkyFinger]

3DS NES Ambassador Program games will add multiplayer, other features

Posted: 30 Jul 2011 04:28 PM PDT

Nintendo 3DS
Nintendo really wants to make it up to those of you who already shelled out $250 for the 3DS, in light of the looming $80 price drop. You probably already knew that you'd be getting a pile of free NES games on September 1st, but you can also expect them to be updated and improved going forward. These aren't going to be half-hearted ports that get pushed out to early adopters, riddled with bugs, and forgotten. Sometime later this year, they'll be offered as payed versions through the eShop with features like multiplayer simultaneous play. The best part? Those eligible for the Ambassador Program will get free upgrades to retail version. One feature we can tell you wont be added though, is 3D -- the classic titles like Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Bros. will remain blissfully two-dimensional.

iPhone price cuts hitting Radio Shack, Target tomorrow?

Posted: 30 Jul 2011 03:01 PM PDT

iPhone price cuts hitting Radio Shack, Target tomorrow?
Let the speculation begin! It may not be a sign of an iPhone refresh, but we've received multiple tips today about an imminent price drop for Apple's flagship smartphone. According to a pair of trusty tipsters, Radio Shack is prepping to cut the cost of AT&T's 16GB iPhone 4 to $169.99, with a two-year contract, from $199.99. The 32GB version will likewise take a $30 plunge at the Shack, ringing in at $269.99, and the price of the 8GB 3GS will drop to $19.99. Phone Arena is likewise reporting on Target slicing up the old Apple price tag, but lists varying numbers based on carrier. If all this talk turns out to be true, those prices should be ripe for the picking starting tomorrow.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

DNA-based artificial neural network is a primitive brain in a test tube (video)

Posted: 30 Jul 2011 01:36 PM PDT

Neuron and DNA
Many simpler forms of life on this planet, including some of our earliest ancestors, don't have proper brains. Instead they have networks of neurons that fire in response to stimuli, triggering reactions. Scientists from Caltech have actually figured out how to create such a primitive pre-brain using strands of DNA. Researchers, led by Lulu Qian, strung together DNA molecules to create bio-mechanical circuits. By sequencing the four bases of our genetic code in a particular way, they were able to program it to respond differently to various inputs. To prove their success the team quizzed the organic circuit, essentially playing 20 questions, feeding it clues to the identity of a particular scientist using more DNA strands. The artificial neural network nailed answer every time. Check out the PR and pair of videos that dig a little deeper into the experiment after the break.



Show full PR text
Caltech Researchers Create the First Artificial Neural Network Out of DNA

PASADENA, Calif.-Artificial intelligence has been the inspiration for countless books and movies, as well as the aspiration of countless scientists and engineers. Researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have now taken a major step toward creating artificial intelligence-not in a robot or a silicon chip, but in a test tube. The researchers are the first to have made an artificial neural network out of DNA, creating a circuit of interacting molecules that can recall memories based on incomplete patterns, just as a brain can.

"The brain is incredible," says Lulu Qian, a Caltech senior postdoctoral scholar in bioengineering and lead author on the paper describing this work, published in the July 21 issue of the journal Nature. "It allows us to recognize patterns of events, form memories, make decisions, and take actions. So we asked, instead of having a physically connected network of neural cells, can a soup of interacting molecules exhibit brainlike behavior?"

The answer, as the researchers show, is yes.

Consisting of four artificial neurons made from 112 distinct DNA strands, the researchers' neural network plays a mind-reading game in which it tries to identify a mystery scientist. The researchers "trained" the neural network to "know" four scientists, whose identities are each represented by a specific, unique set of answers to four yes-or-no questions, such as whether the scientist was British.

After thinking of a scientist, a human player provides an incomplete subset of answers that partially identifies the scientist. The player then conveys those clues to the network by dropping DNA strands that correspond to those answers into the test tube. Communicating via fluorescent signals, the network then identifies which scientist the player has in mind. Or, the network can "say" that it has insufficient information to pick just one of the scientists in its memory or that the clues contradict what it has remembered. The researchers played this game with the network using 27 different ways of answering the questions (out of 81 total combinations), and it responded correctly each time.

This DNA-based neural network demonstrates the ability to take an incomplete pattern and figure out what it might represent-one of the brain's unique features. "What we are good at is recognizing things," says coauthor Jehoshua "Shuki" Bruck, the Gordon and Betty Moore Professor of Computation and Neural Systems and Electrical Engineering. "We can recognize things based on looking only at a subset of features." The DNA neural network does just that, albeit in a rudimentary way.

Biochemical systems with artificial intelligence-or at least some basic, decision-making capabilities-could have powerful applications in medicine, chemistry, and biological research, the researchers say. In the future, such systems could operate within cells, helping to answer fundamental biological questions or diagnose a disease. Biochemical processes that can intelligently respond to the presence of other molecules could allow engineers to produce increasingly complex chemicals or build new kinds of structures, molecule by molecule.

"Although brainlike behaviors within artificial biochemical systems have been hypothesized for decades," Qian says, "they appeared to be very difficult to realize."

The researchers based their biochemical neural network on a simple model of a neuron, called a linear threshold function. The model neuron receives input signals, multiplies each by a positive or negative weight, and only if the weighted sum of inputs surpass a certain threshold does the neuron fire, producing an output. This model is an oversimplification of real neurons, says paper coauthor Erik Winfree, professor of computer science, computation and neural systems, and bioengineering. Nevertheless, it's a good one. "It has been an extremely productive model for exploring how the collective behavior of many simple computational elements can lead to brainlike behaviors, such as associative recall and pattern completion."

To build the DNA neural network, the researchers used a process called a strand-displacement cascade. Previously, the team developed this technique to create the largest and most complex DNA circuit yet, one that computes square roots.

This method uses single and partially double-stranded DNA molecules. The latter are double helices, one strand of which sticks out like a tail. While floating around in a water solution, a single strand can run into a partially double-stranded one, and if their bases (the letters in the DNA sequence) are complementary, the single strand will grab the double strand's tail and bind, kicking off the other strand of the double helix. The single strand thus acts as an input while the displaced strand acts as an output, which can then interact with other molecules.

Because they can synthesize DNA strands with whatever base sequences they want, the researchers can program these interactions to behave like a network of model neurons. By tuning the concentrations of every DNA strand in the network, the researchers can teach it to remember the unique patterns of yes-or-no answers that belong to each of the four scientists. Unlike with some artificial neural networks that can directly learn from examples, the researchers used computer simulations to determine the molecular concentration levels needed to implant memories into the DNA neural network.

While this proof-of-principle experiment shows the promise of creating DNA-based networks that can-in essence-think, this neural network is limited, the researchers say. The human brain consists of 100 billion neurons, but creating a network with just 40 of these DNA-based neurons-ten times larger than the demonstrated network-would be a challenge, according to the researchers. Furthermore, the system is slow; the test-tube network took eight hours to identify each mystery scientist. The molecules are also used up-unable to detach and pair up with a different strand of DNA-after completing their task, so the game can only be played once. Perhaps in the future, a biochemical neural network could learn to improve its performance after many repeated games, or learn new memories from encountering new situations. Creating biochemical neural networks that operate inside the body-or even just inside a cell on a Petri dish-is also a long way away, since making this technology work in vivo poses an entirely different set of challenges.

Beyond technological challenges, engineering these systems could also provide indirect insight into the evolution of intelligence. "Before the brain evolved, single-celled organisms were also capable of processing information, making decisions, and acting in response to their environment," Qian explains. The source of such complex behaviors must have been a network of molecules floating around in the cell. "Perhaps the highly evolved brain and the limited form of intelligence seen in single cells share a similar computational model that's just programmed in different substrates."

"Our paper can be interpreted as a simple demonstration of neural-computing principles at the molecular and intracellular levels," Bruck adds. "One possible interpretation is that perhaps these principles are universal in biological information processing.

"The research described in the Nature paper, "Neural network computation with DNA strand displacement cascades," is supported by a National Science Foundation grant to the Molecular Programming Project and by the Human Frontiers Science Program.

View the researchers' videos (part 1, part 2) that explain their work.
at 11:29 AM 0 comments

The Latest from TechCrunch

Sponsored

The Latest from TechCrunch

Link to TechCrunch

(Founder Stories) Ben Lerer: Thrillist Will Do “$40 Million In Revenue This Year”

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 09:20 AM PDT

In this episode of Founder Stories, Chris Dixon sits down with Thrillist Co-founder and CEO, Ben Lerer (who is also a partner with his father Ken Lerer in Lerer Ventures).  Targeted towards young men, Thrillist is a “platform for guys” that offers “both local and national content and commerce smooshed into one place” says Lerer.

Inspired by Bob Pitman’s Daily Candy (Pitman is an early investor in Thrillist), Lerer founded Thrillist a couple years out of college. Before he figured out that he wanted to create a city guide for guys, he and his co-founder went through a lot of “get rich quick schemes” with the common thread that they knew nothing about any of them. The only thing they really knew about was “frivolous fun and buying stupid shit.” And thus Thrillist was born. A guide for guys with the voice of a national men’s magazine but a local focus.

Today, the site has a loyal following of between 3 and 4 million male subscribers, who are highly attractive to brand advertisers but also very hard to reach. Lerer built the advertising and content business to a respectable 8-figure in annual revenues, but then he looked around at social commerce companies like Groupon and Gilt and thought he could grab a piece of that by setting up parallel commerce businesses and cross-selling to his demographic. So last year he bought JackThreads, a group buying site for men’s threads. In January, he layered on a deals business with Thrillist Rewards.

Revenues shot through the roof. Lerer projects Thrillist will reach “about $40 million in revenue this year, almost tripling from last year.” He now employs 115 people, up from 45 last year. Not bad for a business based on frivolous shit.

Watch previous episodes of Founder Stories here.

Buying An Electric Car

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 08:00 AM PDT

This guest post is by venture capitalist David Cowan. David has recently purchased a Nissan Leaf after going car-less for two year.

After 3.5 years, I've finally re-joined the community of car owners.

Between February 2008 and last week, I was car-less. I borrowed and rented cars, took taxis and Zip cars, and occasionally biked. I also bummed a lot of rides (thank you very much – you know who you are). It had started when the warranty on my fancy German gas guzzler expired; I sold the thing, and never really found the time to shop around for a replacement – Who Has Time For This?

I felt a lot more excited about the prospect of driving an electric sedan, which should be greener, potentially faster, simpler to operate, and cheaper to fuel. Most importantly, I'd never have to kill ten minutes stopping for gas – Who Has Time For This? So I put my name down on the lists for a Tesla Model S, Fisker Karma, Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt, deciding to wait for one to be built. Three years later, I got calls from Fisker, Nissan and Chevy, and it was time to decide.

After examining the options and driving the cars, it was a pretty easy decision to buy the Leaf for these eight reasons:

1. Compared to the others, the Leaf gets twice the range from a battery charge: 100 miles, or 85 miles with the AC cranking. (Plugging the car in and out adds about 15 seconds a day to your daily routine, or 5 minutes a month – about half the time we spend at gas pumps.)

2. With a pure electric motor (not a hybrid gasoline engine) the Leaf is nimbler, less fragile, and legal to drive in California's carpool lanes so I can bypass the Highway 101 traffic jams – WHTFT?

3. Driving in electric mode (without the help of a hybrid gasoline engine) is wonderfully quiet and smooth (no transmission). Even at 80 miles per hour the acceleration is immediate and impressive.

4. The Leaf steers as smoothly as a Lexus, and the small wheels turn on a dime.

5. Only the Leaf has open, comfortable seats with ample head room in front and leg room in back (a must if you have kids)

6. Only the Leaf carries 5 passengers (a must if you have THREE kids!)

7. The Leaf has the largest trunk, and the back seats fold down for more cargo space.

8. The Leaf costs 3/4 as much as the Volt, and 1/3 as much as the Karma. You get at least $7500 in tax credits, offset by the $2,000 expense of a home 220 volt charging station.

These reasons explain why the Nissan Leaf now the outsells the pack. I can think of only three good reasons why you might wish to buy one of the other cars:

1. The Leaf's pure electric motor is not a problem for two car families – on that rare day once a month when you drive more than 100 miles, you can always take the gas guzzler instead (Honda Odysseys are awesome). But without that fallback, one-car households will find the Volt more practical (albeit expensive and cramped).

2. If you love driving enormous, heavy sports cars that sit low to the ground and you've got $100k to burn (like these guys), then you might prefer the gorgeous design of the Karma. It has the look and feel of a luxury muscle car with a growling engine, bucket seats, and beautiful wood/leather interiors. (The Leaf is all plastic.) Having said that, the Karma performs like a sports car at lower speeds but on the highway I found it downright sluggish compared to the Leaf. The Karma handled highway acceleration nearly as well as the Leaf only when in Stealth Mode which means that the gasoline engine is off. (You may be as disappointed as I was to learn that people can still see you in Stealth Mode.)

3. Stephen Colbert will mock you for driving a Leaf.

All three cars come chock full of gizmos we all love (rear view camera, navigation, keyless entry, XM radio, Bluetooth, heated seats…) so there's no reason to stick with gasoline. The Leaf even comes with a cool iPhone app for remote operation of the charger and climate control.

So I've been zipping around in my Leaf for a week now and absolutely loving it. Even after three years, it was worth the wait.

CrunchBase Information
David Cowan
Information provided by CrunchBase

Healthcare Disruption: Providers Are Making Newspaper Industry Mistakes (Part III)

Posted: 31 Jul 2011 07:00 AM PDT

Editor's note: This guest post was written by Dave Chase, the CEO of Avado.com, a health technology company that was a TechCrunch Disrupt finalist. Previously he was a management consultant for Accenture's healthcare practice consulting to 25 hospitals and was the founder of Microsoft's Health business. You can follow him on Twitter @chasedave.

Since the latter half of the 90's, the handwriting has been on the wall for newspaper companies that media's future was digital. Heck, the newspapers' own business sections reported on this trend. Despite this, the majority of the industry focused on traditional strategies such as taking on debt to acquire other newspapers or investing in new printing presses, leading to disastrous consequences.

To be fair, there were some digital investments made, including hiring top-drawer talent. However, over time, the digital teams were marginalized and ultimately the talent that had the capability to transform these organizations left for opportunities where their hands weren't tied. In other words, the commitment wasn't deep enough to effect a true transformation.

Now consider healthcare in the U.S.: There's a clear understanding that the industry must shift its focus towards outcomes from "do more, bill more" orientation. If ever there was an industry that should understand that it's more effective to address underlying conditions than treating the symptom, it should be healthcare. Or, as a famous early newspaper publisher stated, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Prevention-focused countries such as Denmark have dramatically lowered the need for hospitals. Once at 155 hospitals, they are at less than a third of that today. I find this easily-known fact is news to healthcare providers I speak with.

Whether they don't know these facts or are ignoring them, the fact is there are incredibly large capital investment projects on the docket for many health systems. Since 62% of hospitals are mission-based, non-profit organizations, it's astonishing that they are more focused on capital projects than addressing the overall health of their communities. No one has made the case, for instance, that chronic conditions that consume 75% of the $2.6 trillion tab in the U.S. is best addressed by building more buildings. Some make the case that there's a growing healthcare real estate bubble while costs of chronic conditions continue to expand.

In healthcare, it's as though we are building better firehouses and investing in more firefighting equipment while we do the equivalent of leaving oily rags around, letting kids play with fireworks on dry hillsides, and building structures with one exit. We may have the best "firefighting" tools and talent in the world but we'd be much better off if we prevented those "fires" from starting in the first place.

Dr. Ted Epperly recently finished his term as the head of the American Academy of Family Physicians and runs the Family Medicine Residency of Idaho program, which includes 80 physicians serving over 20,000 patients. On a tour of his facility, he stopped to comment on the scene in the waiting room of their biggest clinic, something that’s typical of the many doctor’s office waiting rooms we've all experienced. He described the scene as a failure compared to the vision of what he's planning on implementing.

In Epperly's vision, he describes a dashboard that pulls from the registry of all of their patients. Rather than reactively waiting for someone to present himself or herself in the clinic, he envisions a system that proactively is monitoring the array of conditions his patient population experiences. For example, it will ensure diabetics are having regular foot and eye exams and blood glucose levels are being consistently monitored. If someone hasn't scheduled an appointment already, it will proactively reach out to him or her rather than waiting for some health crisis.

Epperly has been a leading proponent of a concept in healthcare called the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH), akin to the philosophy that Denmark has adopted so successfully. In many respects, the PCMH is simply an updated version of the Marcus Welby model of medicine with more of a team-based model coupled with technology.

While some may have noticed that there's several PCMH pilots that were included in the federal health reform law, there's a little-noticed facet of the law the CTO for the United States, Aneesh Chopra, points out in this video segment. That is, if the payment models that reward positive health outcomes over activity proves out in the eyes of the Actuary for Medicare and Medicaid program to be cost savings, there is carte blanche authority to expand these models broadly to entire Medicare population. This could rapidly expand the deployment of the PCMH concept and accelerate the need for the associated HealthTech. The video below explains this in more detail and explicitly speaks to the opportunity for startups.

Another healthcare provider plans to send home patients with an array of personal biometric devices. The output of these devices will be a more complete view of an individual's health. There's an explosion of personal biometric devices ranging from personal blood pressure monitors to some being built into clothing and widely deployed in places such as Denmark.

For the cost of a small wing of one of these new Taj Mahal structures, healthcare providers could have a team of innovators working on scenarios such as those described above and many others. Those that avoid sticking to the old tried and true methods of differentiation that worked in the past will be light years ahead as the transformation of healthcare takes hold. If they don't, employers who are paying the bulk of healthcare costs are taking matters into their own hands and building their own onsite clinics.

Whether the innovation comes from within or from non-obvious competition such as employers or pharma companies, there's a distinct advantage in having a blank slate where cost effective systems and models of delivering care can be delivered. For the providers, they'd be well advised to develop their own innovation teams unfettered by the current model so they can develop models that will ensure the provider's long-term survival.

If you missed the first parts of the series, you can find them at the links below:

A Billion Dollars Isn’t Cool. You Know What’s Cool? Basic Human Decency

Posted: 30 Jul 2011 05:17 PM PDT

‘”Business!” cried the Ghost, wringing his hands again. “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”‘ – A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens

I know, I know. I’m old. Worse than that, I’m nostalgic. In the past few months, I’ve written about my love for fountain pens, and traditional publishers, and paper books, and handwritten letters, and live theater, and downtown Las Vegas. Those who follow me on Twitter will have read about my enthusiasm for the New York Times Crossword, and hotel writing paper, and socializing with friends sans mobile phones.

It’s cute to be the token Luddite at TechCrunch — but it’s also hugely disingenuous. I’m writing this stuff on Twitter, and on a hugely popular technology blog. You could cut the irony with a knife.

The truth is, I love technology. It’s rare that I dismiss or disparage a new gadget, app or company without trying it out at least once; and I certainly believe that – on balance – the more technologically advanced we become as a society, the better the world becomes.

And yet increasingly I wonder whether, for the sake of humanity, it might not be a bad thing if the earthquake comes and tips all of web 2.0 into the sea.

I should possibly explain.

The Internet — particularly “web 2.0″, with its communities and tagging and reuniting and friending and liking — was supposed to civilize us all. The idea was that by connecting the whole world through a variety of social networks and crowd-sourced standards of behavior (from reputation scores on eBay to Yelp reviews for dog walkers) – people would be driven to greater empathy for, and responsibility towards their fellow man. When Randi Zuckerberg sat on stage at DLD ’08 and told us the story of the Palestinian and Israeli children brought together through their joint membership of a Facebook group about soccer, we all shed a tear. Web 2.0 is working — it’s really working!

In the early days, the entrepreneurs behind these services really seemed to believe the gospel they were preaching. Anyone who has met Craig Newmark will testify that he lives and breathes customer service — turning down acquisition offers and obsessing over how his eponymous List can help connect communities in ways that enrich society. When they invented Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin really did dream about making the world’s data easier to access. Jimmy Wales, for all of his fixation with personal celebrity, really is passionate about a free and open encyclopedia, and has turned down a large amount of personal profit to realize that dream.

At first, Web 2.0 seemed like a perfect two-way street. Brilliant entrepreneurs who genuinely wanted to change the world built services that we all wanted to use. They became rich, and our lives became better connected. We were all in it together.

Fast forward just a handful of years, though, and something has gone very, very wrong with that particular social contract. We users have kept our side of the bargain — dutifully tagging our friends in artificially-aged photos, and checking in at bars, and writing reviews of restaurants. We’ve canceled our newspaper subscriptions, and instead spend our days clicking on slideshows of “celebrities who look like their cats” or obsessively tracking trending topics on Twitter. We’ve stopped buying books published by professional houses and instead reward authors who write, edit and distribute their own electronic works through self-publishing platforms. We’ve even handed the keys to our cars and our homes to strangers.

On the face of it, the entrepreneurs have continued down the same track too: inventing ever more Disruptive companies to further improve the world, and in doing so enjoying multi-billion dollar valuations and all the trappings of fame and fortune. Even richer have grown the angels, super-angels and VCs who carefully nurture young entrepreneurs, molding them into the next breed of Mark Zuckerbergs and Sean Parkers, reminding their charges that “what’s cool” is a billion dollars — and that every new user acquired is another dollar added to their eventual high score.

And yet. AND YET. You only have to look at a couple of mini-outrages that bubbled up in the past few days to realize just how misaligned the interests of some entrepreneurs have become with those of the human beings they rely on for their success.

This time last week, the musical world mourned the death of Amy Winehouse. Almost immediately, the Huffington Post approved a post by unpaid contributor, Tricia Fox, entitled “Amy Winehouse’s Untimely Death Is a Wake Up Call for Small Business Owners“. We were all shocked, of course, by the callousness and cynicism of the headline — but we weren’t really surprised. We take it for granted now that the most popular online publications rely on search engine traffic for their survival. We know that, in many cases, “content” sites don’t employ editors to monitor what appears on their pages — and that those editors who are employed are encouraged to blindly approve any headline that name-checks a trending topic or two. Arianna Huffington talks a good talk about the democratization of journalism — but every so often we are reminded of the grimy truth: making money with online content is a question of attracting millions of eyeballs, whatever the moral cost.

An even more grotesque example of this was this week’s Airbnb scandal — the so-called #ransackgate (ugh).

Having been convinced by the company’s mantra of throwing open our doors to the world for monetary reward, a user by the name of “EJ” was shocked when a stranger comprehensively trashed her home. We’ll have to await the outcome of the police investigation to understand what really happened to EJ’s apartment, but what we know for sure is that Airbnb’s immediate, and subsequent, reaction was grotesque in its inhumanity. I’m not talking about the company’s initial apparent unwillingness to pay compensation — I’m talking about the behavior of the (unnamed) co-founder who wrote to EJ and asked her to remove her blog post about the incident, lest it affect the company’s ability to raise millions more dollars. From EJ’s blog…

‘I received a personal call from one of the co-founders of Airbnb. We had a lengthy conversation, in which he indicated having knowledge of the (previously mentioned) person who had been apprehended by the police, but that he could not discuss the details or these previous cases with me, as the investigation was ongoing. He then addressed his concerns about my blog post, and the potentially negative impact it could have on his company's growth and current round of funding. During this call and in messages thereafter, he requested that I shut down the blog altogether or limit its access, and a few weeks later, suggested that I update the blog with a "twist” of good news so as to "complete[s] the story"’.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, we also know for sure that investors in the company leaned on publications like TechCrunch to stop reporting the story. Their ludicrous wail of protest: AIRBNB IS RUN BY NICE GUYS! IT’S NOT FAIR TO CALL THEM OUT WHEN THEY SCREW UP!

The question of whether Airbnb is run by nice guys is irrelevant. For all I know CEO Brian Chesky is a modern day Mother Theresa who had to break off his important work curing kitten cancer to deal with this growing PR nightmare. What’s relevant — and all too obvious — is that good old Brian and his co-founders stand to make millions, if not billions, of dollars from the success of Airbnb. His investors stand to make even more. That kind of wealth can easily drive the most saintly of us to behave in inhuman ways — to become so remote from reality and humanity that users like EJ become (at best) PR problems to be solved and (at worst) irrelevant pieces of data; eyeballs or clicks or room nights to be monitized in the pursuit of an ever greater exit.

And therein lies the real problem of web 2.0 — whether it takes the form of SEO-driven “news” or crowd-sourced accommodation. To make money — real money — at this game you have to attract millions, or tens of millions, of users. And when you’re dealing with those kinds of numbers, it’s literally impossible not to treat your users as pieces of data. It’s ironic, but depressingly unsurprising, that web 2.0 is using faux socialization and democratization to create a world where everyone is reduced to a number on a spreadsheet.

Sarah Lacy has written about how many of the current breed of silicon valley wunderkinds have been conditioned to behave like the movie version of Mark Zuckerberg, eschewing humanity and decency for personal profit and glory. Nothing either she nor I can write will reverse the trend — there’s simply too much money and power at stake. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t loudly call bullshit on those who use words like “disruption” and “revolution” and “democratization” as cynical marketing buzzwords simply to line their own pockets, only to retreat behind the barricades when the going gets rough. And it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t mourn a not-too-distant past where technology entrepreneurs created things to make the world a better or more interesting place, not just because they wanted to make a billion dollars.

And above all, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t remind the current breed of entrepreneurs and investors that, in the final analysis, a billion dollars isn’t actually all that cool. What’s cool is keeping your soul, whatever the financial cost.

A Look Back On Our Mobile First CrunchUp And 6th Annual Summer Party At August Capital

Posted: 30 Jul 2011 04:43 PM PDT

We had a blast yesterday at our Mobile First CrunchUp and 6th Annual Summer Party at August Capital. At our CrunchUp, we had some amazing speakers and special guests. Even Chamillionaire managed to make a certain speaker sweat and started a debate on why Android doesn’t have a decent phone.

Later in the day, the drinks were flowing at August Capital and even Ron Conway was spotted enjoying a margarita or two. Our summer party was a huge success and we want to thank everyone who came. We hope you had as much fun as we did.



Mike Isaac
Annnnd Chamillionaire takes the mic at #crunchup.


Shirley Hornstein
+10 to @ for making sure his kicks match the orange #crunchup after-party bracelets perfectly. Inside information? ;)


Harry McCracken
Kevin Systrom of Instagram says that an Android version is "absolutely" going to happen. #crunchup






Here’s a deeper look at the CrunchUp:

A huge thank you to our sponsors who made this all possible. We couldn’t have done it without you. For more pictures, please check out our Flickr page.



Don’t Be Fooled By Vanity Metrics

Posted: 30 Jul 2011 02:25 PM PDT

Startups love to point to big growth numbers, and the press loves to publish them. We are as guilty as anyone else in this regard: one million downloads, 10 million registered users, 200 million tweets per day. These growth metrics can often be signs of traction (which is why we report them), but just as often they are not. It is important to distinguish between real metrics and what Lean Startup guru Eric Ries calls vanity metrics.

Vanity metrics are things like registered users, downloads, and raw pageviews. They are easily manipulated, and do not necessarily correlate to the numbers that really matter: active users, engagement, the cost of getting new customers, and ultimately revenues and profits. The latter are more actionable metrics. As First Round Capital’s Josh Kopelman recently advised on Founder Office Hours, “The real data is retention and repeat usage.” Startups that focus on the real metrics can make their products better, attract more customers, and make them happier.

It is important for startups to properly instrument the data they track so that they can get a handle on the true health of their business. If they track only the vanity metrics, they can get a false sense of success. Just because a startup can produce a chart that is up and to the right does not mean it has a great business. A mobile apps could have millions of downloads but only a few hundred thousand active users, or a freemium website might see exploding traffic growth but barely any conversions to paying users.

Many startups, of course, track one set of numbers internally and selectively share another set of vanity numbers externally with the press. The worst is when startups try to pitch us with raw growth numbers (we are up 400%), but without any context (400% from what, 1,000 users or 100,000?). We always ask for more meaningful numbers, but those are not always forthcoming.

The vanity metrics aren’t completely useless, just don’t be fooled by them. There are ways to back into real numbers from the vanity metrics. VC Fred Wilson blogged today about his 30/10/10 rule: 30 percent of downloads or registered users are active once a month, 10 percent are active once a day, and 10 percent of the daily users will be the maximum number of concurrent users. These are the patterns he is seeing in his portfolio companies and the startups pitching him.

Startups would be better off, however, reporting real metrics from the start. Vanity metrics can catch up to them, especially if those numbers do not correspond to the real numbers. Facebook is a great example of a company that focuses on the right numbers. Even in its college-only days, it would always talk about daily active users (the users who come back every day) and how fast it took them to take over a particular campus. If more startups would measure and share the right metrics from the start, the rest of us would focus on them too.

Photo credit: Skye Suicide

Gillmor Gang 7.30.11 (TCTV)

Posted: 30 Jul 2011 10:00 AM PDT

The Gillmor Gang — Danny Sullivan, Robert Scoble, Kevin Marks, and Steve Gillmor — covered the gamut between Google+ and well, Google+. The new social platform continues to delight and confound the early adopters in record numbers. @scobleizer remains optimistic that the search giant will roll out filtering features to cut down on the noise of squids, kittens, and well, Scoble comment farms.

@dannysullivan would prefer Google unleash the hounds of celebrity and brands, surprised as he and we are that the Plus team was caught flatfooted by the viral adoption of the field trial, or whatever Danny calls it. When we (Danny and I) started complaining about the lack of iPad support and Robert about the perils of high speed Scoble flow via the iPhone, @kevinmarks pointed out the ANdroid support sucked for tablets in general. All in all, much to look forward to and little or no competition from Facebook for Google to worry about.

Technology + Politics = Facepalm

Posted: 30 Jul 2011 09:59 AM PDT

Oh, how embarrassing. Earlier this week, Elizabeth May, the leader of Canada’s Green Party, took to her Twitter account and declared war on Wi-Fi. To think I very nearly voted for these clowns in our recent election. Lesson for my American friends: just because you find all the major parties unpalatable doesn’t mean that the fringe parties aren’t even worse. Meanwhile, can someone please get an environmental movement going that isn’t anti-science and anti-technology?

Give her credit: she did manage, with rare ability, to hit not just one but all of the “idiot politician talking about science/technology” notes: 1. Moral panic: “It is very disturbing how quickly WiFi has moved into schools as it is children who are the most vulnerable.” 2. Deluded citation of long-disproven theories: “It is one prevailing theory re disappearance of pollinating insects.” 3. Misleading deception that comes this close to outright lying: “The World Health Org lists EMF as a possible human carcinogen.”

Wait, what, the WHO called Wi-Fi possibly carcinogenic? Other so-called environmentalists seem to think so too. But no: it turns out that what they actually said (PDF) is: “The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use.”

The WHO was worried about phones, folks. Not Wi-Fi. And that was in May. Recently, a major study of the subject concluded: Regular users of mobile phones were not statistically significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with brain tumors compared with nonusers … The absence of an exposure–response relationship either in terms of the amount of mobile phone use or by localization of the brain tumor argues against a causal association.

But instead of backing away from her claims, Ms. May went ahead and doubled down on them. Hey, why let irrelevant things like facts and science get in the way of important stuff, like outrage and luddite paranoia?


Jon Evans
I hereby coin Evans's Law: Technology + Politics = Facepalm.

See also: “internets“; “series of tubes“; and the recent trend of Twitter protests, such as #fuckyouwashington and #OpPayPal. To be fair, Jeff Jarvis, who spurred the former, has a thoughtful, nuanced, and to my mind accurate perspective on the subject. But at the same time, it strikes me as exactly the kind of meaningless and inconsequential thing that Malcolm Gladwell was talking about when he pooh-poohed the role of social media in political change.

Now, I ultimately strongly disagree with Gladwell, but protests only matter if they grow into movements. Movements might use hashtags, but a hashtag is not a movement. Did any of the #fuckyouwashington or #OpPayPal tweeters start following each other? Was there any coordination? Or was it just a random and meaningless eruption, telling no one anything they didn’t know already? (“What? Many Americans are angry at Washington? Stop the presses!“) Anonymous claims that #OpPayPal resulted in the closing of 35,000 PayPal accounts. Even assuming that’s true, and that those were all active accounts (which seems unlikely) then their big protest has brought down less than 0.035 of 1% of PayPal’s total accounts. Big whoop.

That equation above cuts both ways, I’m afraid: politicians tend to be idiots about technology, and most techies aren’t very bright about politics. Which is really too bad—because each is thoroughly disrupting and transforming the other, whether they like it or not.

Image credit: Joe Mott, Flickr.

Daily Crunch: Orbs

Posted: 30 Jul 2011 01:00 AM PDT
at 9:39 AM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

My Blog List