Exactly one year ago, on November 6th, 2008, I was siting in the audience at the Web 2.0 Summit when AT&T Mobility President Ralph De La Vega shared good news from the stage: The company would “soon” be permitting iPhone users to tether their phones for use. I assumed he was a reliable source and blogged the glad tidings.

I also assumed that “soon” meant a matter of weeks or a month or two, so it was startling when Apple announced that iPhone OS 3.0 would support tethering seven months later and named 22 carriers who would be ready on day of launch–and AT&T was not among them. The carrier merely said that it would support tethering at some unspecified date–which turned out not to be early August. Most recently it’s said that it needs to upgrade its network and that “We expect to offer tethering in the future,” which falls short of a promise that it will ever do so.

All along, of course, some folks have tethered their iPhones via hacks, software  that runs only on jailbroken iPhones, and even a program that was very briefly available on Apple’s App Store. But they’ve risked the wrath of AT&T, since tethering violates the carrier’s current terms of service.

As far as I know, nobody at AT&T has publicly explained what its president was doing whipping up excitement for tethering when allowing it without time-consuming infrastructure improvements would have been imprudent. But it seems likely that it now wants to go to extreme measures not to get anyone’s hopes up until it’s absolutely, positively sure that tethering is ready to go. I hope that day comes soon.

But I also keep asking myself an ugly question: If the company still seems to be having trouble dealing with the quantity of data being consumed by iPhone users who can’t tether, what does that say about the chances that it’ll allow them to hog even more bandwidth via their laptops anytime soon?

Share/E-Mail

Just days before Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is released, several digital retailers have decided not to sell the game.

Is it because of that controversial scene where the player acts out a terrorist attack? Nope. It’s because the game’s PC version uses Steamworks, a software platform for multiplayer match creation, downloadable content and anti-piracy measures. Direct2Drive, Impulse and GamersGate say they oppose the forced installation of third-party software on players’ computers (Direct2Drive calls Steamworks “a Trojan Horse”), and so they are sitting out on the biggest computer game of 2009. Bold move.

Of course, that’s only the official story. Steamworks is a part of Steam, Valve’s digital distribution service that happens to compete with the boycotting retailers. As 1UP so eloquently put it, “having to fire up Steam to play the game you bought from Direct2Drive is a lot like having to walk through a McDonald’s every time you want to eat a Whopper,” so you can understand the retailers’ position.

The bigger issue is that Modern Warfare 2 is taking away many of the things PC gamers love about PC gaming. Last month, chaos ensued when developer Infinity Ward said there would be no dedicated servers allowed for multiplayer matches. Instead, everything will be handled though a console-style matchmaking system, and the game won’t support user-created mods either. (Ars Technica has a nice rundown of how messy this situation has become).

The forced implementation of Steamworks ties into those earlier developments as a way of controlling the PC gaming environment, and making it more like the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3. The problem is, that’s not what PC gamers want. Modern Warfare 2 will probably sell well on the PC anyway, but it’ll be a neutered experience, and one that hurts the free spirit of PC gaming as a whole.

Share/E-Mail

Okay, now we know why Dell was being so secretive about its new Adamo XPS laptop: It’s not only remarkably thin (9.99mm) but also uses a design which is unique, as far as I know. The keyboard hinges to the display not at its edge but part way up,so the keyboard is angled upwards. As seen in the photo above, the ports are on the display half of the system rather than the keyboard part. And you swipe your finger across some sort of band to open the case. Very, very unusual.

Most attempts to “improve” laptop design have flopped, but the Adamo is intriguing, at least. It’s kind of hard to figure it out without seeing it in person–which I haven’t done–but reports from those who have are at least guardedly positive, and say the angled keyboard makes for comfy typing.
Props to Dell for trying something different, at least. It has a preview site up with basic specs for the new Adamo; it’ll cost $1799 and be out for the holiday season.

Any guesses as to whether the slanty keyboard will be successful? Can you envision other PC manufacturers plagiarizing the idea, or is this the 2009 equivalent of an IBM butterfly Thinkpad?

Share/E-Mail

$99 iPhone 3GS for Xmas?

Droid: What you should know.

Skype legal hassles over! Please?

Twitter starts to test retweeting.

Windows 7 outselling Vista handily.

Band Hero sued? No doubt!

Slacker radio hits Android phones.

Orb media streaming for Macs.

It’s Wikipedia in handheld form.

Technology isn’t making us hermits.

________________________

Like 5Words? Subscribe via RSS.

Share/E-Mail

I keep writing about the wonders of Google Books’ archive of scanned magazines–most notably, the utter delight that is the complete LIFE. Every time I do, I pause to wonder why it’s practically impossible to find a magazine unless you know it’s there. Problem solved, mostly: Google Books now has a page with thumbnail images of all the magazines to be found there.

It’s not perfect–it’s an alphabetical listing, so you need to slog through three pages to see everything, and it won’t work once Google gets hundreds or thousands of titles online–but it’s a vast improvement on the previous state of affairs.

Some things about Google’s magazine project still confuse me. Why, for instance, is IDG’s weekly computer trade publication InfoWorld in Google Print, while its other weekly computer trade publication, Computerworld, lives in Google News, where it’s almost impossible to find unless you know how?

I still think we need a Google Magazines–a site devoted entirely to periodicals, and tailored to making it as easy as possible to browse, search, and find ‘em. And I think the odds are pretty good that we’ll get one. Soon would be good…

Share/E-Mail

Verizon Wireless starts selling its first Android phone, the Droid (“by Motorola”) today. I’ve been using a unit loaned to me by Verizon for a week, and remain mostly impressed: The Droid couples impressive hardware with the much-improved Android 2.0 OS, and the result is the first Android phone that’s fully worthy of being compared to the iPhone 3GS and Palm’s Pre. (It’s most definitely an example of the class of device that Walt Mossberg calls “super-smart phones.”)

I don’t expect every Verizon customer who’s currently lusting after the iPhone to buy a Droid instead, but I think a meaningful percentage will–and that overall, they’ll be pleased.

But the Droid is hardly above criticism. As I’ve been using one and mostly enjoying the experience, my mind has been racing ahead to…next year’s model. (I’m assuming there will be one: Already, Verizon is releasing another phone in the Droid lineup, the Droid Eris.)

So here’s my quick wishlist for the phone I’m calling the Droid II–the next major collaboration between Verizon, Motorola,and Google.

A better keyboard. I want to like the Droid’s wide QWERTY keyboard, but so far I can’t muster much enthusiasm for its feel–the overall thinness of the phone has resulted in keys without enough travel for truly satisfying typing. (I do like the fact that it frees up all of the handsome screen’s 854-by-480 pixels for content, not virtual keys.)

It’s gotta be possible to squeeze a better keyboard into the space the Droid has–for one thing, the little five-way controller to the right of the keys seems superfluous on a touchscreen device. Dump it, and you could widen the keys and make them more comfy. I’d also be tickled if the Droid II took a cue from the AT&T Tilt I used to carry and angled the screen up when you slid out the keyboard.

On the other hand, the Droid’s keyboard is one in a long line of landscape-mode models that have ultimately broken my heart. I keep thinking that wider is better, but the only handset manufacturer that consistently provides good keyboards is RIM–and it squeezes BlackBerry keyboards into a skinny portrait orientation. I’ve come to the conclusion that a narrower keyboard works better for thumb-typing, because it lets you reach any key with one of your thumbs without any unnatural stretching.

With that in mind, what if the Droid II took a cue from the Pre and provided a slide-out portrait mode keyboard? The image above is my crude, ugly mockup of what it might look like; the keyboard is swiped from a BlackBerry Bold. Give the keys a little more travel than on the Droid I, and you might have a keyboard that would make BlackBerry fans comfortable and at least some iPhone owners jealous.

Full-blown multitouch. The Droid’s hardware and operating system both support it–it’s just that neither the OS nor any of the bundled apps use it. Should be easy to fix: The Droid II should use pinching and pulling to adjust magnification in the browser, the photo viewer, and anywhere else that you need to resize your view.

A more streamlined interface. Android 2.0 is pretty pleasing overall, but it’s also a tad ungainly compared to the obsessive minimalism of the iPhone interface: Controlling the phone involves four buttons, a keyboard, a five-way controller, and, of course, a touchscreen. I don’t want to see all of that go away–I like the back button and wish the iPhone had something similar–but let’s put simplification and streamlining on the to-do list for Android 3.0, and hope that it’s ready in time for the Droid II.

A more impressive camera. The Droid I’s model sounds impressive, with five megapixels of resolution and a dual-LED flash. I found that it took nice pictures in adequate sunlight, but that interior shots in dim lighting came out murky. (The iPhone 3GS may have a third less pixels and lack flash, but its autofocus lens and image-processing technology add up to a camera that’s more than the sum of its specs.)

The Droid II doesn’t need any more megapixels, and if the case is going to stay thin there’s a limit to how much better the lens can get. But I’d like to think that improved imaging software could eke better pictures out of the same hardware.

Music syncing. Entertainment is the single area where the iPhone is most strikingly better than the Droid. For starters, the Droid lets you copy music from PC or Mac via USB, but provides no means of syncing tracks so that you don’t have to rummage around in folders to find stuff. The Droid II should avoid Pre-style iTunes-compatibility shenanigans, but there’s no reason why it couldn’t come with a utility to sync the phone with iTunes. Maybe Verizon can just put a custom version of DoubleTwist on the phone.

Movie downloads. The Droid I has a video player, but no features for acquiring content to watch beyond its built-in YouTube content. Man does not live by clips of laughing babies alone, so the Droid II should have a way to rent and buy films and TV shows. Maybe Verizon, Motorola, and/or Google can strike a deal with either Amazon (who supplies the Android music store) or CinemaNow.

A standard task manager. Maybe this is just a hangup of mine–I wish the iPhone had one too–and I’m aware there are third-party solutions, such as the nifty Remember the Milk. But I’d like to see Android get a standard task manager that integrates with Google’s online task service as well as Android’s e-mail and calendar meld with Gmail and Google Calendar.

A real ringer/vibration switch. Unlike the iPhone and the Pre, the Droid makes you look at the screen to set the phone to vibrate. A physical switch would let you silence the phone without taking it out of your pocket and annoying fellow theatergoers.

A screen built for the real world. The iPhone 3GS’s display has been remarkably durable in my experience (I’ve stepped on mine; no damage) and its oleophobic coating does a good job of keeping it desmudged. I’m actually not sure whether the Droid I has comparable features or not. But if it doesn’t, let’s get them on the II.

A bit more speed in certain places. For the most part, the Droid I is a pleasingly snappy performer–that’s one of the reasons it’s the best Android phone to date. There are, however, a few places where a little more optimization would make a world of difference. The phone app, for instance, feels surprisingly sluggish at times.

Even more apps. Android already has 12,000, which is enough to be valuable, but not enough to induce the giddy feeling you can get from iPhone’s 100,000 title App Store. I don’t know how many Android apps will be around by the time the Droid II ships, but I’m confident that it’ll be a healthy improvement on today’s total.

Okay, that’s enough wish-listing for now. Verizon customers (and everyone else, for that matter): Are you tempted to plunk down $199 (after $100 rebate and two-year contract) for today’s Droid?

Share/E-Mail

Just how much Google do you have in your life? Now Google is giving you a tool to help answer that question: Google Dashboard, which puts personal information relating to twenty Google services you may be using on one page.

Dashboard includes everything from the number of conversations in your Gmail inbox to how many people are following you on Google Reader to the most recent task you completed with Google Tasks. Icons indicate if you’ve made a piece of information (such as your age) public; links let you go to the originating services and manage settings relating to them. It puts scads of information about you in one place, which is why you need to enter a password to get to it–even if you’re already logged in.

Here’s what Dashboard tells me about my usage of Google Docs:

And here it tells me that I’ve shared an album on Orkut (which was startling to hear, since I don’t remember ever using Orkut–but I figure Google has a better memory than I do):

The level of information that Dashboard provides is curiously inconsistent–the Gmail section is so granular that it tells me exactly when I last received a piece of spam and what the title was, but the Contacts one merely notes how many contacts I have. I’m not sure if there’s an overarching philosophy about what info goes into the Dashboard, or whether different Google teams simply had varying philosophies.

Dashboard could use some more explanation. I already knew that I use a ton of Google services and they know a lot about me, so seeing it all in one place was more entertaining than scary. As long as I’m looking at the big picture, I’d like to get more information on exactly what Google does (and doesn’t do) with my personal information–but Dashboard’s help is pretty perfunctory, and there’s no concise data-point-by-data-point disclosure.

Unless you don’t have a Google Account–and if you don’t, you’re surely not reading this–your Dashboard is here. If you check it out, let us know what you think. And here’s Google’s video introduction:

Share/E-Mail

Rocky. The Chicago Cubs. Charlie Brown. Avis, back when its whole schtick centered on being America’s #2 rental car company. America loves its underdogs–and the technology business has always been home to a disproportionate number of exceptionally lovable underdogs. They may never achieve market leadership, but without them, the tech in our lives would be less interesting, innovative, and inspiring.

So what is an underdog? Merriam-Webster says it’s a “loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest” or a “a victim of injustice or persecution.” For this list, I’m using a somewhat different, tighter definition.An underdog, first of all, must be good–maybe better, in fact, than its more successful rivals. It should have a cult of intensely loyal fans. (Many of the products we’re about to discuss have fan bases that can be a little scary–you know who you are.) And it helps if it’s successful enough that it hangs around for awhile. (Some of the contenders we’re about to ponder have been underdogs for decades.)

Many tech underdogs end up triumphing, such as every behemoth of a corporation that  was founded in a garage or a dorm room—-Dell, Google, HP, Microsoft, and many others. You lose any claim on underdogship the moment you come to dominate your market. But I did include some items that started out dominant, and then were toppled by underdogs, thereby becoming underdogs themselves.

I considered dozens of contenders to come up with the twenty that made the cut for this article. I’ve ranked ‘em in terms of overall significance. Take a gander–then tell me about the products, companies, and technologies that I should have mentioned but didn’t.

20. Quarterdeck DESQview

What it was: A DOS enhancement, released in 1985, that let you run multiple applications at once in movable, resizable onscreen windows.

Underdog to: Microsoft Windows, which debuted later the same year.

Notable virtues: It let typical PCs of the era multitask existing DOS apps quickly and reliably at a time when multitasking was a sexy new idea and Windows was still profoundly crude.

What made it an underdog: For one thing, it’s no great shock that Microsoft had an built-in advantage when it came to building multitasking interfaces on top of its own DOS. And compared to the fancy (for the 1980s) graphics sported by Windows, DESQview had a no-frills, text-oriented feel; that’s one of the things that its fans loved about it, but it also gave it less sizzle.

Random factoid: DESQview started as a clone of IBM’s TopView, an unsuccessful, even less flashy DOS multitasker.

19. Trackballs

What they are: A pointing device with a ball you spin with your fingertip–sort of the same idea as the original mechanical mouse, only upside-down.

Underdog to: Mice (with desktop PCs) and touchpads (with laptops).

Notable virtues: Trackballs make efficient use of desk space and are unbeatable for Missile Command. But as with all input devices, it’s mostly a matter of personal preference.

What makes them an underdog: Their brief moment of glory came in the early 1990s, when they were the dominant form of pointing device for notebooks–but they were soon nudged back into underdog status by touchpads. Other than that, they’ve a classic tech underdog: something that’s been passionately adopted by a really small group of people. (Including me: They’re my choice of pointing device for desktop PCs, and if Apple sold a MacBook with a trackball, I’d probably buy it.)

Random factoid: The first trackball was invented in 1952 by the Royal Canadian Navy, and used a…bowling ball.

18. ReplayTV

What it was: One of the first digital video recorders (DVRs) to bring truly simple, powerful recording of TV programs to consumers.

Underdog to: TiVo, which debuted more or less simultaneously in 1999.

Notable virtues: Excellent user interface; made it a cinch to skip commercials (one version even did it automatically); first version carried no monthly service charge.

What made it an underdog: That  original pricing model–you paid one flat fee for a box and lifetime service–made it a far costlier gizmo than TiVo, which subsidized the cost of the box but made you pay a monthly fee. Lack of an adorable mascot probably didn’t help, either.

Random factoid: Replay founder Anthony Wood later formed Roku, maker of a nifty video streaming device.

17. Digital Research GEM

What it was: A graphical environment, debuting in 1985, that provided a Mac-like windowing interface for DOS and the Atari ST.

Underdog to: Microsoft’s similar Windows, of course, and to some degree the Mac itself.

Notable virtues: Early in its existence, it was arguably a better way to turn a PC into a pseudo-Mac than Windows; it provided Atari computers with a decent interface into the 1990s.

What made it an underdog: All Digital Research products were underdogs to all vaguely comparable Microsoft products, for one thing. Also, Apple sued Digital Research over the PC version of GEM’s more-than-passing resemblance to the Mac, forcing a new version of GEM that was less Maclike and probably less appealing.

Random factoid: Like all defunct operating systems and environments, GEM isn’t completely defunct. It eventually ended up as an open-source application dubbed FreeGEM, available in distributions such as OpenGEM. Windows 7 it’s not, but it’s still capable of running on ridiculously underpowered old computers. As far as I can tell, though, things have been pretty quiet in GEMland over the last few years.

16. Microsoft Zune

What it is: Microsoft’s line of portable media players, starting with a hard-disk MP3 player in 2006 and currently focused on the new Zune HD.

Underdog to: The audio players made by a Cupertino, California company named after a piece of fruit.

Notable virtues: The new Zune HD has plenty of them–a slick user interface, a solid subscription-music service, HD radio support, and more. It’s not a pocket computer or an app platform, but on its own terms, it’s neat.

What makes it an underdog: The fact that Zune was from Microsoft made comparisons to the iPod inevitable, and inevitably made the Zune look bad; Zune sales (at least until the HD came out) have been pretty pitiful; a bizarre and embarrassing bug prevented all the 30GB Zunes from working on December 31st of last year. Zunes have always seemed like responses to iPod trends that Apple has already largely moved on from–hard-disk players, then simple flash-based ones, then touch-screen ones that don’t run third-party apps. Also, I think the name doesn’t help–it reminds me of the easy-to-make-fun-of malt beverage Zima and sounds nerdy rather than cool–the gadget equivalent of being a kid named Poindexter.

Random factoid: The first Zune had the pre-release code name of Argo, which might not have been a bad final moniker.

Share/E-Mail

When I compared the Verizon Droid to the iPhone 3GS last week, I said that the Droid didn’t have multi-touch input–based on the fact that I’d used it a lot and encountered no instances when it did. A commenter said that the phone did indeed support multi-touch, and I tweaked my item. Essentially, the phone is capable of multi-touch; it just chooses not to use it.

Today, Rob Jackson of Phandroid pointed out that the Android image editor Picsay uses multi-touch, and serves as proof that the Droid can do it. He’s right, and Picsay shows the power of controlling your phone with more than one finger at a time. As with iPhone applications, it lets zoom in and out of images by pulling and pinching them. It’s wonderfully fluid–at least as good as the iPhone’s multi-touch.

It’s also preferable to the approach to zooming used in the Droid’s standard apps: In them, you double-tap to zoom in, or use zoom/shrink buttons that appear in the lower left-hand side of the screen. That works well enough–it’s certainly not an argument against buying a Droid–but you lose the precision of pinching and pulling, and it just feels clunkier overall. And given that Picsay is proof positive that some Android apps do use iPhone-style multi-touch, the Droid will suffer from basic inconsistencies in its user interface.

How come the Droid doesn’t make multi-touch a core part of its experience? It’s possible that only people who work for Verizon Wireless, Motorola, or Google know for sure. The logical assumption is that the Droid’s makers doen’t want to run afoul of Apple’s multi-touch patents, but Engadget’s Nilay Patel has a smart post up with plenty of evidence that pinching and pulling are in the clear. (Among them: The Palm Pre, Zune HD, and Windows 7 all incorporate the gesture much as it appears on the iPhone.)

Patel theorizes that it’s possible that Google simply hasn’t gotten around to enabling multi-touch in Android 2.0’s apps. That seems like an odd theory–it is, after all, the gesture that’s more or less synonymous with next-generation smartphones–but it doesn’t seem any less likely than any other possibility.

One way or another, I agree with Jeffrey Sambells, who says that gestures are language and should be consistent on multiple platforms. Or to think of it a slightly different way: I know that if I want to search for something on a desktop computer or laptop, I can press <Ctrl><F> (or its Mac counterpart, <Command><F>) in virtually any application. Aren’t touchscreen gestures pretty much the modern equivalent of keyboard shortcuts? Shouldn’t they be equally standardized?

Share/E-Mail

The folks at Symantec have looked right past the artistic intent behind Lose/Lose, a computer game that deletes your files every time you shoot an alien, because they’ve just classified the game as a Mac Trojan.

Lose/Lose is described by its creator as “a game with real life consequences.” It’s a standard space shooter in the spirit of Galaga, except that each alien is assigned to a file on your hard drive. Blast the alien, and the file is gone forever, for real. Getting hit by an alien crashes the game, never to be played again. Here’s what creator Zach Gage says about the project:

By way of exploring what it means to kill in a video-game, Lose/Lose broaches bigger questions. As technology grows, our understanding of it diminishes, yet, at the same time, it becomes increasingly important in our lives. At what point does our virtual data become as important to us as physical possessions?

When I read about the game on Make a couple months ago, I chuckled at the concept, watched the video and wisely skipped trying the game for myself.

Symantec, on the other hand, dubbed the game a Trojan, gave it a name (“OSX.Loosemaque”) and created a threat assessment. Most amusing is how Symantec employee and blogger Ben Nahorney acknowledges Gage’s intent: “What’s interesting is that the author of this ‘game’ flat-out says what it does on his Web site,” Nahorney writes. “Reading through the author’s description, it seems that he has created this game/threat as some sort of artistic project.”

Still, Nahorney follows with a valid point, that someone with truly bad intentions could modify Lose/Lose’s code and distribute a game that doesn’t pronounce its file-deleting capabilities outright. So next time you download some obscure, simplistic alien-shooting game from the Internet, consider yourself warned.

Share/E-Mail