Bottom line. From what I can see in the reports, Consumer Reports replicated the same uncontrolled, unscientific experiments that many of the blogging sites have done.

Of interest are the following quotes:

Our findings call into question the recent claim by Apple that the iPhone 4′s signal-strength issues were largely an optical illusion caused by faulty software that “mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength.”

The signal problem is the reason that we did not cite the iPhone 4 as a “recommended” model, even though its score in our other tests placed it atop the latest Ratings of smart phones that were released today.

On top of all other smart phones, sans the signal testing/issue. There still seems to be a lot of people without the issue, or better phrased, without a noticeable effect, but those that do have the issue are very outspoken about it. This review seems pretty thorough, and Apple has acknowledged an issue. The question is: will Apple be able to fix it in time?

Dive Into HTML 5

Dive Into HTML 5 seeks to elaborate on a hand-picked Selection of features from the HTML5 specification and other fine Standards. I shall publish Drafts periodically, as time permits. Please send feedback. The final manuscript will be published on paper by O’Reilly, under the Google Press imprint. Pre-order the printed Work and be the first in your Community to receive it. The Work shall remain online under the CC-BY-3.0 License.

Mapping the Social Internet

Infographic from the Harvard Business Review

The Rokr was not exactly the device that we expected, however it showed that the possibility was there. I mention it first because it was Apple’s first foray in the phone arena. Many other manufacturers had already been and continued to develop phones and devices under the concept of unification and multifunction. The Rokr was certainly not the first attempt at this. The smartphone has been with us since the 90′s, the first smartphone being credited to IBM’s Simon. The smartphone makers developed and maximized as many features as they could into a single device. The limitation was typically what integration the manufacturer was able to achieve with outside service providers, or what applications had been written for the OS. Since 2003, I was a faithful Sony Ericsson devotee. I was astounded with my t610 and even able to download and install software. I was loyal to SE over the years and my last phone before an iPhone was the P1i. It was very functional, but the touch screen was annoyingly slow, and it had a pretty limited selection of applications.

iTunes, whether you use it or not, really changed the way we store our digital music and our music purchasing habits. I used Winamp in my pre-Apple days, however after seeing iTunes and then the iTunes Music Store, I could never go back. Did Winamp work? Absolutely. I could do a lot of things with it, some things that even iTunes could not. The fact remained that Apple’s well executed development at an early-stage in the digital music era, surpassed everyone in the industry. iTunes’ usability was astounding. Further, the same principles were implemented in the iPod and it revolutionized what we originally called mp3 players. Recently, I have only heard them referred to as iPods (even if they aren’t Apple’s.)

The release of the iPhone mimicked this principle of design and execution. The functionality, usability, and design of the original iPhone were astounding. However, a few months later the real game-changing announcement came into reality when Apple opened the App Store. When iTMS was launched, the question was which record labels would sell their content there? Apple astonished everyone with some industry deals and a strong representation by the major labels. When they announced the App Store, a similar buzz was stirring: what major companies and developers would be releasing Apps? Clearly the result has been much the same. The shear volume of apps alone is not only significant, but the industry representation in the App Store is astounding: ElectronicArts, Facebook, Twitter, Google, even Microsoft. What’s even better is that while the heavy weights are in, there are still some amazing apps developed by small developers and they have been very successful.

The real shift in thinking came with the App Store. Apple allowed any developer, with a few straightforward steps and payment, to develop an app. Without going into details, there are still some confusing areas of the submission and review process, but the bulk of apps are approved. The mantra became There is an App for that.. There really is. I am of the opinion that pundits and news media are missing the bigger picture, much the same as they did with iTunes and the iPod. This isn’t about the phone. This is about the platform.

What really boggles my mind is this: often times I am on my laptop and I want to check Twitter. My first instinct is to open Tweetie Twitter for iPhone. I settle for an OS X application, but it feels different. The more I use my iPhone, the more iOS apps I try to launch on my MacBook Pro. The irony that I find in all of this is that for years we have been cramming feature after feature into our software, ending with what is commonly known as bloatware, or at least in terms of features and the variation of the Pareto principle (80/20). Features that 80% of the users may or may not use. While I agree with the premise of Joel Spolsky’s post on this, and his post is more about the size of the software and the lite versus full featured software. I think it is worth noting that the iOS platform has changed the game, the delineation is not the size anymore, or even the full feature set, it is the simplicity and usability. Developers are on a pretty even playing field, a field with a very low barrier to entry and a large market awaiting the next great app. So in the race to develop the single device that will do it all, it is interesting to see what has worked and what hasn’t. The minimal approach of individual applications has prevailed, and in stark contrast with our traditional desktop environment, it is often preferred. Even when compared to other smartphone manufacturers who tried to develop their own feature driven phone OS (bloatware), this approach has prevailed. When I use iOS apps, they usually do one thing, but they do that one thing very well. So well in fact that I want to use them even when I am not on my iPhone.

People have been dreaming about video calling for decades. iPhone 4 makes it a reality. With the tap of a button, you can wave hello to your kids, share a smile from across the globe, or watch your best friend laugh at your stories — iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 over Wi-Fi. No other phone makes staying in touch this much fun.

(emphasis mine)

This not only changes the way we think about and use Video Calling, it changes the way we think about and use International Calling. This isn’t a new concept, this has been the premise of Video Calling and VoIP for a long time. The difference is the implementation.

Skype revolutionized Video Calling from a computer, and while they do have mobile apps the implementation has never been on option within a Carrier based call. No switching in the middle of a call. No switching from Carrier minutes to megabytes (even if it is Wifi only at the moment). Pretty much the same conclustions for VoIP, Vonage and others have revolutionized the cost structure of traditional phones. They also have apps for mobile devices, but again you are limited to calling from within their app and not via a Carrier based call. The exception to this rule has been Google Voice, which Google has implemented very well in the Android OS, and if you are a Google Voice user, you can opt to use Google Voice for the call. The one stark difference that remains is that Google Voice still relies on Carrier minutes, not megabytes.

So both Google and Apple have now been able to push the Carriers in the direction that they want through these implementations. The Carriers have long suspected that Google has been out for them, however it appears that Apple may have really been the company they should have worried about. Depending on how the charges work out, this could dramatically affect the Carrier’s current charging scheme which is minutes centric. As Dan Frommer reported:

For the next version of FaceTime that works over 3G, Apple and its carrier partners will need to decide how those calls are billed — as minutes toward voice calling, as data toward monthly data caps, or both, or something entirely different.

For example: From the Philippines, if I dial a number in the US from my cell phone I will be charged around $.40 per minute. If I switch the call to FaceTime, it’s free, because when you switch in the midst of a voice call, once the FaceTime call initiates, the voice call ceases. The caveat is that this requires an iPhone 4 on both sides of the call, as well as a WiFi connection, for now. Early estimates are predicting some 1.5 million sales on the first day alone. That number will continue to rise as the iPhone is released around the rest of the world. I predict that the next iPad will have a FaceTime feature, albeit slightly different, as well as implementation in either iChat and/or OS X. So theoretically speaking, by the time the iPhone 4 reaches the Philippines, there will be plenty of people for me to FaceTime with.

The switch from Carrier minutes to megabytes is now in full swing. Will the carriers allow FaceTime to be opened up using their cellular data networks? Will another alternative arise that will give data connections to devices in a broad coverage area? I look forward to the improvements that are made in these areas. Again it seems very ironic, if not foreboding, that Carriers are adapting to a more limited model for data charges. Whatever these developments are, my point is that this will revolutionize Video Calling & International Calling, at least for my friends and family who get an iPhone.

More importantly, you don’t need to initiate a FaceTime call using a voice call. You can start the call using FaceTime directly, in which case the entire process takes place over IP networking. The advantage to starting with a voice call is that you’ll get a voice connection even if the recipient isn’t on Wi-Fi at the moment.

Now this is a great feature. The ability to initiate FaceTime calls without a voice call is a step in the right direction. The reading starts to get really interesting here:

But surely, someday, there will be a non-phone-carrier wireless networking technology with far greater range than Wi-Fi. FaceTime, I think, is a first step in the direction of a mobile “phone” with no mobile carrier. If and when FaceTime is supported over 3G in addition to Wi-Fi, it’ll be data, not voice — megabytes, not minutes. And immediately, starting today, it’s a step away from tying your iPhone’s “calls” to your carrier’s network.

Considering that two major carriers are moving in the opposite direction of this megabytes, not minutes concept, by cutting back unlimited data plans: Verizon hints, AT&T Does, it sets up an interesting future. So Apple with FaceTime and Google with (Google) Voice are both changing the way we use our phones with new technology.
At the end of the day I agree with John’s point that it is megabytes, not minutes. The megabytes will prevail in the end, and the real question is if the carrier’s path is to cut down the megabytes, who is going to provide a larger than Wi-Fi coverage technology.

I think maybe @BPGlobalPR could use the #1millionshirts campaign. A: use the tshirts to clog the spill. B: resell as free #bpcares tshirts

The good news, one of the guys at 1MillionShirts is watching the hashtag. The bad news, I was called out and asked to share my thoughts on the campaign and I didn’t feel twitter was the right platform. So here goes:

I am not going to jump back into the initial debate that ensued about the concept or if the donation of goods is effective, I will only say that in my experience generally it is not as effective as cash donations. In my own charity, it is much more effective to raise cash, than to raise donated items. The downside is that donors find the exact opposite true. I think that there is something in our consumer mentality that makes us feel more effective if we can touch it, or give something we have and then hope to see it in use. Thus, our charity has settled on a concept similar to oxfam, by allowing donors to sponsor something tangible. Obviously, there are certain items that we always need and cannot be found here, and therefore it is easier if donated, but that is the exception and not the rule.

With that said, the main thoughts that I have on this topic are:

• Quick to Act

I respect new ideas, in fact, I am living proof that two people crazy enough to think that they can make a difference with an idea, can. My wife and I moved to the Philippines in 2003, just 6 weeks after we were married and embarked on this adventure. Did we do things right? Absolutely not. We made (and continue to make) mistakes. However, we are making a difference. I will note that we weren’t held up to the level of scrutiny that the 1millionshirts campaign has received since launch. The idea came up really quickly, and that’s not always a bad thing, but when moving away from a field of expertise, I recommend moving slowly. Unfortunately, 1millionshirts did the opposite. Twice.

• Quick to Re-Act

The aid community, which I am a part of, is a generally skeptical bunch. Personally, I think the problem stems from the fact that most of us are living in societies that have not changed as quickly as we hoped. I have been in the Philippines for 7 years. When I arrived I thought we would be here 3-5 years and then go home. I, in my youthful naivety, thought we would be “done” by then, with our mission accomplished and empowered locals now calling the shots. Has that happened? Not exactly. Certainly not in the timeframe allotted, but we have accomplished a lot and continue to work with and empower locals to do more. Does it mean we should quit and go home? Absolutely not. It just means that real change is hard and it takes time, a long time. This however leads the aid community (in general) to be a bit snippy. We hear new ideas and immediately think about how it won’t work, how that was tried before and failed or some other reason that it just isn’t a good idea. Are we right? Unfortunately, we usually are. However, one thing I have learned is that sometimes always being right is wrong.

The entire situation appeared to implode, but I think there was a whole lot of confusion, miscommunication, flaring tempers and enough ego to match Napoleon himself that could have prevented this. Hindsight is 20/20 so I think it’s safe to say that all parties could have handled it better.

• We’re all wrong, now what?

I hope that we can learn a few things from this.

Just because you have a good business model, does not mean it’s a good aid model. The gates foundation has brought some great business thought, models and processes to the aid world, but they have also admitted that they recently fell prey to, in my opinion, a business world characteristic: a failure to communicate effectively with their grantees. I think that the 1millionshirts campaign has a similar err: that just because the t-shirt thing has worked as a business model, it does not translate to an effective aid model, or even a resource that people desperately need.

We need more effective and better ways to communicate these ideas, prior to launch. We need an effective non-profit incubator. Something similar to a business incubator that can connect people with ideas (in this case Jason Sadler) with the aid thought leaders and critics, as well as existing aid organizations.

Opportunity Cost
What should 1millionshirts do now? They have agreed to not send the t-shirts to Africa, and are now focusing on sending them on to various disaster relief projects. I think this is good, but I think and hope that they will consider moving away from the t-shirts. While it’s a good intentioned idea and they will make a difference, as an economist, I have to question the opportunity cost of the project and question if the time, energy, and honestly, Jason’s notoriety, fame & brand could not be better used elsewhere.

In my opinion, the value or impact of 1 million t-shirts is just not comparable to the cost (real and opportunity) that will be spent with the campaign. The question is not will it succeed or not, I am confident it will move ahead in a successful manner. (Success like beauty are in the eye of the beholder so it is still debatable.) The question is could the resources be more effectively used in producing a far more effective tool, model or benefit. I think they could be. My opinion is that since 1millionshirts has gone through the aid wringer on multiple occasions, we view this as a platform for change. Generally speaking I think the world the United States is filled with well-intentioned people who think they are doing good things for the rest of the world. Those of us who are in the rest of the world are perplexed by this and just cannot see why people don’t just send cash. This 1millionshirts project has been a clarion call of the situation and we need to bridge the gap. Change.org and Causes.com have become great at promoting various projects and causes and have been a worthwhile investment for many organizations. I have not seen a strong platform that would act as a non-profit incubator though, and I think this experience would show that we need one.

Non-Profit Incubator Platform
Coming up with project ideas is easy, spending time and working out the details and effectivity as well as implementation is not. Fundraising and marketing a non-profit is hard work too. We in the community all dream of being featured on Oprah (hi Oprah!) or having a famous spokesperson adopt the cause. From my personal experience, those are long-shots, but what if we had a non-profit incubator. A platform that could do two things:

• Idea Stream

Allow these ideas to be hashed out, check what current organizations are doing this or might have a similar focus to and then begin a discussion.
I think we can learn from start-ups and take a non-profit entrepreneurial approach. Why not have business plans prepared for these projects, have these plans reviewed and presented to a set of real word critics and donors.

• Funding Stream

Once a project is approved, then it should be open for funding and representation. Existing non-profits that were matched and involved in the Idea Stream, could then decide if it would be a project, or a separate entity. Projects would be posted similar to Kickstarter, with budgets, project details and other information. It could then be promoted socially via Causes, Change, Facebook, Twitter, et. al., as well as promoted to notable people who want to help out. People who are genuinely interested in making a difference, people like Jason Sadler.

So Stephen, in response to this:

@daveove I see that you’re a techno-economist. If you don’t mind me asking, what are your ideas? Concerns? #1MillionShirts

I say drop the t-shirts, go with 1millionideas (yes, the domain is available). 1millionideas to maximize the opportunity that you already have as well as to crystalize your experience, painful as it may have been, to make a very big difference in the way projects like yours start and get moving. Projects that go through an incubation period. Projects that are pitched to, critiqued by, and improved by the aid community, matched with existing non-profits working in the field, then supported through available tools and networks and finally matched with and supported by the spokesperson we have all been dreaming of.

The icon animation with backgrounds didn’t perform well enough.

The demo performance looked something like this.

The great work has already begun, and I looking forward to seeing this person daily:

My wife often tells me, “Your voice changes when you talk about Apple. Your whole body posture changes. You become a different person.” That person will be here every day.