Beyonder Blog

Google's Pacman tribute

Fans of the retro classic arcade game Pac-Man will be pleasantly surprised when visiting Google.com today. To mark the 30th anniversary of the game, Google have created their first “playable” doodle.

The “Google Doodle” tradition was started in 1998 when Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin created a doodle dedicated to the Burning Man Festival. The image was designed by Page and Brin to inform users if the server had crashed during their absence.

Doodles following this event were designed by an outside contractor, until Larry and Sergey asked the then-intern Dennis Hwang to design a logo for Bastille Day in 2000. Hwang has been designing them since. Typically clicking on the Google Doodle will direct the user to a set of Google search results related to the subject of the doodle; in the past this has resulted in large amounts of traffic being driven to unsuspecting sites.

When left untouched, the playable doodle activates and enables the user to play a traditional game of Pac-Man, using the letters of ‘Google’ as walls in the maze that the user navigates Pac-Man in a cat and mouse game with multi-coloured  monsters.

The Scoop. Gizmodo's big reveal of the Apple iPhone 4G (Gizmodo)

The recent Gizmodo-iPhone controversy has been the talk of the tech segment of the blogosphere for the past month. Even with most of the facts, it is difficult to decipher whether or not this is a case of ruthless opportunism (from both Apple and the leakers of the iPhone), a brilliant marketing ploy from a famously image conscious tech giant, or both. For those not in the know, the following is a brief recount of what happened:

On the 19^th of April Jason Chen, editor of tech blogging site Gizmodo, posted an article revealing the details of Apple’s newest prototype 4G iPhone.  Immediately it could be seen that this was just the beginning of a very nasty confrontation between all who were involved with the leak and the notoriously secretive tech giant Apple. Four days after this article was posted, a Search Warrant was carried out on Jason Chen’s house by the California state Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) that resulted in the seizure of all of Chen’s computer equipment. Since this incident, the iPhone has been returned to its rightful owner (Apple), and an on-going legal battle is being played out.

The contentious issue surrounding this case is whether or not Gizmodo knowingly sought to obtain a stolen iPhone. It is known that the iPhone parted from the possession of Apple via one of its engineers Robert ‘Gray’ Powell who accidentally left it in a bar in Redwood City, California. Here it was picked up by university student Brian Hogan. After discovering that the iPhone was nothing like he had seen before, Hogan proceeded to offer the phone to tech news companies (including Gizmodo) in exchange for money. Gizmodo offered US$5000 for the phone and Hogan accepted. If it is proven that Hogan made no concerted effort to return the iPhone to its rightful owner, it will be considered a theft under Californian Law and both Hogan and Gizmodo as participants in a knowing exchange of stolen goods will be liable for prosecution.

There has been talk among blog sites worldwide that the invasion of Jason Chen’s house under a search warrant was in fact illegal due to Chen being covered by the California Reporter’s Shield law that protects journalists and their sources from the release of unpublished information in the interests of privacy protection. It should be noted however that if a journalist is found to be engaging in the law breaking activity of their source (as seems to be the case the Police and Apple are putting forth), the Shield Law may be considered moot, and hence the journalist may no longer be protected.

Most recently the Search Warrant for Jason Chen’s house was unsealed at the behest of the media and blogging world, providing an accurate account of the events that led up to Gizmodo obtaining the phone and Gizmodo’s correspondence and eventual exchange with Apple. In addition, it is been revealed that Brian Hogan’s roommate, Katherine Martinson – whose Mac book was used to first synchronise the iPhone after it came to be in Hogan’s possession, has come forth with an incriminating account of Hogan’s actions pertaining to the fact that Hogan had worked out who the phone belonged to, and the nature of the phone’s prototype. With this knowledge Hogan approached several tech blogging sites and offered the phone in exchange for money. For fear of personal persecution as an accomplice (by Apple tracking the iPhone to her Mac book) in what she could gather was an illegal act, Hogan’s roommate contacted Apple. It was reported that Apple sent representatives to Hogan’s house in search of the rogue iPhone, however Apple has denied this occurred, explaining that instead the Police were informed immediately and they were sent to retrieve the iPhone from Hogan’s house. Hogan’s cooperation was assured when the police informed him that hiding evidence implied a ‘consciousness of guilt’ which prompted him to reveal the where-abouts of the digital records of the iPhone that he and another housemate of his, Thomas Warner, had hidden in the anticipation of a police inquiry.

Apple are supposedly concerned that sales of the current iPhone are going to be harmed by the leak of the prototype of their new 4G version. This may well be true for the mean time, but this sort of priceless advertising of a product they haven’t even released yet may generate enough hype to get Apple the sales to more than cover their losses. This isn’t the first time Apple have been involved with a ‘product leak’ whereby an employee accidentally (or purposely, depending on whose story you believe) has revealed the features of an unreleased iProduct. Most of the previous leaks only involved pictures and mild speculative descriptions of the unreleased Apple products however, nothing really on the scale of a tech blogger obtaining and dismantling a prototype product the way Gizmodo did recently.

Apple's Steve Jobs (or Steve Jobs' Apple)

While the ensuing legal battle (that Apple has proven to be fond of) may prove to be costly, a controversy is an excellent way to garner media and consumer attention. Steve Jobs himself is certainly monitoring the ether, as can be seen with his e-duel with Gawker (Gizmodo’s parent company) blogger Ryan Tait, one can only assume to gauge user (read consumer) reaction and where possible defend the ‘pure’ motives of Apple to provide the ultimate user experience through the litigious defence of their intellectual property.

We haven’t heard the end of this saga, and no doubt the details may never be fully clear. But through sheer consumer curiosity and the insatiable desire to be at the forefront of user interaction (both of the users and companies like Apple), it may not be the last we hear of such cases of industrial espionage or brilliantly ruthless iMarketing ploys.

BlackBerry Bold 9700

So far 2010 has seen a multitude of contenders in the battle for smartphone supremacy. By now, Canadian company Research in Motion can be considered a battle-hardened veteran with its production of the BlackBerry smartphones.

Originally introduced as 2 way pagers, BlackBerry quickly evolved into multi-role devices, becoming one of the first smartphones to be optimised for wireless email not to mention providing the standard telephony and all-in-one personal organiser functionality. BlackBerrys have proven to be extremely popular smartphones in North America (particularly by business users), and now their popularity can be seen burgeoning throughout Europe and Australia.

What has made BlackBerry so good?

Well, many companies are producing smartphone handsets with competitively high levels of functionality in ultra-sleek formats and styles, however the degree of wireless and secure interactive service provided by BlackBerry (BlackBerry Internet Service (BIS) for individual consumers, or BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES) for businesses) is second to none. In addition to this constant virtual connectivity, the sturdy and reliable handset construction ensures that a user can remain connected, come what may. This probably has something to do with BlackBerry’s continuing popularity.

The latest BlackBerry handsets to be released in Australia are the Tour 9630, Curve 8900, Storm2 (9520 and 9550) and the Bold 9700. Of these, the handset with the highest average consumer rating is the Bold 9700. This handset possibly rates above the rest due to its size, classic functionality and build quality.

The compact but functional BlackBerry Bold 9700

Knowing this, if one was considering entering the smartphone market with a BlackBerry, the Bold 9700 would probably be the most reasonable choice.

But how does this handset stack up when compared to other smartphones for both business and personal functionality?

When compared to the interactivity of the iPhone or Nexus One, some may find the BlackBerry lacking (such as touchscreen and accelerometer next-gen user interaction), but you probably aren’t getting a BlackBerry for the interactive mod-cons. You are probably getting it because it provides unrivalled virtual connectivity and compatibility with business applications. The BlackBerry is a supremely compact (109 x 60 x 14mm, 122 grams) scheduler and organiser, with a long established (in smartphone terms, anyway) support network to boot.

The Bold 9700 comes with a host of essential media features, including  a 3.15 megapixel camera (with LED flash), a usable web browser, a 3.5mm audio jack, microUSB port, interchangeable microSD compatibility (16GB) and DivX and XviD support so you can be sure all the media centre bases are covered.

Specially built as business tools, the BlackBerry sports all of the necessary business functions such as a document editor (Word, Excel and PowerPoint compatible, of course), a voice recorder, a Notes application and the brilliant calendar and time-management capabilities BlackBerry have become renown for. Push email and web browsing is done better by a scarce few smartphone companies, with the ability to connect to virtually all of your favourite email account providers. Additional applications are available at the BlackBerry App World to fully customise your BlackBerry into your ideal mobile office.

The closest contender for the business orientated smartphone is the Nokia E72 (which compares quite well to the Bold 9700). Between these two phones, it becomes a matter of personal preference for the Symbian OS or the BlackBerry OS, or, perhaps more superficially, the styling of each phone.

BlackBerry Bold 9700 (Left) vs. Nokia E72 (Right)

The Bold 9700 handset itself has an ultra-bright 59.8mm, 65K colour TFT landscape screen with 480×360 pixel resolution to make all media and communications on the phone crystal clear. A full four row QWERTY keyboard and sensitive trackpad makes navigation simple and effective. The system is driven by a powerful 624 MHz CPU, with256 MB of RAM and is run on the BlackBerry OS v5 to make the operational experience silky smooth. It is powered by a 1500 mAh Li-Ion battery, with a reported talk time of 6 hours, lasting for over 408 hours on standby.

You are wirelessly connected through Wi-Fi, Bluetooth with A2SP support, built in GPS (with BlackBerry maps pre-loaded),  quad-band GSM support for global roaming and tri-band 3G with HSDPA.

Overall, the BlackBerry Bold 9700 is a tight, attractive and highly functional smartphone. It has it the ability to camouflage itself as a media device custom built for entertainment and social networking applications. The utilitarian image of BlackBerry is slowly fading with the introduction of the consumer based BlackBerry Internet Service, enabling individuals to benefit from the connectivity that was once only available to business networks.

As a contender in the battle for smartphone supremacy, the BlackBerry Bold 9700 and its successors have a sporting chance.

Smartphones are the lightweight, high technology devices that will dominate how personal and business interaction will be conducted in the future. So it must be said that the BlackBerry is a necessary accessory for individuals keen to keep in touch and up to date in a brave new virtual world.

Google is set to enter the mobile market with their first entrance in the smart-phone race. Although Google’s mobile platform, Android, has been in the market for quite some time now, the Nexus One represents Google’s first foray into the design of an actual handset. 

Google have partnered with Taiwan’s HTC for the manufacture of the device, and their influence is not unseen in the aesthetic design of the unit. The Nexus One’s rounded edges deceive the unit’s true dimensions; it looks very compact for a 119 x 60 x 12 mm device. The unit is very sturdily constructed, and feels that way, weighing a healthy 130g. 

Nexus One by Google and HTC

With a highly sensitive touchscreen, trackball and accelerometer, the Nexus One ticks all the boxes in terms of next-gen user interaction functionality. Gestures and multi-touch actions are supported – albeit that a firmware update may be required depending on your country. 

So far Google seem to be on-track in terms of delivering a satisfactory smart-phone. But how does the Nexus One hold up as a business tool? 

In terms of technical specifications, the Nexus One provides everything on a business user’s wishlist – and more. A 1Ghz Qualcomm Snapdragon processor and 512 MB of RAM mean that you won’t have any problems running your scheduling, messaging and productivity applications; individually OR concurrently. 

The 3.7” AMOLED (Active-Matrix Organic Light Emitting Diode) display provides excellent colour reproduction and intricate detail at a resolution of 480×800 pixels. This combination makes the device excellent for indoor use, although it does suffer from reflection and contrast issues in natural light. As a result of this the Nexus One may not be the best choice for you if your job frequently takes you outdoors. 

Assessing the actual performance of the Nexus One as a phone, we are once again pleasantly surprised. The device utilises two microphones for calls. The first, on the front of the unit, is used for capturing the user’s voice. The second, on the rear of the phone, is used for noise cancelling, resulting in high-fidelity, crystal-clear conversations. The 1400 mAh Lithium-Ion battery delivers excellent talk-time, with reported figures of 290 to 250 hours standby and 10 to 7 hours talk time, depending on the network used (2G or 3G). 

Although less of a concern for business users, the camera also performs reasonably. With a 5 mega-pixel resolution at 2560×1920, the camera doesn’t present anything new or exciting in terms of image quality. It does, however, provide autofocus, a LED flash as well as geo-tagging and face detection features. It also supports D1 video capture (720×480 pixels @ 24 fps), which should be sufficient for the majority of business user’s requirements. 

If you aren’t already using Google’s services such as GMail and Google Calendar, you may find the device slightly lacking in terms of business applications. Applications for scheduling, web browsing and email are covered – but for editing and creating documents you’ll be making a trip to the Android Market, Google’s equivalent of the iPhone’s App Store. Users of Google’s services, however, will be happy to know the device seamlessly integrates with Google’s web-based services such as GMail, Calendar and Documents. 

In terms of connectivity, you couldn’t ask for much more from the Nexus One. For charging and data-transfer, the device utilises MicroUSB (USB version 2.0). This means no digging around looking for a dedicated cable every time you want to charge or synchronise (especially handy on those trips away from the office when you forget your charger). The unit also supports Bluetooth v2.1 and MicroSD (up to 32 GB). Users will also be happy to hear that the device supports a wide range of 2G and 3G standards, as well as Wi-Fi (802.11 a/b/g). 

So after all is said and done, does the Nexus One hold up as a business platform? I believe the combination of a sleek and sturdy construction, generous technical specifications, diverse connectivity options and seamless integration with Google’s web-based services make the device a powerful business tool. Not to mention the device is based on an open-source platform, laying the potential for even bigger and better things for the device in the not-too-distant future.

The Censorship storm is approaching – and the clouds are looking blacker than even the pessimists among us expected. Most alarming, however, is not the steadfast certainty with which the bill is approaching approval. Nor is it the long-term and far reaching consequences of such free speech stifling, civil liberty damaging legislature (although these are sufficiently sobering points in and among themselves). The most alarming aspect of the whole censorship debacle is how quietly it is being passed through the legislative process.

Fellow Australians - the censorship storm is near...

Now this may have something to do with the “hush, hush” PR tactics being used by the ALP to avoid the inevitable public backlash that would occur if the true implications of the bill were publicly and openly discussed. Just try and find any official mention of the legislation on the official ALP site (the only results I could find were user submitted comments against the proposed bill). More culpable (in my opinion) though is the angle from which the Government is pushing the censorship agenda.

The legislation, not-so-subtly named “Measures to improve safety of the internet for families“, is being sold on the promise that it will reduce the incidence and impact of child sex abuse. The logic of course, is that pedophiles use the internet, so by blocking off certain corners of the web that may tolerate or encourage such behaviours, said pedophiles will have less incentive to perform their sick abuses upon innocent children.

This will not work.

The first fallacy in this line of argument is that the vast majority of internet child pornography is not located on websites. Most pedophiles conduct their activities using private chat applications such as Internet Relay Chat (IRC), Peer-to-Peer networks (P2P), File Transfer Protocol (FTP) or old-fashioned email, allowing them to conduct their activities somewhat discretely. Websites are typically an ineffective means of sharing illegal pornographic material, as they are easily removed from the internet, and are associated with financial and legal risks for those creating and maintaining them. And the small number of websites that are actually propagating child pornography are so well obfuscated and hidden that the only way to stumble upon them is by being precisely directed there by a person aware of the website’s existence. These pages are well obscured from the public eye, and so will be very unlikely to be discovered by the regulatory bodies responsible for maintaining the proposed internet blacklist.

The second fallacy is that even if the filters were completely effective (which they aren’t) and blocked out all child pornography (which they will not), they would do absolutely nothing to stop pedophiles from abusing children. You can block the media used to express or share the act of abuse, but it does nothing to curb the underlying urge or resulting behaviour.

If this still hasn’t convinced you, how about the fact that the proposed filters will be easily bypassable using freely available and easily discoverable technology that is current available (and being used in China today for that exact purpose)?

So the internet filter will not stop or even partially mitigate the threat of pedophiles to innocent children. It will, however, block access to material that it is not currently illegal to possess. Quoted from the Sydney Morning Herald:

“…about half of the sites on the (black)list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.“

And the list of blocked websites will not be released to the public. Nor will the public have any say in the decision making process for selecting or placing websites on the list. But you can be fined up to $10 000 for linking to one of these sites.

And the cost of implementing these changes will be left up to the Internet Service Providers, who will in effect pass it onto the consumer – ie: YOU.

Oh, and speed tests of the proposed filtering technology have found that they may incur up to a 87% reduction in internet speed.

This isn’t just an inconvenience, or a case of unfairness. This is an abuse of a basic human right – the right to free speech. If we don’t stand up now and do something about it, there is no way of predicting where this may end.