Ad 468 X 60

Selasa, 14 Mei 2013

BlackBerry’s BBM For iOS And Android Announced



May 15, 2013

BlackBerry is on the cusp of turning its proprietary BlackBerry Messenger service (BBM) into a multi-platform experience. Keeping BBM specific to the company’s own devices worked wonders when the company was flying high atop the market, but in looking to reestablish its presence in the iOS / Android-dominated market, BlackBerry is now looking to spread its popular messaging tool to users of those two pivotal platforms.

BlackBerry Messenger will hit both the Google Play and iOS App Stores this summer, and will be absolutely free of charge from the get-go. Those looking to get in on BBM will need to be running fairly recent versions of both iOS and Android, with the requirements set at a minimum of iOS 6 for iPad, iPhone and iPod touch users, and Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich for those on the Google mobile OS.

Speaking of the company’s decision to take BBM to multiple platforms, the company’s CEO Thorsten Heins said: "It’s time to bring BBM to a greater audience . . no matter what mobile device they carry."
Although the decision is not perhaps all that surprising given BlackBerry’s recent plight, it is one of intrigue. BBM’s exclusivity has tended to work in BlackBerry’s favor, drawing in new consumers wishing to be a part of the popular network. But as the company continued to stick with the tired style of keyboarded handset while the likes of Samsung, HTC and Apple flourished with more contemporary designs, BlackBerry definitely lost its way somewhat.

The new-look BBM will no doubt go head-to-head with the likes of WhatsApp, a very well established cross-platform app which already boasts millions of users. Heins also promised that the experience of BBM on both iOS and Android would be fully-fledged, rather than a half-baked effort cooked up as a marketing ruse, adding: "We’re starting with messaging and groups, but we’ll bring voice, screen share, and of course, channels later on."

Heins described the decision to release BBM now was merely "a statement of confidence," with BB10 being strong enough without the need for the kicker of the exclusive messaging service.
To me, this move looks to be in the interests of driving consumers (back) to BlackBerry, but with Heins also confident of BBM becoming an independent messaging solution, we’ll wait and see whether this decision pays dividends


Share is care ...   

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Myspace
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Stumnleupon
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Technorati
Author:Susanto
I am a student at the ship building polytechnic state, I majored in electrical engineering ship. Blogging is a charity, because it can share many knowledge with each other and it is a good thing for to do Contact me →

0 komentar:

BlackBerry CEO Questions Future of Tablets

Chief Executive Officer Thorsten Heins said the popularity of tablet computers may wane, an indication the company may shelve a follow-up to its ill- fated PlayBook device.

 “In five years I don’t think there’ll be a reason to have a tablet anymore,” Heins said in an interview yesterday at the Milken Institute conference in. Los Angles “Maybe a big screen in your workspace, but not a tablet as such. Tablets themselves are not a good business model.”

Heins is rethinking whether to offer larger devices even as the company pushes ahead with fresh smartphones built on the new BlackBerry 10 platform to engineer a sales recovery. The PlayBook, introduced in 2011, was panned by critics for debuting without built-in e-mail, delivering the tablet a near-fatal blow. Waterloo, Ontario-based BlackBerry took a $485 million charge later that year to write down unsold inventory after shipping as few as 150,000 PlayBooks in the third quarter of 2012.
Heins said in a January interview he’ll only consider a PlayBook successor if it can be profitable. He reiterated yesterday that a BlackBerry tablet has to offer a unique proposition in a crowded market.

“In five years, I see BlackBerry to be the absolute leader in mobile computing -- that’s what we’re aiming for,” Heins said. “I want to gain as much market share as I can, but not by being a copycat.”

Q10 Prospects
In a separate interview with Bloomberg Television yesterday, Heins said he was optimistic about prospects for BlackBerry’s new Q10 phone, which sports a physical keyboard. It debuted over the weekend in the U.K.

“We have very, very good first signs already after the launch in the U.K.,” Heins said. “This is going into the installed base of more than 70 million BlackBerry users, so we have quite some expectations. We expect several tens of million of units.”
The shares rose 4.4 percent to $16.29 at the close in New York. The stock had increased 37 percent this year on speculation that the BlackBerry 10 lineup can help fuel a comeback.

The company is counting on a wave of upgrade buying from BlackBerry users who prefer a physical keyboard to drive Q10 sales and help revive revenue growth. While the touch-screen Z10 sold a million units in its first quarter that ended March 2, in line with analyst estimates, the company’s stock has experienced volatily in recent weeks following reports of lackluster demand for the Z10.

‘False’ Information
Department store Selfridges and outlets of Carphone Warehouse Group Plc (CPW) sold out of the Q10 quickly, Peter Misek, an analyst at Jefferies Group LLC (JEF) in New York, wrote in a note yesterday.
“Salespeople were well-versed on the device, and there was more apparent buzz versus the Z10 launch,” Misek said.

BlackBerry said April 12 it would ask securities regulators to investigate a report from Detwiler Fenton & Co. that its new phones have high return rates, saying that the “false” information may have been released in a deliberate attempt to manipulate its stock price.

“Whatever the motivation is, you have to use the right facts, and that’s what we’re challenging right now,” Heins said, referring to the company’s request for both the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Ontario Securities Commission to review the report.

Data from BlackBerry and one of its U.S. carrier partners Verizon Wireless show that Z10 returns are “completely in line” with the industry and “better than previous BlackBerry launches were, so the quality speaks for itself,” Heins said.

‘Remain Steady’
In a separate report last week, Wedge Partners said BlackBerry is probably scaling back Z10 production.
Misek, who has a buy rating on BlackBerry shares, said he saw no sign of Z10 manufacturing cuts and that “Z10 sales in Canada the U.S. and U.K. remain steady with no inventory or return issues.”
The Q10, set to go on sale in the U.S. at the end of May, will sell through the four largest U.S. carriers for about $249 on a two-year contract. While that’s $50 more than Inc (AAPL)’s iPhone 5 it’s part of a strategy to target business users willing to pay more for a phone they think will boost their productivity, according to analysts including Anil Doradla at William Blair & Co. in. Chicago

Lost Ground
The company, formerly known as Research In Motion Ltd. (BB), has steadily lost ground over the past three years to Apple and Samsung Electronik Co. (005930), which offered more compelling touch- screen devices. Samsung accounted for one-third of smartphone sales last quarter, while Apple had 17 percent, according to IDC. BlackBerry’s share fell to 3.2 percent in the fourth quarter and then dropped out of the top five in the first three months of this year.
Heins has said he is exploring the potential licensing of the BlackBerry 10 operating system to other companies.
A successful introduction of the new phones will “create a certain attraction toward BlackBerry 10, and then whatever comes up, we will entertain any valuable discussion for the company,” Heins said yesterday. “We are still observing and watching that space, and that’s what we will continue to do.”

Share is care ...   

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Myspace
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Stumnleupon
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Technorati
Author:Susanto
I am a student at the ship building polytechnic state, I majored in electrical engineering ship. Blogging is a charity, because it can share many knowledge with each other and it is a good thing for to do Contact me →

0 komentar:

"Sound Camera" Can Show You the Source of Noises



By. Susanto
May 14. 2013


If you work with machinery, engines or appliances of any type, then you’ve likely experienced the frustration of hearing a troublesome noise coming from somewhere, but not being able to pinpoint where. If only you could just grab a camera, and take a picture that showed you the noise’s location. Well, soon you should be able to do so, as that’s just what the SeeSV-S205 sound camera does.
Developed in a collaboration between SM Instrument Company and the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, the pentagon-shaped camera has three handles on the back, and a total weight of 1.78 kg (3.9 lb). It reportedly can be easily held in one hand. Other sound cameras do already exist, but they’re generally larger, heavier contraptions that need to be assembled and mounted on a tripod.
On the flat face of the SeeSV-S205, there are a total of 30 MEMS microphones arranged in five spiral arrays. Utilizing a beamforming algorithm, these are able to detect and locate both stationary and moving noise sources. Additionally, a high-resolution optical camera located in the middle of the device records images at a rate of 25 per second.

The output from the microphones and the optical camera are displayed on a linked computer. They’re combined to show both a real-time image of the subject, with a thermograph-like color-coded overlay that indicates the location(s) at which the noise is loudest. A rattling dashboard, shot with the sound camera, can be seen in the following video.
Part of the reason that the SeeSV-S205 is so much smaller and simpler than other sound cameras lies in the fact that it doesn’t detect as wide of a range of frequencies. Co-inventor Prof. Seok-Hyung Bae explained that this is because “Abnormal noises coming from industrial products have relatively higher frequencies.” As a result, it’s limited to noises between 350 Hz and 12 kHz – which should apparently be all that it really needs.
The SeeSV-S205 won a Red Dot product design award in February. There’s currently no word on availability or pricing.


Share is care ...   

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Myspace
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Stumnleupon
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Technorati
Author:Susanto
I am a student at the ship building polytechnic state, I majored in electrical engineering ship. Blogging is a charity, because it can share many knowledge with each other and it is a good thing for to do Contact me →

0 komentar:

Apple vs. Google vs. Microsoft: One Platform Will Not Rule Them All


There are narratives circling the technology industry that are wearing out their welcome. The primary one, and the one where I wish more intelligent voices would prevail, is the narrative that there can only be one winner in this industry. Namely that for Google’s ecosystem to win, Microsoft and Apple must fail. Or that for Microsoft’s ecosystem to win, Apple and Google need to lose. And of course for Apple to win, Google and Microsoft need to lose.
Perhaps this narrative is best encapsulated in the latest Nokia lumia smartphone Tv ad which showcases the apparent epic battle between iPhone and Android users. As funny as the commercial is, average consumers — the ones that make up the target market — really don’t care which phone you or I use. Last year I wrote a column on that very subject called  “ i chose the iPhone, You Chose Android – so what?”
As far as I can tell, these narratives are rooted in not only a limited view of the technology industry’s history, but also in a very shortsighted one. It seems as though since Microsoft’s Windows platform dominated much of computing for several decades, it must mean it’s inevitable that this domination repeat itself. It seems the expectation from many is that we are simply waiting to see which platform wins. More specifically, which platform will dominate computing market share the way Microsoft did in the past. Let me explain why this is not going to happen.
Big Consumer Markets
The reason I say the “one platform to rule them all” narrative is deeply flawed is that when Microsoft dominated computing, the market was very small from a global standpoint. The market for PCs back then was tiny compared with today’s market for smartphones, for example. Small markets favor fewer players that typically dominate the segment. The global consumer market for technology is massive. Massive global consumer markets can sustain many players, competing for segments of markets, and all making money.
Look at how many automobile companies the global consumer market can sustain. Look at how many clothing companies, types of aspirin, types of cereal, etc., the market can sustain. Believing that for Google to win Apple has to lose — or vice versa — is like believing that for Pepsi to win, Coca-Cola has to lose; for Burger King to win, McDonald’s has to lose; for BMW to win, Mercedes-Benz has to lose. We all know how silly that sounds — and that’s the point.
Interestingly, even though a few major conglomerates own many of the underlying products that make up the variety I mention, each product’s success often transcends the company itself but is wrapped into a larger experience. This larger experience is bound to something central that’s key to that company’s sustainability in the global consumer market: its brand.
Now, if we must get into a discussion about who has the best chance to win or lose, I would argue that it’s not the platform we should be looking at, it’s the brand.
Brands Rule the World
When you look at the global consumer market, you simply will not find a company succeeding and competing on the basis of a product that does not have a strong brand. A strong brand stands out. It is recognizable. It leads to continually high customer satisfaction, loyalty and trust. A strong brand continually re-creates an enjoyable and memorable experience for its customers.
When a company builds a brand that the global consumer market considers valuable, it puts itself in a lasting position. Nike, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Coke, Pepsi, McDonald’s, etc., are not in danger of going out of business anytime soon. To predict their demise is as ridiculous as predicting the demise of the strong global consumer brands in the technology industry. Of course, not all brands survive. We have countless examples of mismanaged companies, which lacked the foresight to disrupt themselves and invest in the future. But the time it takes for a brand to unravel is much longer than it is for a company without a strong brand.
A strong brand is not just sustainable, it is also versatile. Brands compete well in their own markets, but a strong brand also allows a company the ability to compete in new markets with new products. A strong brand is one of the strongest, most defensible assets any company has. It is one of the foundational things that often gets overlooked in many analyses.
It’s time to rethink the importance of winners and losers in the technology industry. It’s time to take a more holistic look at which is well positioned to still exist in 20, 30, 50 or even 100 years. Products come and go, but brands have the best chance at standing the test of time.
Bajarin is a principal at  Creative Strategies Inc. a technology-industry analysis and market-intelligence firm in Silicon Valley. He contributes to the big picture opinion column that appears here every week.
By. Time

Share is care ...   

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Myspace
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Stumnleupon
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Technorati
Author:Susanto
I am a student at the ship building polytechnic state, I majored in electrical engineering ship. Blogging is a charity, because it can share many knowledge with each other and it is a good thing for to do Contact me →

0 komentar:

Minggu, 12 Mei 2013

Hanford Nuclear Waste Cleanup Plant May Be Too Dangerous

The most toxic and voluminous nuclear waste in the U.S.—208 million liters —sits in decaying underground tanks at the Hanford Site (a nuclear reservation) in southeastern Washington State. It accumulated there from the middle of World War II, when the Manhattan Project invented the first nuclear weapon, to 1987, when the last reactor shut down. The federal government’s current attempt at a permanent solution for safely storing that waste for centuries—the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant here—has hit a major snag in the form of potential chain reactions, hydrogen explosions and leaks from metal corrosion. And the revelation last February that six more of the storage tanks are currently leaking has further ramped up the pressure for resolution.
After decades of research, experimentation and political inertia, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) started building the “Vit Plant” at Hanford in 2000. It’s intended to sequester the waste in stainless steel–encased glass logs, a process known as vitrification (hence “Vit”), so it cannot escape into the environment, barring natural disasters like earthquakes or catastrophic fires. But progress on the plant slowed to a crawl last August, when numerous interested parties acknowledged that the plant’s design might present serious safety risks. In response, then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu appointed an expert panel to find a way forward. Because 60 of the 177 underground tanks have already leaked and all are at increasing risk to do so, solving the problem is urgent.
Vitrification prep 101: Some tough homework
The plant’s construction, currently contracted by the DoE to Bechtel National, Inc., may be the most complicated engineering project underway in the U.S. But back in 2000 the DoE and Bechtel decided to save time and money by starting construction before crucial structures and processes had been designed and properly tested at a scale comparable to full operation. This wasn’t such a good idea, says Dirk Dunning, nuclear material specialist with the Oregon Department of Energy. “The worst possible time to save money is at the beginning. You’re better off to be very nearly complete on design before you begin construction.”
The vitrification project calls for the waste to be analyzed chemically and radiologically before it enters a pretreatment facility to be separated into various constituents such as cesium 137, strontium 90 and metals. After that, each separate waste stream is channeled as either high-level or low-activity waste into designated melters. The glass is created by mixing sand with a few additives like boron; the waste is stirred in, and the whole mess is melted, then decanted into the steel canisters. After the glass logs solidify the waste is trapped and should be isolated from the environment for long enough for most of the radioactivity to decay to safe levels.
The low-level waste canisters will be stored permanently at Hanford. Because the planned Yucca Mountain geologic repository project was halted by the Obama administration, the high-level waste canisters will be kept at Hanford in an as-yet unconstructed building. In January the DoE announced it is beginning work on a new “comprehensive management and disposal system” that will make a permanent geologic repository available by 2048. Yet even if all goes perfectly from now on, it will take until 2062 to vitrify all the waste.
The waste presents significant challenges for Vit Plant project engineers and nuclear chemists. For one thing, the waste varies wildly from tank to tank. The former nuclear weapons facility at Savannah River, Ga.—also part of the Manhattan Project—has been successfully vitrifying weapons waste for years, but only one fuel separation process was used there. At Hanford there were nine production reactors making plutonium and uranium fuel using at least six different radiochemical processes whose chemistry, and thus constituents, were very different. This remains true of the waste as well. There are large differences in composition from tank to tank that necessitate chemically profiling the waste in batches before it enters the Vit Plant, which may also require changes to the glass formula at the other end of the process.
Overall, the tanks hold every element in the periodic table, including half a ton of plutonium, various uranium isotopes and at least 44 other radionuclides—containing a total of about 176 million curies of radioactivity. This is almost twice the radioactivity released at Chernobyl, according to Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters, by Kate Brown, a history professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. The waste is also physically hot as well as laced with numerous toxic and corrosive chemicals and heavy metals that threaten the integrity of the pipes and tanks carrying the waste, risking leakage.
The physical form of the waste causes problems, too. It’s very difficult to get a representative sample from any given tank because the waste has settled into layers, starting with a baked-on “hard heal” at the bottom, a layer of salt cake above that, a layer of gooey sludge, then fluid, and finally gases in the headspace between the fluid and the ceiling. Most of the radioactivity is in the solids and sludge whereas most of the volume is in the liquids and the salt cake.
Going with the flow
All of these considerations contribute to the overall problem, which can be summed up in one word: flow. To get to the glass log stage the waste has to travel through an immense labyrinth of tanks and pipes. It has to move at a fast enough clip to avoid pipe and filter clogs as well as prevent solids from settling. This is quite a challenge given the multiphasic nature of the waste: solids, liquids, sludge and gases all move differently. The waste feed through the system will be in the form of a “non-Newtonian slurry”—a mixture of fluids and solids of many different shapes, sizes and densities. If the solids stop moving, problems ensue.
For one thing, there’s a chance that enough plutonium could congregate to trigger a nuclear chain reaction, or criticality—the self-sustaining cascade of atomic fission that releases massive amounts of energy. That would be a serious event even if an explosion did not breach the concrete containment building. Hot slurry could surge backward through the piping, spreading the problem to other parts of the system. Waste solids could also clog pipes, along with ion-exchange filters designed to grab the most radioactive constituents from the low-level waste for addition to the high-level stream.
Whether the solids pile up in the vessels, the pipes or the filters, says Donna Busche, nuclear and environmental safety manager for Hanford contractor URS Corp., “that’s where I’ve got the problem.” Further construction of the Vit Plant’s flawed components cannot proceed unless Busche issues an operating permit, which she is loath to do. She calls the DoE’s failure to require that Bechtel resolve the safety issues sooner “obscene.”
A second explosive risk could arise because both heat and radiation can disassemble water into oxygen and hydrogen. If there are not places along the piping and in the vessels for hydrogen to exit the flow of waste, enough could build up to explode.
And then there’s the extreme radioactivity of the waste, which is far too high for direct human exposure. Enter the Vit Plant’s notorious “black cells.” These are 18 massive concrete enclosures populated by smaller stainless steel vessels. The idea is to guide the waste through the vessels without any human intervention over the 40 years officials believe it will take to process all the waste. The only way to do this is to ensure that the black cells have no moving parts. But because the waste has to be constantly stirred to prevent settling of the noxious and radioactive solids, the plan calls for pulse jet mixers—described as “turkey basters”—to keep the solids suspended.
The pulse jet mixers suck waste into their vertical tubes and then eject it forcefully back into the tanks. Unfortunately, they have not yet been shown to provide sufficient mixing at the scale necessary for the Vit Plant. They do, however, apply enough force to the slurry for the solids to grind away at the stainless steel of tanks and pipes, weakening them enough to risk leakage. Besides this erosion, there’s also potential for chemical corrosion. The Defense Nuclear Safety Board, which advises the White House, has called these problems “a show-stopper.”
“The way [the plant] is currently designed poses unacceptable risks. DoE now admits that,” says Tom Carpenter, executive director of the watchdog group Hanford Challenge. In December the Government Accountability Office issued a highly critical analysis of the Vit Plant’s unresolved safety issues
Disagreements over the safety risks have also prompted outspoken protests from several senior Hanford officials. Chief project engineer Gary Brunson resigned in January. Busche and former deputy chief process engineer Walter Tamosaitis filed whistleblower complaints alleging that their concerns about safety were suppressed by Bechtel. (Bechtel declined to be interviewed for this story, citing nondisclosure agreements signed with Chu’s expert panel.)
But Langdon Holton, DoE’s senior technical authority for the Vit Plant and a member of Chu’s expert panel, believes the project’s problems are technical snags, rather than the insoluble consequence of incompetence or hubris. He also thinks that although the current risks are real, they are unlikely and would be of low magnitude if they did occur. For example, he says, “You’d have to have a vessel unmixed for half a year” for enough hydrogen to accumulate for a significant explosion. “Do I have concern we won’t be able to resolve the issues? No, but it will take some time,” he adds. (Chu’s panel does not expect to issue a formal report, according to Holton.)
Time may be limited. The 177 tanks, built between 1943 and 1986 and most intended for only about a 20-year life span, are decaying; at last count, six are leaking. The Vit Plant was supposed to start operating in 2007 and is now projected to begin in 2022. Its original budget was $4.3 billion and is now estimated at $13.4 billion. Nobody is suggesting the project be abandoned, yet forging ahead without confidence in the plant’s safe operation is not really an option either. The real question, many Hanford watchers say, is whether the country wants to pay for doing it right.
Busche is adamant that the safety issues must be solved before plans proceed further. “The level of robustness we have to put in all our systems is derived from the waste itself,” she says. “It’s the gift that keeps giving until it’s in a glass log.”
Follow Scientific American on Twitter @SciAm and @SciamBlogs.
Visit ScientificAmerican.com for the latest in science, health and technology news.
© 2013 ScientificAmerican.com. All rights reserved.

Share is care ...   

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Myspace
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Stumnleupon
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Technorati
Author:Susanto
I am a student at the ship building polytechnic state, I majored in electrical engineering ship. Blogging is a charity, because it can share many knowledge with each other and it is a good thing for to do Contact me →

0 komentar:

New Perceptions: Microsoft vs. Android


It’s pretty clear that Microsoft, a many-time failure at mass-market tablets has decided that if they can’t beat Apple and Android at popular tablets, they’ll sue them instead. That’s my only explanation for Microsoft suing Barnes & Noble, Foxconn, and Inventec over their Android e-readers.

Microsoft, we now know, from Microsoft’s Horacio Gutierrez, Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property & Licensing, that Microsoft was trying to win by litigation even before Microsoft commercially released Windows 7 tablets. Gutierrez wrote, “We have tried for over a year to reach licensing agreements with Barnes & Noble, Foxconn and Inventec. Their refusals to take licenses leave us no choice but to bring legal action.”

Now, I’m no lawyer nor am I a patent expert, but Microsoft’s patents strike me as the kind of bogus software patents that are a perfect example of why software patents are a horrible idea. The patents cover such “patentable” ideas as “Loading Status in a Hypermedia Browser Having a Limited Available Display Area” and “Selection Handles in Editing Electronic Documents.”

Be that as it may, the are currently valid patents and Microsoft will try to use them to gain the money its own tablets will never see. I agree with Pamela Jones, editor of Groklaw, the legal technology site, who describes Microsoft’s motives as “Instead of developing a competing product, they want to just skim off the top from the work of others.” Amen sister.

So, why isn’t Microsoft just suing Google? A legal expert familiar with the situation told me, “Microsoft will bring a series of lawsuits this year in order to tee up the lawsuit it will eventually bring against Google.”
The lawyer continued, “This is just one more step in a patent war that's going--to spread throughout the IT industry. It will be years before it reaches maximum intensity, and years more before the fire begins to die down. Most of this decade will be spent in the fight, which will reduce innovation, destroy tens of billions of dollars in value, and offer a field day to certain non-US competitors. We warned people years ago about this, and now the Free World will be hurt, as everyone will be hurt, by the patent wars resulting from the companies' incautious embrace of state-issued monopolies on ideas.”
I wish they were wrong, but they’re not. Instead of ideas and products, we’re in for years of litigation instead of innovation.

by. zdnet

Share is care ...   

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Myspace
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Stumnleupon
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Technorati
Author:Susanto
I am a student at the ship building polytechnic state, I majored in electrical engineering ship. Blogging is a charity, because it can share many knowledge with each other and it is a good thing for to do Contact me →

0 komentar:

Microsoft's most profitable mobile operating system: Android


To some, Windows 8 is a marketplace failure. But its flop has been nothing compared to Microsoft's problems in getting anyone to use its Windows Phone operating systems. You don't need to worry about Microsoft's bottom line though. Thanks to its Android patent agreements, Microsoft may be making as much as $8 per Android device. This could give Microsoft as much as $3.4 billion in 2013 from Android sales.


Years of trying, running Nokia into the ground as a de facto Microsoft sub-division, and Windows Phone still has no marketshare worth speaking about. (Image: NetMarketShare)
There's nothing new about this. Microsoft has been making hundread of millions a year from android since 2011. Where do these profits come from? Patent licenses. And if vendors don't want to pay, Microsoft will threaten patent lawsuits. Sometimes, Microsoft even follows up with an actual lawsuit
The object, however, isn't to win in court. In recent months, Microsoft has convinced Foxconn, the world's largest contract electronics OEM, NikonZTE, and numerous other Android OEMs that it's cheaper to pay off Microsoft by acquiring a patent license than it is to fight them in a lawsuit.
Today, only Motorola Mobility, a division of Google and Huawei, Remain free of the microsoft-android intellecttual-property (IP) Tax. In a statement to Dow Jones Business News, Google spokesman Matt Kallman said: "This is the same tactic we've seen time and again from Microsoft. Instead of building great new products, Microsoft attacks the competition, and tries to drive up the prices of Android devices for consumers."
No case has ever been successfully made for any of Microsoft's undisclosed patents that are being used to profit from Android, but that's not what is important for businesses. The bottom line is that it's usually. Cheaper to pay off patent trolls than it is figt them in court. Whether Microsoft's publicly undisclosed patents are valid or have any relevance to Android is beside the point.  
That's why Motorola Mobility’s patent lawsuit against Microsoft is anything but done. In today's legal climate, the biggest companies use patents to battle over market share and patent licensing. Nokia, Microsoft, and Oracle’s attempt to knock Android out of the European Union market as “a below-cost Trojan Horse”, is simply another tactic in their legal attempts to win profits from a market where Microsoft is unable to compete with its products.
Eventually, if Google is successful, then the Microsoft's Android patent tax will be contracted away in sealed settlement documents. Until that day, Microsoft will continue to profit from mobile operating systems — it just won't be from its own failed mobile operating system.
by. zdnet


Share is care ...   

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Myspace
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Stumnleupon
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Technorati
Author:Susanto
I am a student at the ship building polytechnic state, I majored in electrical engineering ship. Blogging is a charity, because it can share many knowledge with each other and it is a good thing for to do Contact me →

0 komentar: