tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96989292024-03-13T07:35:05.213-07:00A Wireless Wonk WeblogMark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-42652248689883117332014-02-18T22:31:00.000-08:002014-02-18T22:31:14.218-08:00"In five years, everyone will have one of these.""One of these" is a smart card. A smart card is basically a card (credit, check, ID, medical, membership, etc.) with a computer chip embedded in the plastic. Since the hacking attack on Target's payment card system, "chip and pin" or smart credit cards are back in America's spotlight.<br />
<br />
As for the title of this blog, I made that bold claim in a speech I wrote and delivered around the country in 1985. While it was considered bleeding edge technology, the original smart card patent was issued over a decade earlier to Roland Moreno in 1974. Surely this pre-teen technology phenom would hit the big time by its 16th birthday. At least that is what the smart card industry was promising. I bought into their vision of this brave new world of intelligent identification and financial transactions. By 1987 I was living in Midtown Manhattan and working for the premier smart card company in the United States. At SmartCard International, we were pitching smart card systems to clients from the State of Wisconsin (drivers licensing) to Robert Morris University (student identification) to Visa (credit cards). In 1987, this tweener tech (now 13) was actually easy to manufacture and opportunities were lurking around every corner. Instead of focusing on this established technology, SmartCard International put its development and marketing efforts behind a "super smart card" with an integrated screen and keyboard. The traditional smart card never got the attention it deserved. The super smart card, while brilliant, was just too far ahead of the manufacturing technologies of the day. The super smart card never really saw the light of day and SmartCard International eventually shuttered its doors.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KQxE0u8_vec/UwRLL_YR9gI/AAAAAAAAAIs/uXflxguq2l8/s1600/20140219_000854.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KQxE0u8_vec/UwRLL_YR9gI/AAAAAAAAAIs/uXflxguq2l8/s1600/20140219_000854.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Flash forward to 1990. Our 16 year old technology was now starting to get noticed around the world. While banks were still a bit hesitant to adopt this "technology in search of a problem," the telecommunications industry had taken notice. Outside of the United States, the majority of payphones were now accepting highly decorated and boldly branded debit cards built on smart card technology. While none of the people who saw my speech in 1985 probably had a smart card, the rest of the world was getting closer to realizing my brazen prognostication.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wlr4DI8WhjU/UwRNzF-y8iI/AAAAAAAAAI4/MRqsVb9gRkw/s1600/telecarte.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wlr4DI8WhjU/UwRNzF-y8iI/AAAAAAAAAI4/MRqsVb9gRkw/s1600/telecarte.jpg" height="202" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Flash forward to 1997. We are now a decade removed from my promise of a smart card in everyone's wallet. Sure, the rest of the world has adopted smart pay phone cards and international payment card standards are being finalized. In the United States, only a handful of security applications are using smart cards. At 23 years of age, the smart card looks to be a failed technology in the United States. Or is it. This same year, a number of small cellular companies launched new digital voice service around the United States using GSM technology. A key component of the GSM technology standard was the Subscriber Identification Module or SIM card. While a handful of early GSM phones used credit card sized SIM cards with a computer chip in them, most companies just punched out the piece of the card with the computer chip. The smart card had finally arrived on American shores disguised as a SIM card.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6D2mxnPAdvY/UwRPaaCum2I/AAAAAAAAAJE/5KP1aFQ31fk/s1600/20140219_002819.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6D2mxnPAdvY/UwRPaaCum2I/AAAAAAAAAJE/5KP1aFQ31fk/s1600/20140219_002819.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Flash forward to today. Smart card technology is now 40 years old. This middle aged technology is now in everyone's hand (the SIM card in phones issued by all wireless phone carriers around the world). It is also in the majority of credit cards in Europe, but it is still in only the most elite bank customers wallets in the United States. <br />
<br />
Now that several major retailers have had their payment card files hacked, their is an outcry from security experts to implement the "chip and pin" style payment systems used in Europe here in the States. I have two responses to the whole idea of implementing smart payment card solutions in the United States: finally and no.<br />
<br />
Finally, the American market is seeing the benefits of a technology that I was evangelizing 30 years ago. My ongoing dalliance with smart cards has been a never ending lesson in the adoption of <strike>new</strike> technology. Now that smart cards are just hitting their prime, the United States banking community is ready and willing to spend millions of dollars to update or replace outdated credit card terminals with newer credit card terminals. That leads me to my second response.<br />
<br />
No, we should not replace one outdated technology with another soon-to-be outdated technology. U. S. banks have been testing NFC (Near Field Communications) technologies for years. NFC is the generation after the chip in "chip and pin". There is still a computer chip in your card that encrypts and protects your data. NFC allows the card to communicate with the terminal without physically coming in contact with it. NFC also allows your protected data to be stored in something other than a traditional credit card format. One such alternative format is your smartphone. And the technical world swings full circle, back to a solution that securely stores your financial, identification, or membership data and allows you total access to it through an integrated screen and keyboard.<br />
<br />
If I had the venture capital, I would invest in the following future payment options.<br />
<br />
Coin (onlycoin.com) I would invest in integrating "chip and pin" and NFC capabilities into their existing card concept.<br />
<br />
Isis (paywithisis.com) I would invest in industry standards development for mobile payment solutions.<br />
<br />
Pie in the Sky I would develop a credit card thin card with an interactive flexible touch screen, NFC and "chip and pin" capabilities.<br />
<br />
Today my fear is that in five years we will all be carrying smart cards instead of newer, more secure, and more adaptable payment and identification technologies.<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17363783532889419370noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-1239849150085228392013-01-13T00:12:00.000-08:002013-01-13T00:12:39.783-08:00The proper care and feeding of your cell phone battery.I have been in wireless sales for over 16 years. In all of that time, one of my pet peeves was sales people giving customers bad information about how to get the most life out of their cell phone batteries. I was driven to finally blog about this when I heard some wireless sales people I respect telling customers that they should not "overcharge" their cell phone. The fact is that you can't overcharge a cell phone. I had to write a blog that set the record straight. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Fortunately, I did some research so I could document my knowledge of battery care and feeding. You see, without this research, I would have been just as guilty of misleading you as the sales reps have been guilty of misleading their customers. Let me explain a few key battery care and feeding facts. For the sake of this blog, I am only discussing modern LiIon cell phone batteries that have been the standard for almost a decade.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Can you overcharge a battery? NO. </b>My research supported my understanding on this issue. Modern cell phones include circuitry that shuts down the charging process when a battery reaches full charge. This means that charging your phone overnight is perfectly O.K.. The phone will prevent the battery from "overcharging." I have been charging my phones overnight for years. I have never seen a noticeable decline in battery life because of this.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Can a battery overheat? YES.</b> My research, and personal experience, agree on this issue too. A battery can be damaged and lose life expectancy if it overheats. I have had multiple experiences working in the heat of summer where my tablet or cell phone have actually popped up a message to tell me the device was getting too hot to function properly, and then had the device shut down for its own protection. One way to tell if your battery has suffered its own form of heatstroke is to hold the battery and see if there is any bulging in the battery. Repeated exposure to excessive heat will cause the battery components to break down and expand in the battery case causing it to bulge. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Can a battery be overworked? YES.</b> Here is where my understanding of batteries has been wrong for a long time. I assumed that a battery's life expectancy was the same whether it worked 24/7 or just a few hours a day. I thought a battery had X hours of lifetime use no matter how those X hours were used. I was wrong. This is actually where the overcharging myth comes into play. While you can't overcharge the battery, you can overwork it by having it constantly charging and discharging at the same time. If your phone is powered on and checking your email and listening for calls and doing any of a dozen background operations that are normal for a powered up cell phone, it will be using charge from the battery. If it is plugged in at the same time, it will also be recharging at the same time. Too much simultaneous discharging and recharging will cause more than "normal" wear and tear on a battery. This will reduce a battery's life expectancy faster than normal. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another way to overwork your battery is to run several applications simultaneously for long periods of time. One time I was driving to an appointment several hours away. I had my GPS navigation application running, was streaming a podcast from my phone to my car stereo, and was charging the phone with my car charger, all at the same time. Of course, my phone was also doing its normal duty of listening for phone calls, checking my email, updating my social media notifications with the phone's screen on and bright the whole time. When I stopped for gas along the way, I found out quickly how to tell if your phone is overworked. The phone was hot to the touch. In this case, it was not warm, it was hot. You see, an overworked phone is often an overheated phone. Having this happen once or twice probably won't kill your battery. Doing this frequently certainly will.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
An interesting note on battery life expectancy. During my research I discovered that you can actually extend the life expectancy of your battery by keeping the normal charge level below full, or maximum. A full battery has to work harder to maintain that level of charge than a partially charged battery. The less charge a battery has to maintain the longer the life expectancy of the battery. An example would be a smartphone battery that last a day and a half on a full charge. That battery may go a full year before it starts to lose charging capacity. If that same battery was only charged to 3/4 capacity, and only held enough charge to get through a single day, it may be expected to go for as much as two years before it starts to lose charging capacity.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With this new knowledge, I have a number of <b>recommendations. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>1. Don't "overcharge" your battery. </b>I know that I said this can't happen, but it is easier to say it this way than to explain the science of overworking the battery by charging it for too long. Restrict charging sessions to less than 24 hours at a time.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>2. Keep your battery cool.</b> Don't leave your phone in the sun, or any hot location, for extended periods of time. Heat is your battery's worst enemy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>3. Don't try to keep the battery full at all times. </b> It is better to let the battery run with less charge than more charge. Let the battery run down to 1 bar, or less than 10%, whenever you can.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>4. Don't overwork your battery.</b> If you can, try to limit excessive multitasking on your phone. Also be aware that the display is often the largest consumer of battery life. If you don't need the display on, let it go to sleep to preserve battery health and battery life expectancy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Following these four recommendations will keep your battery healthy, and will keep its life expectancy long and fruitful.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Science geeks will appreciate the following website for more technical information about the science behind proper battery care and feeding.</div>
<div>
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17363783532889419370noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-71729060453493175882010-04-15T09:26:00.000-07:002010-04-15T09:32:22.489-07:00No, its not the cops. Its just my BlackBerry.Have you ever noticed how bright the LED is on a BlackBerry. Have you also noticed that it is almost always blinking. Jump to my most recent post on <a href="http://www.blackberrymotion.com/tips-tricks/whos-bright-idea-was-this/">BlackBerry Motion </a>to learn how to turn off the incessant blinking.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-23567487584851819382010-03-31T20:25:00.000-07:002010-03-31T20:28:10.164-07:00The Mobile Web is Ripe for DisruptionLately, I’ve done a lot of reading about Flash vs. HTML5 on the mobile platform. The issues surrounding this debate are complex and entail technology as well as corporate strategy. The debate is also evolving on an almost daily basis with discussions of battery life, video speeds and resource consumption. I have read all of this knowing that the future of the mobile experience lies in the balance. Then it hit me, for all that this debate is, it may not decide the future of the mobile web after all. Let me explain. <br /><br /><strong>The Past . . . </strong><br /><br />The history books are filled with examples of technologies that outgrew their user’s needs. Internet enabled Refrigerators that connected to our home computer so we could manage our grocery lists never could overcome the simplicity of notepaper and a magnet to do the same task. The supersonic Concorde proved that faster is not always better when it cost significantly more to move noticeably fewer people slightly faster than the new wide-body jets being designed at the same time. My final example can be found a lot closer to home for us in the mobile data industry. Windows Mobile is probably still the most technologically advanced mobile operating system available. In fact, many of the iPhone’s latest achievements and distant dreams (Skype over 3G, streaming media and video calls) premiered on Windows Mobile devices years ago. <br /><br />So, what does this have to do with Flash, HTML5 and the future of mobile browsing? Nothing . . . yet.<br /><br />Internet enabled refrigerators, the Concorde, and Windows Mobile 6 were all seen as technological leaps forward at the time they were introduced. The problem is that the user’s needs did not require these technological improvements in order to be met. The “smart refrigerator” was done in by the status quo; the pen and paper it hoped to replace. The Concorde was done in by failing to understand who their real customer was, the airlines, not the passengers. Windows Mobile was done in by over-engineering when customers wanted a phone that did not require a degree in engineering to operate.<br /><br /><strong>. . . we are doomed to repeat.</strong><br /><br />The Status Quo<br /><br />Outside of the tech savvy people we all tend to hang out with, most users don’t know what they don’t have. Most phones have a YouTube player, can stream media from many sources and have thousands of games to choose from. While Flash and HTML5 will make life easier for the developers, no one has created the need in the customer’s mind yet.<br /><br />The Real Customer<br /><br />The answer to this is still a bit foggy to me, which is why I worry. Who is Flash and HTML5 aimed at in the mobile ecosystem? I can see them making life easier for developers, yet the lack of platform standards (Apple vs. Adobe) is seriously undercutting this advantage. They should help manufacturers and carriers deliver more value, but so far neither has told the consumers what that added value will be. As stated in The Status Quo, no one has even begun to sell this to the end-user, so it is hard to believe that they are even being considered as potential customers.<br /><br />Over-engineering<br /><br />Lastly, I am faced with the question of advancement versus necessity. While I have not seen a single survey, study or report that says that the end-users want Flash or HTML5, they seem to be interested in a richer and faster web experience on their phones. The more I think about this, the more I think that Henry Ford’s approach to technological advancement is right. "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse." I’m afraid that a “richer” media experience may be the mobile web’s equivalent to a faster horse.<br /><br /><strong>The Future</strong><br /><br />If Flash and HTML5 are indeed the faster horse, who is going to invent the car? Harvard business professor, Clayton Christensen points out that truly innovative products enter the market from beneath the entrenched products. Mini computers aren’t as powerful as mainframe computers; PCs aren’t as powerful as minis; laptops aren’t as powerful as PCs and smartphones aren’t as powerful as laptops. Yet, each of these evolutionary steps in computing displaced its predecessor. Why? Because convenience trumps power in the mass market. Today, Smartphones are the number one selling computing device around the world because they are more convenient for everyday tasks, not because they are more powerful. I think web developers and designers should keep this in mind as they plan for the future of mobile browsing. While there will always be a fraction of every industry that continues to push the technological envelope, consumers will eventually opt for convenience over power. If you don’t believe me, let’s return to the example set by Windows Mobile. Windows Mobile was the pre-eminent mobile platform for a decade. Every new model had a faster processor, better screen resolution, more features and more applications. Yet, as the platform evolved, it got bloated with features and functions that consumers didn’t need, or worse, got in the way of a convenient mobile experience. <br /><br />I can’t say that Flash and HTML5 will be the beginning of the end for the mobile web. I won’t know that for many years. What I can tell you is that the time is right for someone to disrupt the relatively consistent evolution of the mobile web experience. While technological advancement requires us to look forward, survival does require us to look over our shoulder every now and then.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-36332804271744338562010-03-31T19:22:00.000-07:002010-03-31T19:27:19.532-07:00“Gmail vs. Gmail” on a BlackBerryCheck out <a href="http://www.blackberrymotion.com/applications/%e2%80%9cgmail-vs-gmail%e2%80%9d-on-a-blackberry/">my comparison of Gmail on the BlackBerry to Gmail on the BlackBerry </a>on Monica Simons' BlackBerry Motion website. <br /><br />If you have to ask, you have to click through to find out for yourself.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-6709453786034204652010-03-31T19:14:00.000-07:002010-03-31T19:22:06.190-07:00The Past, Present, and Future of Flash on MobileCheck out my <a href="http://www.digitalfamily.com/mobilewebdesign/2010/03/the-past-present-and-future-of-flash-on-mobile/">report on Flash in the mobile environment</a> on, author and international speaker, Janine Warner's Mobile Web Design Blog.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-51917867447867419382010-01-14T20:08:00.000-08:002010-01-14T20:12:14.943-08:00Options for the Verizon BlackBerry Bing applicationVerizon BlackBerry users discovered a little something extra in their phones this December. Verizon added an icon for Microsoft’s Bing application. For some users, this is an extra treat, for others it is the technical equivalent to a lump of coal. If you fall into the first group, you can stop reading now and enjoy Microsoft’s reasonable attempt to match Google in the mobile app space. If, on the other hand, you feel blindly assaulted by Verizon and Microsoft for forcing this application upon your pristinely configured device, there are options. <br /><br />First, let me tell you that the Bing icon is not an application, so you cannot uninstall it like an application. Think of the icon as a placeholder. It is just like many of the other icons that are pre-installed when you power up your BlackBerry for the first time (V Cast Videos, V Cast Music, VZW Tones, Visual Voice Mail, etc.). Clicking on the Bing icon actually launches a website from which you can install the Bing application. With this in mind, here are three options for dealing with the Bing icon.<br /><br />1) Delete the Bing VPL service book. Go to Options / Advanced Options / Service Books. Highlight the Bing VPL service book, press Menu and select delete. This will remove the Bing icon from your device. While this sounds like a simple solution, it is not a onetime task. The Bing service book is re-installed whenever the device reloads service books. Service books are reloaded as part of creating a new BlackBerry Internet Service email account as well as whenever the phone is reset (taking the battery out without powering down the phone first). For some users, the Bing VPL service book may never reappear, for others it may turn up again and again. <br /><br />2) Hide the Bing icon. While this doesn’t remove the icon from your phone, it does place it out of site. To do this, highlight the Bing icon, press Menu and select Hide. The icon has now been hidden from view. You can unhide the icon by going to the home screen, pressing Menu and selecting Show All. Highlight the Bing icon, press Menu again and select Hide to uncheck that option. Press Menu again and select Show All to uncheck that option if necessary.<br /><br />3) Lastly, you can just leave the Bing icon on the screen. It doesn’t take up much memory if you don’t install the application. It is just another icon on your Home Screen.<br /><br />While some users see the Bing icon as an invasion of their BlackBerry’s Home Screen, it really is no different than the V Cast and VZW apps that come pre-installed. In this case, I guess it is more accurate to consider Bing a post-installed icon.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-86837110408544216082010-01-11T08:14:00.000-08:002010-01-11T08:22:20.654-08:00GSM encryption code cracked wide open, leaked to the InternetThis is the headline to Boy Genius Report’s (BGR’s) article regarding a group of 5 hackers that claim to have cracked a 64 bit GSM encryption scheme. While their headline implied doom and gloom for security engineers around the world, the content of the article is more reasoned and accurate. According to BGR, “it is important to point out that the GSM algorithm that was cracked was the older and less secure 64-bit A5/1 algorithm, not the newer 128-bit A5/3 algorithm.” Other news sources also report that the cracked codes still require thousands of dollars of computer and radio equipment to access the wireless conversations they want to compromise. What is left out of the article is actually more important than what is said. Let’s cover what BGR did not.<br /><br />The 64-bit A5/1 algorithm is only used to scramble voice conversations on older GSM equipment. This means that:<br /><br />Good News<br />1) Your data transmissions are not impacted by this development.<br />2) Calls made with a 3G capable phone over a 3G connection are not impacted.<br />3) According to some sources, T-Mobile has converted its entire network to the newer encryption algorithm. <br />4) The same sources claim that AT&T has converted part, but not all, of its network to the newer encryption algorithm. <br />5) There are 3 pillars to information security. The pillar that this development impacts is Access, or the ability to listen to a voice conversation. It doesn’t impact Integrity or Identification. This means that no one can make phone calls or data transmissions posing as you. This also means that no one can alter your voice or data transmission.<br /><br />Bad News<br />1) Because newer network equipment is designed to work with older handsets, even the latest in network equipment will accept the older algorithm. This means that any GSM user with an older handset (manufactured before 2007) may still be susceptible to eavesdropping even if the carrier (T-Mobile, AT&T, etc.) has upgraded the encryption algorithm in that area of their network.<br /><br />In a nutshell, only very sophisticated and well funded criminal organizations will have the means to eavesdrop on your calls. Even if they try, they need to be very close to you to intercept your radio signal. They may need to be within feet of you in some buildings to within miles in some rural areas. They also need to catch you while your call is being handled by an older AT&T cellular site or they need to catch you while you are using an older model phone. Lastly, your conversation needs to be of such value that a very sophisticated and well funded criminal organization would want to go through all of the trouble we have outlined in order to listen in. If you regularly partake in these kinds of conversations, I would suggest you look into buying a TalkSecure Wireless phone from General Dynamics (http://www.gdc4s.com/content/detail.cfm?item=90bdc199-8775-4439-9b83-c021dc7e9e76) it runs your conversation through another 128-bit encryption algorithm on top of the one used by the carrier. <br /><br />If you don’t partake in these kinds of conversations, I really wouldn’t worry about it.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-40064393155751278862010-01-06T12:12:00.000-08:002010-01-06T12:16:57.910-08:00T-Mobile 3G users get an upgrade for 2010According to PhoneScoop:<br /><br />"Today (January 5, 2010) T-Mobile announced that it has upgraded its entire 3G network to HSPA 7.2Mbps (peak speeds). That's an improvement from 3.6Mbps, and should allow for faster wireless downloads. T-Mobile also pointed out that its 3G footprint now covers some 200 million Americans. T-Mobile also said that it plans to be the first U.S. carrier to deploy HSPA+ across its network by mid 2010. T-Mobile currently has an HSPA+ trial under way in Philadelphia. Once fully enabled, HSPA+ will offer up to 21Mbps downloads."<br /><br />This is great news for many of T-Mobile’s 3G subscribers, but not all of them. While the network supports the higher speeds, some T-Mobile 3G handsets do not. Here is the list of T-Mobile’s 3G handsets and their supported network throughput.<br /><br /><strong>HSPA 7.2 (High Speed Packet Access)</strong><br />T-Mobile Dash 3G<br />T-Mobile G1<br />T-Mobile myTouch 3G<br />HTC Touch Pro2<br />Motorola CLIQ<br />Sidekick LX 2009<br />T-Mobile webConnect<br />T-Mobile webConnect Jet<br />These devices can download data at speeds up to 7.2Mbps and upload at up to 1.8Mbps. In all honesty, these speeds are theoretical. Real world performance will be slightly slower. Other HSPA 7.2 networks are seeing roughly 3Mbps download speeds and 1Mbps upload speeds in real world usage. At 3Mbps, it would take 8 seconds to download a 3 MB file, or the equivalent of a 3 minute MP3 track.<br /><br /><strong>HSDPA 3.6 (High Speed Download Packet Access)</strong>T-Mobile Tap <br />BlackBerry Bold 9700<br />Samsung Behold II<br />Samsung Comeback<br />Samsung Gravity 2<br />Samsung Highlight<br />Samsung Memoir<br />Samsung t659 <br />Sony Ericsson Eqiunox<br />These phones can download data at speeds up to 3.6Mbps and upload at up to 384Kbps. As with HSPA, these speeds are theoretical. Real world performance will be in the neighborhood of 1Mbps download and 100Kbps upload. At 1Mbps, it would take 24 seconds to download a 3 MB file, or the equivalent of a 3 minute MP3 track.<br /><br /><strong>UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System)</strong>Samsung t639 <br />Samsung t819 <br />Samsung Behold<br />Nokia 3711<br />The theoretical speeds for early 3G devices using UMTS are 384Kbps for the uplink and downlink. Most UMTS users are seeing speeds in the area of 100Kbps. At 100Kbps, it would take 4 minutes to download a 3 MB file, or the equivalent of a 3 minute MP3 track.<br /><br />NOTE: Operating systems, processor speeds, and even display components can impact the apparent speed of any wireless device. Don’t think that your BlackBerry Bold 9700 is outdated or slow because other devices move data through the air faster than yours. Use these numbers to compare Beholds to Behold IIs or T-Mobile’s HTC Touch Pro2 (at 7.2Mbps maximum) to Verizon’s Touch Pro2 (at 3.1Mbps maximum). As Albert Einstein (or the punk band Cigar) would point out, speed is relative.<br /><br />Happy new year T-Mobile 3G subscribers!Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-37374683095693451802009-04-20T21:49:00.000-07:002009-04-20T23:01:51.759-07:00Twitter is the 21st century's CB radioI have never felt that Twitter has that "aha!" feel that one blogger claims is ever-present with successful new technologies. I have always felt that Twitter was destined to be a very successful, but short lived, fad, just like . . . I could never figure that last part out. I have even twittered my thoughts about Twitter's eventual demise, but without the analog to its failure.<br /><br />Then it hit me a couple days ago. Twitter is the 21st century equivalent of the 20th century's CB radio. Let me illustrate.<br /><br />CB radios were the tools of over the road truckers. They allowed them to stay connected with their peers where other communication methods were inefficient, or non-existent. The CB was the domain of a small group of people who's business depended on it.<br /><br />Twitter has always been intended for any user to post short comments about whatever they wish. Twitter did not have a small targeted audience like the CB radio.<br /><br />As CB radios gained in popularity, more and more users from outside the trucking industry began using CB radios to talk to each other about nothing important. Sure, you would hear about the occasional speed trap if you were monitoring truckers on the highway, but there wasn't much riveting or valuable content on the CB for the regular citizen. Yet the lack of content couldn't counter the influences of C. W. McCall and B.J. and the Bear in the mass popularization of the CB radio.<br /><br />While Twitter was always intended to be a mass market service, the popularity of Twitter mirrors the CB in the way that the media has driven its popularity more than the service itself. Twitter milestones like Ashton Kutcher's million followers, Shaq's mid-game tweets and U.S. Representatives who were caught twittering during the President's State of the Nation address, brought enormous exposure to the service. Twitter is now as overpopulated as CB radio channels were in the 1970's. Old boomers like me may remember when CB radio's went from 23 channels to 40. <br /><br />So both services started small, had explosive growth because of the media and became overpopulated with "chatter". More evidence of the parallels of the two technologies can be found in their creation of community.<br /><br />Many sociologist will look to a unique language when defining a community. CB radio users had slang and 10-codes. Twitter users have their own shorthand and hash codes. CB radio users were identified by their "handles" while Twitter users are also identified by their "handles" or "aliases".<br /><br />Where most of the CB's public traffic flowed over channel 19, groups of friends would avoid the chatter on lesser used channels. This would be similar to creating a friends list in Twitter and only following them.<br /><br />So, there is a lot of common ground under the CB radio craze and Twitter's recent popularity surge. Are they destined for the same fate? I believe so, and that is not a bad thing in my mind. The public got tired of listening to kids constantly breaking in on the CB with "What's your 20?" As for Twitter, I am already hearing from regular citizens and many news outlets that they don't care that the neighbor kid sneezed or what Shaq had for breakfast. I give Twitter 3 to 6 more months before the chatter causes the popularity to plateau. Twitter will remain relevant in the mainstream while celebrities continue to broadcast their lives to their fanatics (yes, fan is short for fanatics). As celebrities move on to some other fad, which always happens, so too will the everyday user of Twitter.<br /><br />The good news is that like the CB, the user base will shrink but the content value will rise. Twitter may return to its original roots as a micro-blogging service with valuable content worth sifting through. Only time will tell.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-18059466799153650912009-04-16T18:15:00.000-07:002010-04-17T20:44:44.468-07:00WiMax, Femtocells and WiFi on cell phones: Three ships that will collide in the night<!-- Converted from text/plain format --> <P><FONT SIZE=2>All three of these technologies are reaching new levels of maturity. Verizon is publicly considering adding WiFi to its handsets while its competitors have been doing this for years. The GSM community has finally approved 3G femtocell standards that will allow consumers and small businesses to improve cellular coverage in their homes and offices. The Federal stimulus package has billions of dollars earmarked for bringing broadband internet to under-served communities.<BR> <BR> While the mainstream media is certainly confused about how each of these technologies address their needs, it often appears that the industry is just as confused. Appearances can be deceiving. I believe that the industry's perceived confusion is actually more pragmatic. I think we are at a point where 3 similar technologies have multiple paths to commercialization. Some of the paths are obvious while others are speculative. Some of the paths lead to competition while others are uniquely suited for just one technology. Let's look at a number of the paths open to these 3 technologies.<BR> <BR> Rural broadband is an example of a path specifically suited to WiMax technology. Neither WiFi nor femtocells support the coverage needs of rural broadband. Craig McCaw, the visionary that he is, saw this opportunity several years ago. Notice that Clearwire, founded by McCaw, focused on moderately populated communities before its partnership with Sprint. Clearwire's work in the Inuit communities in Canada's northern provinces is an excellent example of McCaw's vision of empowering under-served communities with broadband internet. While this should be a strong growth opportunity for Clearwire, I fear that Sprint's involvement could jeopardize this. Partnering with Sprint is often akin to casting Ted McGinley in your sitcom. Many companies that have partnered with Sprint have suffered setbacks as a result. Sprint partnered with several cable companies in the 1990's to enter the digital cellular revolution. While Sprint flourished in this new market, its cable partners found wireless to be an expensive distraction from their core businesses and quickly exited their partnerships. The merger with Nextel is another example of unfulfilled promise. Sprint's initial launch of Clear in Baltimore illustrates a dangerous diversion from Clearwire's original business model.<BR> <BR> An example of a truly competitive path is indoor coverage enhancement. T-Mobile really pioneered this space with the launch of their HotSpot@Home service in June of 2007. This service took advantage of WiFi on specific handsets, public WiFi hotspots and the customer's own WiFi network to provide enhanced coverage and reduced rate plan cost to the customer. Verizon launched a competitive service using a femtocell in place of a WiFi hotspot. This is definitely an example where 2 of the technologies compete head to head.<BR> <BR> Sprint's announcement that it will use WiMax to provide 4th generation wireless services plots a collision course with femtocells and WiFi. While femtocells and WiFi provide increased coverage, increased data speeds are also a benefit of both technologies. Where WiMax as a cellular evolution path becomes interesting is how Sprint would handle indoor ceverage expansion. Would they deploy WiMax femtocells? Would they allow WiFi onto their WiMax products in order to expand coverage? Or, will they rely on 3G femtocells to fill the indoor coverage gaps? This is the technology collision I am watching for like an avid NASCAR fan on a hot Sunday at Darlington.<BR> <BR> Other paths to watch are muni-WiFi, or the use of many WiFi hotspots to cover a large municipal area. There is speculation that cellular companies may use WiMax to transmit data from remote cell sites to their central switching office. It is conceivable that your next cell phone will use WiFi when you are at work, a femtocell at home and WiMax to jump from the carrier's tower to their central office at other times. Regardless of the technology moves that have, and will continue to take place. Real long term success for each of these technologies lies in their stealth. As long as the customer can make and receive phone calls, get their e-mail, surf the web and do whatever other data tasks they find important, they will not care if the network is WiFi, WiMax or Mad Max. My vision of a telecom utopia is that all of these technologies will find their profitable niches and enable new and exciting services for customers. More importantly, the customer will have no knowledge of the network, and will never need to know. I am looking forward to a day when CDMA vs. GSM, or WiMax vs. WiFi is replaced with ubiquitous wireless coverage . . . Period.<BR> </FONT> </P>Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-39411524058384639642009-04-10T10:56:00.000-07:002009-04-10T11:56:30.459-07:00Let the mVoIP (mobile Voice over IP) evolution begin!Yes, I said EVOLUTION, not revolution. <br /><br />Skype announced the launch of their VoIP program for the iPhone and will do the same for RIM's BlackBerry in May. Well the media got a wiff of that one and immediately realized that voice communication will never be the same. They are right, but only missed the revolution by almost 2 years.<br /><br />For those who follow me here, or know me, the following sentence is a bit of an understatement. I have more than a few cell phones that I can use on a daily basis. I tell you this because all but a couple are capable of doing mobile Voice of Internet Protocol (mVoIP).<br /><br />My two year old Nokia N95 has a built in SIP client (mVoIP program) and works with any SIP enabled VoIP solution. I have it configured with a hosted VoIP provider here in Minnesota and can make calls over WiFi or cellular networks. My N95 has been replaced with a newer Nokia E71 that can do all of the mVoIP stuff the N95 could do in a much cooler package.<br /><br />My first mobile use of Skype was 5 years ago when it was introduced for Windows Mobile. Today I have Skype loaded on my Windows Mobile AT&T Tilt and my iPhone 3G. The iPhone version is smooth, but I prefer the Tilt since I can use it over AT&T's cellular network, which means I can use it wherever I go. I may be at the launch of the BlackBerry version, and plan to load and test it as soon as it is out. <br /><br />So the media is getting all excited today about a phenomena that started almost 5 years ago. While mVoIP got its start in 2004, I contend that the revolution really started to roll in 2008 when T-Mobile launched their HotSpot@Home service. There are a few reasons I believe that T-Mobile's @Home service is the real revolution.<br /><br />The media is focusing on Apple's unwillingness to open Skype to the cellular network. They are spewing unsubstantiated claims that the carriers are affraid of mVoIP because it will hurt their business. "mVoIP is going to kill voice revenue." Of course mVoIP will have a negative impact on voice revenue. This is no different than digital networks having a negative impact on the old analog networks. Heck, even cars had a negative impact on stable (horse stables) revenues. That's progress. That's opportunity. @Home is revolutionary because a national wireless carrier launched it for businesses and consumers. While the media blares the demise of the cellular industry because of mVoIP, some in the industry have already responded. T-Mobile recognized that mVoIP is not a threat, it is an opportunity to capture new business. Sure it may negatively impact voice revenue, but it is driving up T-Mobile's data revenue at the same time. It also has reduced T-Mobile's need to build expensive towers to fill in coverage in very small areas.<br /><br />@Home is also revolutionary because of the lasting impact it will have. While the iPhone 3G was garnering all of the press attention, @Home's launch wasn't even greeted with the chirps of crickets. Because of the noticable lack of coverage for @Home's launch, future historian's are going to have bad days trying to explaine the fundamental shift in telecommunications it ushered in. While the iPhone represented some very innovative technologies and implimentations that garnered it well earned recognition, I contend that handsets will see many more shifts like this one in the future. The recognition that voice is just more bits of data on the cellular network and that treating voice as data can be monetized by a wireless carrier is a shift that will not be undone. Touch screen interfaces were around before the iPhone and will be long after the iPhone as well. As carriers move voice traffic into the realm of mobile data, they will not go back to the old archaic methods of moving voice anymore than they will bring back the analog networks of the late 80's.<br /><br />The revolution started almost 5 years ago when Skype gave Windows Mobile users an alternative to traditional voice calls. Nokia advanced the revolution when it built another mVoIP capability into its handsets. And T-Mobile showed the rest of the telecom industry that the challenge can be met, and advanced if you take control of it yourself and not let the technology control you.<br /><br />Apple, welcome to the revolution!Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-48703713917780057582009-04-08T21:09:00.001-07:002009-04-08T21:28:40.081-07:00The Developer Debate About App StoresThere is an an interesting debate going on in the mobile developer community regarding the app stores for the different mobile platforms. Most of the discussions revolve around how many customers the sites have, or will have, and the quality of the apps on the sites. I don't think those issues address the real question that developers should be asking: <br /><br />Where is the user for MY application? <br /><br />Sure the iPhone App Store has more current subscribers, and the BlackBerry App World probably won't catch up for a while. It is also true that an application may stand out more in the BlackBerry App World with fewer fart and beer applications to compete with. To me, the real question is: Where is MY user? If my application is designed to track international travel expenses, I will probably start with a BlackBerry application. If I have an application that uses an accelerometer to enhance a game of rock/paper/scissors, I'll probably start with an iPhone application. <br /><br />But there are many other criteria to consider:<br /><br />BlackBerries and iPhones are not available in all of the same countries. If I have a language translation application, is the platform I am programming for even available in countries that speak that language? <br /><br />While there are legitimate concerns about deploying apps over the air in a BlackBerry enterprise environment, the same scenario can play in a developer's favor. More than once I have pointed large corporations at developers who wrote applications that could be managed remotely. BlackBerry supports remote management, iPhone (currently) does not. <br />(Note: All BlackBerry Enterprise Server customers can manage remote applications to a very, very granular level. My large corporate BES customers allow their users to install applications over-the-air, but they block or disable PIM (calendar, contacts, tasks, etc.) access within those applications. This means that users can download games or any other application that doesn't hook into the PIM. An application like Google Maps for Mobile will still run, but it won't give you a "map this contact" option in the Address Book.)<br /><br />Who is my prospective customer? If the customer is in government, legal or finance, I will probably start on the BlackBerry. If the customer is in marketing, the arts or design, I will probably go with the iPhone. BUT WAIT, some of the best application successes came from going against the normal use of the platform. VisiCalc on the Apple ][, adding voice calls to a text pager (BlackBerry 5810), VoIP over cellular (O.K., this example will prove out in 3 to 5 years). A "business app" that makes legitimate use of an accelerometer (no gimmicks) could create new market<br />penetration for the iPhone. <br /><br />Also remember that you are not developing for the storefront, you are developing for the customer. In Apple's case, you have one distribution venue. In RIM's case, you don't have to distribute through the App World, you could partner with an organization and distribute directly. Sell a real estate application through your local realty company or an MLS. Some customers may not want a custom application of theirs available to the public in an app store.<br /><br />I'm sure that you are all aware of all of these considerations. I just wanted to make sure that more important project development factors don't get pushed too far out of frame: <strong>the customer </strong>and <strong>the application </strong>itself.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-9945389246298917912009-03-20T18:19:00.000-07:002009-03-20T19:32:57.726-07:00In search of mobile advertisingHave you noticed that the <a href="http://adage.com/article?article_id=110315">advertising</a>, <a href="http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/commentary/quattro-wireless-mobile-advertising-0318/?cid=hcom">mobile</a>, and even <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031101144.html">mainstream</a> media is going ga-ga over mobile advertising? So where are the banners for mobile websites?<br /><br />I am trying to launch a mobile site with advertising and I am finding more road blocks than green lights. First, many existing ads on mobile sites actually point at big browser ads. This is O.K. for some mobiles, but not all of them. While all BlackBerries can display these pages beautifully, many BlackBerries are shipped with all of the requisite settings turned off. This means that the average BlackBerry user misses out on a real web experience because someone thought it was better to browse badly formatted sites fast than it is to browse a real site the way it was designed. On the other hand, Google will only provide mobile banners if you format your page exclusively for mobile browsers. Believe it or not, that means that your site won't work on some mobile browsers as well. Apple's iPhone can render a big browser page as good as any mobile device. Unfortunately it chokes on websites designed with WAP 2.0 which is the preferred platform for Google's mobile ad program. Google's own Android also looks down upon mobile formatted sites thinking that their 3" screen can substitute just fine for the 20" you have on your desk. Yea, yea, the battle between two apparent mobile web development camps; mobile formatted content and big pages on little screens, means that neither philosophy works for everyone. <br /><br />With that in mind, I designed my page with basic HTML formatting so that it looks good on any screen, big or small. The problem is that because the page was written in HTML, I can't find an ad affiliate that will provide links that point at mobile ads. O.K., I am embellishing here. There is one affiliate program that supports, O.K., they promote, their mobile ad program. Here is an excerpt from their website:<br /><br /><blockquote>"To help publishers stay on the cutting edge of shopping trends --------- now offers Mobile Links. Designed for those publishers that want to work with certain advertisers to create tracking links for mobile devices, --------- Mobile Links provides an easy to use technology framework for distributing and maintaining m-commerce links. ---------'s m-commerce tracking technology enables advertisers and publishers to reach and accurately measure the buying behavior of mobile consumers."</blockquote><br /><br />Wow, that is EXACTLY what I was looking for. I registered on their site, read their required exceedingly long publisher's agreement, and began to search for links. There was nothing for mobile. I went back to the website and found this:<br /><br /><blockquote>"If you are a publisher that’s interested in building a site that is designed for mobile commerce and would benefit from --------- Mobile Links join the --------- Network to get started and share your plans with the --------- Network Development team."</blockquote><br /><br />There is no information on their site about their Network Development team, let alone how to contact them, so I called the publisher's support line. The rep was friendly, but told me that there was no way for me to contact them. She would take my information and have someone get back to me. Here is the response I got:<br /><br /><blockquote>"If your mobile web page can be accessed with a normal web browser you can use any --------- links or banners. If it is exclusively formatted for mobile phone web browsers, the only advertiser that currently offers these links is 1-800-Flowers.com." </blockquote><br /><br />One advertiser! One! Boy that's going to help me stay on the cutting edge. <br /><br />So my search continues. I have a friend who recommended that I write a case study on finding mobile banners. The more I hunt, the more I think it will become a business plan.<br /><br />If you provide an affiliate program with mobile banners, or know someone who does, I will happily sing your/their praises in this blog. I'll even give you/them as prominent a spot on the site as I am allowed to by contract.<br /><br />SO, with this advertising drought, I may actually launch this page as a free app on an international mobile app store with NO advertising. Watch this blog for more adventures in mobile advertising.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-76384366271056670832009-03-16T20:26:00.000-07:002009-03-16T22:11:42.676-07:00A dose of reality to go with 4G marketingMy brother-in-law recently referred me to an article that spoke about 4G having speeds up to 300Mbps. I can assure you that these are fantasy numbers. Then again, anything you read today about LTE or WiMAX Mobile will usually give you engineering numbers, or marketing's translation of engineering numbers, which is usually the same as "theoretical", or "no way in hell you are going to see those speeds in real life."<br /><br />I'll give you real world data based on my direct experience with the GSM Alliance Services Working Group and current LTE standards.<br /><br />To understand the difference between theoretical and actual data rates you need to consider 3 variables:<br /><br /><strong>Terminal Class </strong>- There are 5 terminal classes. Terminal Classes range from Voice Only to Peak Data Rate devices. I do not know of any Voice Only or Data Only devices. PC Cards/modems are the only possible example of Data Only, but most of them could support voice anyway because the radio equipment the manufacturers buy is cheaper with voice and data than with data only. GPRS (2G) and EDGE (2.5G) can do voice or data, but only one at a time. If I am downloading a file and get a call, the data session is suspended until the voice call is completed. GSM 3G is the only current technology that supports simultaneous voice and data over the cellular network. If your phone is generating a voice call on the network, it is taking up space that could be used by the data session on the same phone. This means that data is a bit slower when being used simultaneously with a voice call. This is one reason GSM carriers like to put WiFi radios in their 2.5G phones. WiFi is a completely separate radio, so a phone call and a WiFi session can coexist without any loss of performance on either service. If you have a smartphone with WiFi, try to surf the web and make a voice call at the same time. It is cool, and will help promote bluetooth headsets so you can surf and talk at the same time comfortably.<br /><br /><strong>Timeslots (GPRS) or Spectrum Efficiency (3G/4G)</strong> - In my standards days, the cellular channels were subdivided into 8 timeslots. Think of these as 8 lanes of traffic on the freeway. The engineers would publish potential data speeds using all 8 timeslots. It made the numbers very impressive, but it was unrealistic for several reasons.<br /><br />1) It was foolish to assume that you wouldn't have voice traffic on the same channel/freeway. Cellular networks have always been designed to give voice calls priority over data, therefore data never could have had unlimited access to all 8 lanes.<br /><br />2) A radio that transmitted and/or received on 8 timeslots simultaneously would chew up and spit out a fully charged battery in a couple hours. It would also generate enough heat to melt the plastics in the phone. The fastest devices in that day used only five timeslots at one time, usually 4 downloading and one uploading.<br /><br />Today 3G/4G uses spectrum efficiency to judge peak data rates. The current 4G peak data rate forecasts are based on 20MHz of radio spectrum. Translated into English, this means that the data device will need to use the entire width of the highway in order to move that much data in so little time. Try downloading a song on your iPhone 3G near a freeway at evening rush hour. It will be SLOW. Try the same download at 2 in the morning and it will zip unencumbered by voice or other data traffic. Since other data traffic does play a factor, a geek trade show will cause your phone to lag where a dog show may not.<br /><br />As with GPRS, it is unrealistic to give a single user the right to hog all of the width of the highway so they can move more data while everyone else is waiting on an on-ramp for their turn at the data network. Now, LTE standards are written to give 4G data devices access to the whole width of the road, but I expect that this will only play out in the overnight hours and/or in the early stages when 4G traffic is scarce on the new networks.<br /><br /><strong>Forward Error Correction (FEC)</strong> - Gizmodo alluded to this. Basically, if the connection is strong and clean, the phone and network can use less space for error correction algorithms. When the data connection is weak and dirty, the phone and network actually use more space to keep the data clean than they do for the data itself. The engineers do all of their preliminary data modeling in a lab, so their results tend to be based on very clean, very strong data connections. The real world ain't so kind.<br /><br />A fourth consideration that most people overlook is <strong>backhaul</strong>. Backhaul refers to the amount of bandwidth the carrier has between their towers and their switch. Often times, the backhaul is less than the capacity of the radios on the tower. This means that even though the radios could handle dozens of simultaneous data sessions at a high throughput, the backbone can only support 2/3 or even 1/2 of that. The reason is mainly economics. Most backhaul from a tower is done over another company's lines. It is just plain expensive to buy enough bandwidth to support all the calls that may hit someday, so they budget for normal traffic and let peak traffic suffer. Many people who know the tech behind the networks believe this was the real cause of the iPhone network troubles in the early days. They just didn't have enough pipe to move the amount of data iPhone users were demanding.<br /><br />Again, the biggest difference is that 3G uses the open space between phone calls on the network, where GPRS used dedicated timeslots. GPRS had a theoretical limit of over 170kbps, but the reality was usually about 30kbps. The newest 3G technology (HSPA) has a theoretical download of over 17Mbps, but performs at about 1Mbps to 1.4Mbps. The LTE standards list a theoretical peak downlink data rate of over 300Mbps, but AT&T is touting a theoretical LTE speed of 100Mbps and an expected real world performance of 10Mbps.<br /><br />I realize that these numbers put a damper on a lot of the grandiose marketing messages and cool new broadband applications that the wireless companies are promising, but until LTE hits the street, all of the numbers are theoretical. I expect LTE to hit the street at 10Mbps, but improve over the subsequent years to around 100Mpbs.<br /><br />And, so you don't worry about this merry-go-round ride coming to a stop, LTE Advanced standards are already in development.<br /><br />Phones will always get faster, but rarely as fast as the wireless evangelists promise as quick as they promise it.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-85339548092531787502009-02-03T14:56:00.000-08:002009-02-03T15:35:38.520-08:00Carrier's and Manufacturers Just Don't Get It!!!As I was preparing some notes for a case study I am contributing too, I decided to review some of the cellular carrier and cellular manufacturer mobile sites. Not thinking, I tried to hit up AT&T from a T-Mobile device. I got the full desktop page, not a mobile page. Then it hit me, I always access the manufacturer's sites from their devices, and low and behold I get a mobile formatted site. The same is true for the carriers. When I bring up a specific carrier on that carrier's phone, I get the mobile page. When I try to pull up a carrier site from a competitor's phone, I get the full desktop page. In fact, if I tried to get to T-Mobile's page form a competitor's BlackBerry, I got an error message stating that the site was incompatible with my device.<br /><br />With over 265 million mobile users in the U.S., you would think that the carriers and manufacturers would try to make information a little bit more accessable to people looking to switch. <br /><br />Carriers and manufacturers: build mobile sites that not only give mobile users access to the story that would make them switch, but take it a step further and customize the message based on the browser and the carrier that brought them to you. If I hit AT&T from a T-Mobile BlackBerry, I should get a page that sings the praises of the BlackBerry Bold and it's 3G network. If I hit HTC from a Palm Treo, they should be shouting out the benefits of Windows Mobile or Android (depending on who is subsidizing the website that month).<br /><br />There aren't many new customers out there. Its time to start marketing to your competitor's customers where they are, on their phone.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-3801611435840978242009-01-16T21:00:00.000-08:002009-01-16T21:26:29.261-08:00CNBC sports reporter claims BlackBerry Bold tv ad is innacurateDarren Rovell of CNBC went on a rant about how "idiotic" and "careless" RIM was for showing a commercial where the runner exceeds the world record pace for the race he is supposedly running. O.K., so Darren is obviously a track and field uber-geek. I get it, I do. I comment to people about the absolutely ridiculous things that advertisements have people doing with their cell phones. Here is where Darren and I differ. I get it, it's called advertising, not documentary. I observe the embellishments, but I don't call out the advertiser for using exaggeration to market their product. Darren did. <br /><br />So I called Darren out with an e-mail. To his credit, he reprinted it with a couple others at http://www.cnbc.com/id/28639892?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS.<br /><br />Here is my e-mail: <br />"While you are nitpicking your way through telecom ads, will you also address the following: <br /><br />Comcast High Speed Internet with PowerBoost – Is PowerBoost approved for animal testing by the FDA? <br /><br />Verizon Wireless – How do all of those Verizon employees get away with blocking traffic and following people around all day? I use Verizon and haven’t seen any of them. Am I being discriminated against? <br /><br />AT&T Wireless – I thought Wisconsin had more bars in more places. Is the FCC looking into this false claim by AT&T? Is the Wisconsin attorney general? <br /><br />Sprint Nextel – Is it legal to haul school age children in the back of delivery vans? <br /><br />Darren, I think you have a lot of articles to write if you want to fix the world one TV ad at a time. Where was your advertising analysis during the campaign season? There is an area that does need help.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-37261234284775485712009-01-16T20:01:00.000-08:002009-01-16T20:59:41.968-08:00Barack Obama dropped his BlackBerry!We have jets landing miraculously in the Hudson River, Cabinet appointee hearings, Obama campaigning for his stimulous package and a few wars in the Middle East. With all of this, the AP posts a story about the President Elect dropping his BlackBerry. Not giving it up like some security officials would like, but accidently dropping the device to the ground. Wow, this is wrong on so many levels:<br /><br />1) This is not news. The First Officer of the USAir flight losing his cell phone durring the landing IS news, and true. This is not news.<br /><br />2) Some observant folks have calculated that all of the coverage of Barack Obama and his BlackBerry addiction would be worth millions and millions of dollars in free advertising for RIM. That is news. This is not.<br /><br />3) The world of newspaper journalism is busy predicting, observing and trying to avoid the demise of their entire industry. This is news. Writing a multi-paragraph story about someone dropping their phone is not only NOT NEWS, but a complete waste of journalistic resources that could be providing the in-depth reporting of Obama's stimulous campaign trip that only newspapers have historically provided. Instead the AP reporter gives us a 15 second snipet that would have difficulty getting time on Entertainment Tonight, let alone a news program. Also worth noting is the fact that the AP reporter saught comment on the issue from an Obama spokesperson.<br /><br />4) The article closes with a cliffhanger. "No word yet on whether the Blackberry still works." How can anyone sleep not knowing if the President Elect will be able to read his e-mail tonight or if he'll be a huddled mass of sweat as he deals with his crackberry withdrawl symptoms?<br /><br />5) Conspirocy theories could arise. Was this "accident" really the work of NCS (National Communications System) opperatives who are responsible for secure government communication? Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs quipped: "That may have solved his Blackberry dilemma, right? Forget the lawyers!" (True quotation!)<br /><br />6) This story, as written, was carried by hundreds of "news" outlets. <br /><br />Now that I have vented on the news media for absolutely ridiculous judgement, I can breath for a minute or two, and then write my next BlackBerry related rant.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-57029655510987839032008-10-23T07:23:00.000-07:002008-10-23T08:50:13.283-07:00Hidden Gem from RIM and DataVizRIM and T-Mobile just released the 4.5 device software upgrade for their BlackBerry Curve. One of the features of the new device software is Word To Go and Slideshow To Go from DataViz. Within those programs DataViz has hidden a real bonus for you. When you register the product with DataViz (Register is a menu option within Word To Go and Slideshow To Go), they will offer you a free upgrade to version 1.002 of Documents To Go. O.K., so it doesn’t sound like much of an upgrade, but it is. You see, you are getting version 1.002 of the whole suite, not just Word or Slideshow. This means that your registration and subsequent upgrade will add Sheets To Go to your BlackBerry. Now you have the ability to edit Word, PowerPoint, and Excel documents right on your BlackBerry. Bonus!Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-76050671126435455192008-10-02T20:46:00.000-07:002008-10-02T20:50:13.456-07:00The State of "Openness" in the Wireless WorldTwo years ago, consumers began to get vocal about all of the closed aspects of their cellular experience. For some, it was the inability to take their expensive smartphone with them to another carrier. For others it was the disappointment of not having the same features that others with the exact same phone had only because they were with a different carrier. While there are a number of areas that could use some “openness” in wireless, I am going to focus on three areas from a PDA or smartphone user’s perspective.<br /><br />PDA Operating Systems<br /><br />Every operating system (OS) company has a different approach to how it provides its product to PDA manufacturers. Microsoft charges a royalty to manufacturers to use the Windows Mobile OS on its devices. Microsoft has many manufacturers who purchase and use Windows Mobile on their devices, but Microsoft doesn't manufacture any PDAs themselves. Because any company is welcome to purchase and use Windows Mobile, this has been the model of an open environment for more than a decade. Palm and Research In Motion (RIM) have long been held up as the poster children for the closed environment. Palm started out as the PDA manufacturer and the OS developer under one roof. Eventually another company licensed Palm's OS for its PDAs. This company was starting to challenge Palm's market share, so Palm purchased them (Handspring). Today Palm is its own biggest customer for the Palm OS. Although Palm still manufactures PDAs with the Palm OS, the majority of its revenue comes from the sale of Palm manufactured PDAs running the Windows Mobile OS. Research In Motion is also a PDA manufacturer and OS developer. Like Palm, the primary customer for their OS is themselves. RIM has made several attempts to establish relationships with other manufacturers. BlackBerry Connect, BlackBerry On Board and BlackBerry For Windows have all met with lackluster support from other manufacturers. So despite their attempts, RIM is still a model of a closed OS environment. Two new entrants to the game are taking completely different approaches to the issue of open operating systems. Google is an OS developer that does not manufacture PDAs. Like Microsoft, Google is relying on manufacturers to pick their OS for their devices. Google’s approach to distribution of its Android OS is to give it away. That is correct, manufacturers do not have to pay Google a dime to use their PDA operating system. Now how Google will generate a profit from free software is the subject of some future blog. For today, just know that Google is the new face of the open OS. The new face of the closed OS is Apple. Like Palm and RIM, Apple manufactures the PDA (iPhone) and has developed the OS. Where RIM and Palm made attempts to entice other manufacturers to their OS, Apple has made no such overtures to date.<br /><br />Software Development and Distribution<br /><br />For some people, the PDA is just another phone until they install specific software applications to turn it into a productivity tool. There are plenty of applications available for every smartphone and PDA on the market. Every device has a myriad of business and personal software titles available to them. There are two challenges to the consumer here though. Because each PDA platform uses a different operating system, software developers need to write a different version of their software for each platform. This either multiplies the work required to release and support a new program, or it forces the developer to limit the number of devices its new program will run on. <br /><br />Another challenge is distribution. For many years a consumer could purchase software from the publisher, the carrier, or even on-line stores. Today this is not always the case. RIM, Microsoft and Palm have always allowed software publishers to distribute their programs as they saw fit. Apple brought a new model to the market in 2007. Apple added a cool application to the iPhone that allows users to purchase and install applications right from their handset. Apple was not the first to allow customers to do this, but they were the first ones to make it easy. The problem with the App Store concept is not in the technology, but in the business model. The App Store is the only source of software for the iPhone. This may simplify things for consumers, but it actually makes a software company’s life much harder. Not only does the company have another PDA platform to support, but it loses control of distribution. The company has only one distributer to work with; a distributer who has already set the product margins and marketing guidelines; a distributer who also reserves the right to refuse to sell the program if it chooses. In the Apple business model, there is no small distribution house that would be willing to take a chance on a strange, new, innovative application. If they can’t sell to Apple, they can’t sell to anybody. Google has adopted the App Store software model, but appears to be maintaining the open market stance of RIM, Palm and Microsoft. At least one on-line store has already announced that it will also distribute Google Android applications through its own application store. Again, Google follows the open road.<br /><br />Carrier Availability and Portability<br /><br />Carrier portability refers to a user’s ability to use their existing PDA with another carrier if they choose to change carriers. In some cases this is a technical issue. AT&T and T-Mobile use one technology (GSM) while Alltel, Sprint and Verizon use another (CDMA). This means that today it is technically impossible to take an AT&T BlackBerry over to Sprint’s network or for a Verizon customer to bring their Treo over to T-Mobile. In the case where a customer wants to move from one GSM carrier to another GSM carrier or one CDMA carrier to another CDMA carrier, it is more procedural. Carriers add value to their offering by pre-configuring their devices with network settings and software. When a Sprint customer wants to take their Windows Mobile device over to Alltel, there are a number of settings that need to be changed or added to the device to ensure that it works well on Alltel’s network. Some technically savvy customers do this themselves on a regular basis. The existing steps are not for the faint of heart and by no means customer friendly. Another option that is available today for GSM customers is to purchase an “unlocked” PDA. These devices work equally on AT&T or T-Mobile but do not include any of the customization that the carriers do before shipping their own branded phones. Each carrier announced plans to make carrier portability easier for its customers, but only a handful of devices (modems and industry specific devices, no consumer or business PDAs) have been certified by the carriers.<br /><br />Carrier availability refers to the availability of certain PDAs on each carrier’s network. For example, while I can’t take my T-Mobile BlackBerry Curve with me if I move to Sprint service, I can purchase a Sprint BlackBerry Curve so that all of the software I own is compatible and so I don’t have to learn a whole new system. While there are a number of exceptions, the vast majority of devices on the market have versions for each of the carriers. One notable exception is the Apple iPhone. Now it is not unusual for a carrier to negotiate a period of exclusivity when they introduce a new phone. In most cases this is 30 or 60 days. This means that when AT&T launched the BlackBerry 8800, T-Mobile wasn’t able to sell it until 60 days after AT&T introduced it. Verizon and Sprint launched their BlackBerry 8800s a short time after T-Mobile. Today, every carrier sells a BlackBerry 8800 series device. <br /><br />One phone has ignored the concept of openness in terms of carrier portability and carrier availability. That phone is the Apple iPhone. Apple doesn’t just tweak the phone’s settings to make it work better on AT&T’s network; they actually program the phone to fail if you try to change those settings. On top of that, Apple is rumored to have granted AT&T a five year exclusive. This means that the only way to get and use an Apple iPhone is to sign a contract with AT&T.<br /><br />Amazing isn’t it? Two years ago the consumer was asking for open networks and open software. A year later Apple replied with the only phone in history where the manufacturer was the same as the operating system developer and the sole source for software solutions. At least you can buy the phone from one of three dealers (Apple, AT&T and Best Buy).<br /><br />As you can see, the call for an open cellular experience has been met with very contradictory responses. Like most PDA enthusiasts, I will watch the evolution of the market to see who comes out with the best hardware and software. I will also be keenly aware of which manufacturers and carriers decide to open the cellular experience and which ones decide to put the prison on lock down.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-64816434505902143122008-09-30T20:21:00.000-07:002008-10-16T13:19:28.576-07:00Unlearning BlackBerry Etiquette(<a href="http://fuhgetaboutit.typepad.com/fuhgetaboutit_the_art_of_/">Unlearning</a> is an interesting approach to preparing for the future from friend and author Jack Uldrich.)<br /><br />I just read another one of those omnipresent articles about how rude it is for people to be using their BlackBerries and Treos and other PDAs during meetings and "power lunches". While I agree that it is important to be respectful of other people’s time and attention in a meeting, the sheer frequency and fervor of these articles could lead one to believe that all meetings would be well run and productive if not for the evil intents of RIM and Palm and all of the other PDA manufacturers. The fact of the matter is that BlackBerries and their peers are no more responsible for distracted meeting attendees than cell phones are for distracted drivers. To put it another way, BlackBerries don't kill meetings, people kill meetings. You don't believe me? Think back to the classmates that would stare out the classroom window during particularly compelling lectures, or drawings and scribbles in the margins of your coworker's meeting agendas. What about the number of people who would bring their notebook computer to a meeting just to complete a few more hands of Solitaire. The fact of the matter is that people will find distractions in a meeting or in a car regardless of the technology at hand, or in hand as is more often the case. <br /><br />Business etiquette is the central issue to be addressed in these situations, but I am going to take this article in a different direction. I am going to raise a proposition that will run counter to most of the BlackBerry etiquette articles I have read. Most of these articles start with “common sense” recommendations like leaving your iPhone at your desk, or turning it off during the meeting. With a quarter century of experience selling, supporting, marketing and evangelizing emerging technologies, I can assure you that those efforts are counterproductive and will actually slow the acceptable use of PDAs in meetings. <br /><br /> I recognize that PDAs are an enabling technology for the distracted, but I contend that they are also an enabling technology for the productive participant. Earlier this year I was at a conference with thousands of BlackBerry users. I, like many of the other attendees, spent the majority of each breakout session pressing the tiny keys on my BlackBerry. I'm sure that some of my peers were catching up on their e-mail. I witnessed others who were playing games or surfing the internet. These are the same people who were scribbling on their meeting agendas four or five years ago. Now the common retort of the e-mailer is that they need to stay connected, even during meetings. My answer to them is that mobile data is not about connectivity, it’s about control. I paid close to $4,000 in travel and registration fees to attend this conference. Very few e-mails were worth the distraction or more importantly, the information I would have missed from the speakers at these sessions. But what about me? I told you that I was also typing away on my BlackBerry. I was. I was taking notes. You see, I can type fast enough on my BlackBerry to take notes at a conference. I will go out on a limb and tell you that I was not alone. As I said, it's about control. By entering my notes on the BlackBerry, they automatically synchronized with my desktop computer and were instantly available for me to e-mail. At that point some of my colleagues and I were in control of the knowledge that was shared with us that day.<br /><br /> A PDA can bring control to a business lunch similar to how it brought control to the conference. I have used my BlackBerry to schedule lunch meetings, navigate to them, call other attendees and even check the restaurant's menu before I arrived. Once I find myself in a face to face situation, the BlackBerry gets holstered. I may pull it out to schedule another meeting with my lunch guest, search for some information that will move the meeting forward, or even record some information that I will need to remember, but I will not check e-mail, surf some unrelated websites, or play games. The PDA still needs to be viewed as a tool and should never take away from the purpose and attention of the meeting. Therefore we need to realize that technology should not be used as an excuse to be rude. If a person believes that they can hide behind their iPhone during a meeting under the guise that they are taking notes, any good meeting organizer will tell them that they are only fooling themselves. No Treo, BlackBerry or iPhone will hide the lack of attention and eye contact that is evident when someone is not paying attention.<br /><br />My main point is that banning or discouraging Treos and other PDAs from meetings is only going to postpone the civil acceptance and courteous use of these important business tools. Realize that not everyone who is using a BlackBerry at a conference or in an important meeting is distracted or inattentive. PDAs can serve a valuable purpose in these situations. As these tools become more prevalent, so will their use in meetings. By being aware of this technological shift, we can prepare for the social shift that will accompany it. Even if you don’t use one, you will need to realize that not every PDA user is a "crackberry addict". As we in business begin to come to terms with this, the PDAs acceptance at meetings will grow not out of surrender to technology, but out of recognition of the value they can bring to the attendees and the progress of the meeting itself. Prepare yourself for the reality that PDAs will quickly move from an unwelcome distraction to a required resource at most meetings in the near future.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-24660101236605917382008-01-23T06:35:00.000-08:002008-09-15T19:11:28.435-07:00Verizon Opens Up?A Windows Mobile perspective<br /><br />Have you heard the news? Verizon Wireless is going to open its wireless network to phones using GSM technology. This is big news for Pocket PC users because some of the new Pocket PC phones will work with your choice of wireless carrier, as long as your carrier uses GSM. You see Verizon and Sprint use CDMA for their network technology. There is nothing wrong with CDMA except that GSM (Global System for Mobile) is the de-facto wireless standard outside of the United States. So how do I know this is going to happen, a Vodafone spokesperson said so. Who is Vodafone? Vodafone is owner of 45% of Verizon Wireless and one of the biggest GSM network operators in the world. When asked when Verizon planned to implement their break with CDMA, Verizon’s spokeswoman said “We are talking 2004, 2005. By that point who knows what will happen.”<br /><br />Huh?<br /><br />Sorry, I was stuck in a bit of a time warp. You see the previous paragraph describes actual news from 2001. Despite Vodafone’s pushing and prodding, Verizon didn’t switch to GSM technology in 2001, 2004 or 2005. But, if you haven’t heard, Vodafone is pushing Verizon to toy with GSM technology yet again. Vodafone and Verizon have jointly announced their intention to trial LTE (Long Term Evolution) technology. This is the 4th generation choice of the GSM community.<br /><br />So, why is Verizon entertaining a move to GSM again in 2008? It makes sense from a business operations standpoint. Vodafone and Verizon have been fighting over technologies since their marriage in 1999. Vodafone even courted the old AT&T Wireless before it was acquired by Cingular. To work towards common goals instead of different ones will help both companies run more efficiently. It also makes sense that Verizon would explore other network options since Sprint has already announced its break from CDMA for the world of WiMax for its 4th generation technology. If Verizon stayed the course with CDMA technologies, it would account for the vast majority of U.S. CDMA sales. On one hand, it would give them control over which handsets they wanted from whichever manufacturers that they chose. On the other hand, as one of the last holdouts in the CDMA camp, the number of manufacturers willing to bet their futures on one large customer would surely dwindle. In effect, Verizon would be the big fish in a small and shrinking pond. Now, this may not sound bad to some CEOs, but there is another reason to question Verizon’s loyalty to CDMA going forward.<br /><br />Up to this point, I have discussed “openness” as it pertains to network technology, or, which handsets work on which networks. Another aspect of “openness” in the wireless world pertains to handset technology, or, what applications work on what handsets. This may seem like a moot point for those of us in the Windows Mobile world. For the most part, Pocket Outlook works the same on a Sprint Touch as it does on the unlocked HTC Touch. The fact of the matter is that a lot of development goes on behind the screen to make sure that you see it that way. Because the wireless technologies are different between GSM and CDMA, so is the coding for some bandwidth intensive applications. If the people who develop new applications could focus on one technology instead of two, manufacturers and wireless carriers would spend a lot less time on handset and application testing. If Verizon becomes the lone CDMA carrier in the U.S., even more developers and handset manufacturers will choose to focus on just one technology, and it won’t be CDMA.<br /><br />So, what are the benefits to you if Verizon does change to a GSM technology? The most important benefit for everyone is “openness”. O.K., that sounds sort of existential. Let me explain. For over a decade, wireless phone users around the world have been able to buy the handset they wanted and use it with the carrier they wanted. While this freedom is more a result of an open business model than a network infrastructure, GSM and its SIM card technology have been enablers of that freedom. This openness is evident in the number of “unlocked” GSM Windows Mobile devices that are featured in this magazine every issue. If Verizon moves to a GSM technology, a world of devices will be opened up to their customers. The expanded product line for Verizon, combined with its willingness to let you bring another carrier’s handset with you as a customer will give you, as prospects or customers, more choices in handsets and carriers. To summarize my existential start to this section, more openness for Verizon equals more choices for you, the customer.<br /><br />Will Verizon move to LTE and the GSM family? I don’t really know. As we have discussed, there are a lot of good reasons for them to do so. Then again, most of these reasons are the same reasons for Verizon to do it 7 years ago. Despite all of the posturing of Verizon towards GSM, a Verizon Wireless spokesman recently emphasized that the company is “working closely with Vodafone for next-generation technology. We have not made a technology decision.”<br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dz_wyumAS71HALtHxir0NibrCCccA9iNXoXWE0zRR6xYsmBQjZWy7WjjB9DaLV3SUvna5MAzHC9FF8' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe>Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-22712291922456459492008-01-23T06:23:00.000-08:002008-09-15T19:12:48.675-07:00Haptics - Just another "buzz"word?A number of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">upcoming</span> phones are touting the fact that they include "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">haptic</span>" technology. The majority of the announcements seem to think that the buzzword is enough to get people interested without actually having to define the feature. I guess that leaves it up to me.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Haptics</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">isn</span>’t new, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">isn</span>’t even new to phones. Many of you have had phones with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">haptic</span> technology but just <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">didn</span>’t know it. The first time I recall encountering <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">haptics</span> on a cell phone was playing <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Nokia</span>’s Snake game. For a few years it was THE game to play on a phone. After a while it started to get pretty boring. To liven it up, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Nokia</span> tied certain game events to the vibration component of the phone. The resulting vibration of the snake hitting the wall was a very early and primitive use of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">haptics</span>.<br /><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Haptics</span> is the use of touch sensitive feedback to create a different sensory experience. That <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">doesn</span>’t sound really clear to me either. Let me use a more up to date example. Video game technology has been using <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">haptics</span> for many years. Gamers refer to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">haptics</span> as “force feedback”. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Controllers</span> with force feedback technology (aka: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">haptics</span>) generate resistance and vibration to give you the sensation of driving a car at 100 MPH through the streets of New York, or the sensation of firing a weapon, or hitting a ball. The manipulation of the sense of touch to create those sensations is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">haptics</span>.<br /><br />So, how does this apply to cell phones? Think of my biggest pet peeve with Windows Mobile and the iPhone. Touch screens suck for typing any quantity of text. There is no sensation that a key has been pressed, so you have to watch the screen when you type in order to get visual confirmation of the keystroke. Now, take the force feedback controllers from your PS3 or X-Box and shrink them to fit underneath a key in a cell phone. Then, take away the key and just put a thick piece of plastic over the whole thing. This is what the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">ROKR</span>8 is doing. When you press a “key” on the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">ROKR</span>8, you are actually touching a touch sensitive screen. The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">haptics</span> behind the spot you touch on the screen provide resistance and vibration to make your fingers think that they have pressed a key. Now, you can use a touch screen, have it feel like a real keyboard, and keep your eyes on the road while you dial. <br /><br />Here is another explanation, specific to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">ROKR</span>8 from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">PhoneScoop</span>:<br /><br /><em>The second key innovation is the incredible <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">haptic</span> feedback system integrated into the keypad surface. To put it simply, it's the first true touch keypad that feels like real buttons. All current phones on the market with touch keys and "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">haptic</span> feedback" actually just vibrate the whole phone a little bit to let you know your touch registered. On the E8, however, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">haptic</span> feedback is localized so you only feel it under your finger, not the whole phone. What's more impressive is that it doesn't just vibrate a little; it actually has separate "press down" and "release" types of feedback that actually simulate the feel of pressing a physical button. This new type of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">haptics</span> really works, and quite well. The effect is best described as "spooky". It works so well that if Motorola had told us it had real keys under the surface - and wasn't a touch keypad at all - we would have believed them and never doubted it. In fact , if you treat it like a touch keypad, you'll have trouble with it. That's because it's designed to be treated like a "real" keypad; key presses only register if you press as hard as you would with physical buttons. A light touch like you might use with other touch phones won't cut it on the E8<br /></em><br />I hope this helps you get a feel for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">haptics</span>.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-43918647473332327142007-10-12T21:18:00.000-07:002008-09-15T19:14:19.599-07:00Facebook and Blended LivesDean Bubley, a blogger and technologist, just posted a blog about how he is trying to keep his life neatly divided between work and personal. He is even trying to keep his cyber life divided between Facebook (for personal) and Linked-In (for business).<br /><br /><a href="http://disruptivewireless.blogspot.com/2007/10/social-networks-and-business-contacts.html">http://disruptivewireless.blogspot.com/2007/10/social-networks-and-business-contacts.html</a><br /><br />Here is what I posted in his comment section:<br /><br />Dean,<br /><br />Your blog really shows your age. Facebook "is not your father's Oldsmobile". Linked-In is. I am on both sites, just as you are, but I notice a distinct division between the two sites that I think you are missing. I am 44 years old and fit in perfectly with the Linked-In demographic. On Facebook, I feel like I'm a dusty relic from some forgotten shelf in a museum. So why am I on Facebook? Because Linked-In is destined to travel down the same road as Oldsmobile. Why should a nationwide community of friends and neighbors (in a cyber sense) all get up and move to a different site for their professional contacts when their peers are already linked on the Facebook site? O.K., one reason would be to get away from the embarising posts and photos from that one weekend (or maybe several) they had freshman year. Yet, as the population of Facebook continues to mature, so will the culture of the site. Think of Facebook as one of Clayton Christensen's disruptive forces on the internet.<br /><br />Another change the next generation is bringing into the business world is the idea of a blended life instead of a balanced one. If you can flip a switch at 5:00 pm and turn off your business life, then turn it on again at 8:00 am the next day, you are more disiplined and more deprived than I am, and many of my more successful peers. I know people who have never missed their kid's sporting events, even if they took place at 3:00 pm on a weekday. I cut out of work at 2:00 pm one day a week for 10 years to coach at my local high school. If we tried to keep our personal lives and business lives tucked neatly into their respective boxes, we would have missed those times. Likewise, I have met you at conferences in the states. I doubt you have restricted your flights across the pond to the 8 hour workday window. That means that you are already carving out time from your personal life to meet your career goals. So, you see, you are already starting to blend.<br /><br />Lastly, isn't one of the staples of our industry convergence? Not just of technologies, but of the ability to communicate when and where we need to with whomever we want to.Dean, the world is blending, and you are a major contributer to the cause (that is a compliment whether you like it or not). You may find the old ways more balanced and comfortable, but I think it is time to see that convergence is happening all around us, and the next generation is going to continue the trend of using our technologies to take control of their blended lives.Mark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9698929.post-77210394460345228922007-06-06T14:10:00.000-07:002008-09-15T19:15:36.050-07:00Why Computer geeks need Wireless Wonks!Lance Ulanof, an Editor at PC Magazine, was on Fox News recently talking about cool cell phone alternatives to the iPhone. Now, a lot of people question Fox's ability to present factual reporting. I cover those issues in a different blog. As for technology, Fox and Lance continue the questionable facts tradition. Click on the link and watch the video. You will see Lance hold up a T-Mobile Dash and present it as a Motorola Q. He corrects this slip a bit later, but goes on to say that the T-Mobile Dash is available from AT&T Wireless/Cingular and that it uses the Palm Operating System. OMG! He messed up 1) the manufacturer, 2) the name, 3) the carrier, and 4) the operating system.<br /><br />With this kind of awareness in the PC world, no wonder Apple (a computer company) thinks they can corner cell phones.<br /><br />Fox News Scorecard:<br /><br />1) The manufacturer of the T-Mobile Dash is not Motorola, it is HTC for T-Mobile.<br />2) The name of the T-Mobile Dash is not Q, it is Dash.<br />3) The carrier for the T-Mobile Dash is not AT&T Wireless/Cingular, it is . . . wait for it . . . check out the name for a hint . . . T-Mobile. <br />4) The OS is for the T-Mobile Dash is not the Palm OS, it is Windows Mobile 5.0 Smartphone EditionMark Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05032812906985342594noreply@blogger.com0