The Federal Communications Commission’s latest assessment of competition in the wireless industry is likely to be closely read by industry observers hoping to find clues as to how the agency will rule on AT&T Inc.’s proposed $39 billion deal to acquire T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom AG. The FCC and the Justice Department are reviewing the deal.

The FCC’s annual report on competition in the wireless industry, which could be released next month, is expected to conclude–as it did last year–that the wireless-phone market has grown more concentrated over the years. But the agency will remain neutral on whether the wireless industry is competitive, sources said.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

News of the antitrust lawsuit pushed down the companies’ share price. VeriFone was off 6.7 percent at $46.64 and Hypercom was down 12 percent at $9.59, in 4 p.m. composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

The Justice Department said the two companies control more than 60 percent of the U.S. market for point-of-sale terminals used by the largest retailers.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Lots of folks stand to be hurt by the deal, Hesse said, from network suppliers to handset makers and from app developers to those that write operating systems. “The entire ecosystem (is threatened),” Hesse said, speaking to Mobilized and other reporters on Friday, following his speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

That said, Hesse said he is not sure who will join him in speaking out against the $39 billion transaction.

“There’s clearly a risk that a lot of these companies see in coming forward to oppose a deal that is so favored by a very, very large company.”

Hesse just might have a point there. I mean, what would argue that a deal is anticompetitive better than the fact that those most affected are afraid to speak out against it?

The challenge, though, is that silence alone won’t block the deal.

One of the interesting question in the weeks ahead is who, if anyone, will come out publicly against the deal.

Hesse said he is confident that he won’t be standing totally alone.

“I think there will be a number of companies that will oppose it, but clearly there will be companies that will be concerned about opposing it because of the ramifications for their business,” Hesse said.

As for the deal’s prospects of going through, Hesse said it is too soon to say, but he said he is encouraged by the fact that so many parties are taking an interest. In addition to the FCC and Department of Justice (both of whom must approve the deal), Congress has said it will hold hearings, while the New York Attorney General has also pledged a thorough review.

And not that this is a shocker, but Hesse has said he plans to testify against the deal. I’m more curious who will be in the chair next to him. Also interesting to see will be which–if any–of those that Hesse listed as potentially threatened by the deal, AT&T might convince to argue in favor of it.

Late last month, BoomTown posted about a huge venture funding effort by the high-profile and even more highly designed social media reading app for the Apple iPad, Flipboard.

Today, its co-founder and CEO Mike McCue confirmed the $50 million round at an eye-popping $200 million valuation, in a wide-ranging interview at the start-up’s Palo Alto, Calif., HQ.

“We’re obviously thrilled, because we think it confirms our focus that people want a beautifully designed way to interact with content and to share it,” he said. “And there is a lot more to come–on a scale of one to 10, we’re just at a two or three.”

The bulk of the new second round of funding–Flipboard had previously raised $10.5 million–came from New York-based Insight Venture Partners.

Insight’s Jerry Murdock said in an interview that he was excited about the idea of “social endorsement” that Flipboard was pioneering.

“We back great entrepreneurs and Flipboard is that and also in an obviously unique position to solve a problem of media consumption in the digital age,” he said. “The sky is the limit. Or more precisely it is the best environment to consume curated real-time content for Twitter and Facebook, because of the user experience and social endorsement integration with the content.”

Insight is also an investor in Twitter.

Also stepping up in the new Flipboard round is Comcast’s venture arm, as well as previous investors, including Kleiner Perkins, Index Ventures and a spate of well known angels, such as Twitter co-founder and product guru Jack Dorsey, Facebook co-founder and Asana dude Dustin Moskovitz, the ubiquitous Ron Conway, actor Ashton Kutcher and the investment company of former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin.

“From a Comcast perspective, we’re intrigued with Mike and what he’s doing with content aggregation,” said Amy Banse, Comcast Interactive Capital’s new head. “We think we can learn from him and he from us.”

Co-founded by longtime entrepreneur McCue (Netscape, Tellme) and former Apple iPhone engineer Evan Doll in January, Flipboard launched to much attention in July.

The elegant Flipboard–which McCue recently told me in an onstage interview at the South by Southwest conference in Austin had zero revenues thus far–has changed the game on the consumption of social media.

Its innovative social magazine concept is attempting to make the social networking universe more accessible, consumable and, perhaps most importantly, visually arresting via its rich app.

Essentially, Flipboard pulls information from media RSS feeds and sites such as Twitter and Facebook data streams and then reassembles it in an easy-to-navigate, personalized format in a mobile tablet touchscreen environment.

In its current offering, there are pull-quotes, photos, videos, status updates and even the first paragraphs of linked-out content. There is also the ability to comment and share, as if one were on a social networking or microblogging site.

McCue said the new giant pile of cash will be used to increase its 32-person staff to about 50, international expansion, small acquisitions and more product development on more platforms.

The next in the arena will be the iPhone version of Flipboard, said McCue, followed by one for the Google Android mobile operating system eventually.

Left unsaid, of course, was the need for funding to fight the likelihood of increased competition in the hot space for delivering both professional and social content to consumers on a wide range of devices.

Rivals are varied, such as Silicon Valley’s most adorable news reader start-up Pulse and also Zite, a news reader which was recently sued for copyright infringement by a group of major publishers.

There are bigger potential players, such as Google, which is trying to find various ways to move into the social space.

In fact, said several sources, Google and others have made acquisition approaches to Flipboard, which has instead opted for raising more funding and staying independent for now.

McCue declined to talk about that, but did note that he is not surprised by publisher interest, especially of the worried and wary kind, in the arena.

“Anyone not respectful of others’ content is going to get in that kind of trouble,” he said, noting Flipboard has struck deals with 17 big publishers so far, including this morning’s announcement about a partnership with Oprah Winfrey’s and Discovery’s OWN cable network. “There is not one half to this equation.”

Right now, the Flipboard app is free and the business plan is advertising and some possible subscription scenarios.

McCue said advertising will be the key to Flipboard’s business plan in the future, although it’s not clear if the company will ever sell advertising itself.

Rather, it will partner with publishers seeking better distribution in the explosive tablet and smartphone market, where Flipboard has been gaining traction quickly.

But until that is sorted out, there is now $50 million more in the Flipboard kitty to figure it all out.

“With this funding, we can grow at the right pace and have a lot of flexibility to get the product right,” said McCue. “And, that’s the most important thing.”

Nokia faces some very significant challenges. The game has changed from a battle of devices to a war of ecosystems, and competitive ecosystems are gaining momentum and share. The emergence of ecosystems represents the broad convergence of the mobility, computing and services industries. In short, our industry changed, it’s time for Nokia to change faster.

–Nokia CEO Stephen Elop

The transition from Symbian to Microsoft’s Windows Phone platform is one of the more challenging parts of Nokia’s new mobile alliance with Microsoft. Implementing a new strategy like this takes time, something that’s in short supply in the fast-moving mobile market. And with Nokia complicating its roll-out with joint product roadmaps and shared responsibilities, some observers are beginning to wonder if the company will suffer more smartphone market share losses before it enjoys any gains–if it enjoys any at all.

Bernstein analyst Pierre Ferragu says he expects Nokia to lose 2 points of market share sequentially in smartphones in the first quarter. And he thinks that trend will likely continue in the quarters that follow, and perhaps even accelerate.

That might seem an overly-pessimistic view of Nokia’s situation, but Ferragu has his reasons, top among them the belief that Nokia’s alliance with Microsoft won’t solve the company’s fundamental problem: the lack of innovation and agility fostered by an overlarge company hamstrung by bureaucracy.

“For a company unarguably overstaffed, with an over-engineered organisation, a lack of reactivity clearly acknowledged by management, a partnership with another heavy giant doesn’t sound like the right remedy,” Ferragu argues, noting that Nokia’s worst enemy going forward is time. “The partnership with Microsoft will first take time to implement. Even if the largest areas of the partnership seem to have been decided, a few more months to agree on the details seem a minimum. Moreover, comments made by management [recently] on how the partnership is likely to work are not reassuring: joint product roadmaps, interactions at all layers of both organizations, interlocked areas of responsibilities. All these elements point at likely slower decision making processes and higher risk on the quality of decision made.”

Not the best spot to be in when your leadership position has been eroded by the likes of Apple and HTC, which earlier this month surpassed Nokia in market cap.

Among the terms of the settlement, Google will be required to license ITA’s software to other airline booking sites and has to fund research and developing into the software at levels consistent with what ITA has spent in recent years. Google will also be required to continue work on ITA’s next generation of software.

EMoney’s Tricia Duryee reported last month that Google and the government were close to reaching a settlement.

Joseph Wayland, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division said in a statement that the proposed settlement “assures that airfare comparison and booking websites will be able to compete effectively, providing benefits to consumers.”

ITA’s software is the backbone of several of the Web’s airline ticket search services including sites like Kayak and Hotwire. When Google first move to acquire ITA for $700 million last July it said would make it easier for consumers to find flight information online. However several online travel companies opposed it, among them Sabre Holdings, the owns the largest database of airline fares, and the online travel booking site Expedia.

Google shares rose $1.82 on the news to $581.82 a share. Expedia shares rose $2.53 or 11 percent on unrelated news that the company plans to spin off its TripAdvisor unit into a separate, publicly traded company.

(Image via Wikipedia)

Analysts at Bernstein Research are offering a different take. They argue that passage of the deal may well lead to less competition and higher prices. However, they say that’s not such a bad thing.

The firm notes that American wireless firms have lower profit margins than their European counterparts and that consumers here consume twice to three times as much data, but pay only half or a third as much per megabyte for that data.

“Given the economies of scale of wireless, the constraints of CEOs and historic decisions with regard to spectrum, only further consolidation of the U.S. market is likely to deliver better infrastructure and lower prices,” Bernstein said in a report. “In short, more wireless competition may (though there is no guarantee of this) deliver lower prices near term, but it will almost certainly deliver lower quality infrastructure.”

The surest path to higher quality, the firm reasons, is consolidation.

“If U.S. regulators want to redress the lamentably lousy wireless service Americans receive, one of two things must happen: U.S. operators must be able to reduce their cost to serve (probably through consolidation) or Americans must pay more per unit consumed,” Bernstein’s analysts say in the report. “If the ‘Just Say No crowd’ gets their way, they may well end up with cheaper telephony near term (although this is far from certain), but they will certainly receive a poorer wireless service.”

It’s an interesting argument, though probably not the one we will hear from AT&T as it lobbies for government approval of the deal. Both the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice have to sign off on the transaction, while several state attorneys general have said they are looking into the matter. Sprint has also vowed to fight the deal.

Microsoft’s legal eagle Brad Smith didn’t even bother to pretend the software giant’s filing of a formal antitrust complaint against Google with the European Commission wasn’t a wee bit ironic.

Wrote Smith in a blog post late last night:

“There of course will be some who will point out the irony in today’s filing. Having spent more than a decade wearing the shoe on the other foot with the European Commission, the filing of a formal antitrust complaint is not something we take lightly. This is the first time Microsoft Corporation has ever taken this step.”

But take it the company did, noting: “Microsoft is filing a formal complaint with the European Commission as part of the Commission’s ongoing investigation into whether Google has violated European competition law.”

Google, no surprise, disagreed, via a statement from a spokesman.

“We’re not surprised that Microsoft has done this, since one of their subsidiaries was one of the original complainants. For our part, we continue to discuss the case with the European Commission and we’re happy to explain to anyone how our business works.”

Here is the whole Microsoft post, in which Smith outlines Microsoft reasons for its action:

Adding our Voice to Concerns about Search in Europe

30 Mar 2011 9:00 PM

Posted by Brad Smith

Senior Vice President & General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation

Microsoft is filing a formal complaint with the European Commission as part of the Commission’s ongoing investigation into whether Google has violated European competition law. We thought it important to be transparent and provide some information on what we’re doing and why.

At the outset, we should be among the first to compliment Google for its genuine innovations, of which there have been many over the past decade. As the only viable search competitor to Google in the U.S. and much of Europe, we respect their engineering prowess and competitive drive. Google has done much to advance its laudable mission to “organize the world’s information,” but we’re concerned by a broadening pattern of conduct aimed at stopping anyone else from creating a competitive alternative.

We’ve therefore decided to join a large and growing number of companies registering their concerns about the European search market. By the European Commission’s own reckoning, Google has about 95 percent of the search market in Europe. This contrasts with the United States, where Microsoft serves about a quarter of Americans’ search needs either directly through Bing or through our partnership with Yahoo!.

At Microsoft we’ve shown that we’re prepared to work hard and invest literally billions of dollars annually to offer Bing, a search service that many now regard as the most innovative available. But, hard work and innovation need a fair and competitive marketplace in which to thrive, and twice the Department of Justice has intervened to thwart Google’s unlawful conduct from impeding fair competition. In 2008 the DOJ moved to file suit against Google for its unlawful attempt to tie up and set search advertising prices at Yahoo!, causing Google to back down. And last year the DOJ formally objected to Google’s efforts to monopolize book content, a position affirmed by a federal district court in New York just last week. Unfortunately, even this has not stopped the spread by Google of new and disconcerting practices in the United States.

As troubling as the situation is in United States, it is worse in Europe. That is why our filing today focuses on a pattern of actions that Google has taken to entrench its dominance in the markets for online search and search advertising to the detriment of European consumers.

How does it do this? Google has built its business on indexing and displaying snippets of other organizations’ Web content. It understands as well as anyone that search engines depend upon the openness of the Web in order to function properly, and it’s quick to complain when others undermine this. Unfortunately, Google has engaged in a broadening pattern of walling off access to content and data that competitors need to provide search results to consumers and to attract advertisers.

On PCs it is usually not difficult for people to navigate to any search engine. Google in fact makes this point virtually every time someone raises antitrust concerns about their practices. Their defense ignores the hugely important fact that there are many other important ways that search services compete. Search engines compete to index the Web as fully as possible so they can generate good search results, they compete to gain advertisers (the source of revenue in this business), and they compete to gain distribution of their search boxes through Web sites. Consumers will not benefit from clicking to alternative sites unless all search engines have a fair opportunity to compete in each of these areas.

Our filing details many instances where Google is impeding competition in these areas. A half-dozen examples below help illustrate some of our concerns.

First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube–and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.

Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft’s new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It’s done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn’t offer a competing search service.

Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft’s new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft’s YouTube “app” on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube’s mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide.

Third, Google is seeking to block access to content owned by book publishers. This was underscored in federal court in New York last week, in the decision involving Google’s effort to obtain exclusive and unfettered access to the large volume of so-called “orphan books–books for which no copyright holder can readily be found. Under Google’s plan only its search engine would be able to return search results from these books. As the federal court said in rejecting this plan, “Google’s ability to deny competitors the ability to search orphan books would further entrench Google’s market power in the online search market.” This is an important initial step under U.S. law, but it needs to be reinforced by similar positions in Europe and the rest of the world.

Fourth, Google is even restricting its customers’–namely, advertisers’–access to their own data. Advertisers input large amounts of data into Google’s ad servers in the course of managing their advertising campaigns. This data belongs to the advertisers: it reflects their decisions about their own business. But Google contractually prohibits advertisers from using their data in an interoperable way with other search advertising platforms, such as Microsoft’s adCenter.

This makes it much more costly for Google’s advertisers to run portions of their campaigns with any competitor, and thus less likely that they will do so. That is a significant problem because most advertisers figure that they have to advertise first with Google. If it’s too expensive to port their advertising campaign data to competing advertising platforms, many won’t do it. Competing search engines are left with less relevant ads, and less revenue. And while this restraint isn’t visible to consumers, its effects are nonetheless felt across the Web. Advertising revenue is the economic propellant fueling the billions of dollars needed for ongoing search investments. By reducing competitors’ ability to attract advertising revenue, this restriction strikes at the heart of a competitive market.

Fifth, this undermining of competition is reflected in concerns that go beyond Google’s control over content. One of the ways that search engines attract users is through distribution of search boxes through Web sites. Unfortunately, Google contractually blocks leading Web sites in Europe from distributing competing search boxes. It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google. Google’s exclusivity terms have even blocked Microsoft from distributing its Windows Live services, such as email and online document storage, through European telecommunications companies because these services are monetized through Bing search boxes.

Finally, we share the concerns expressed by many others that Google discriminates against would-be competitors by making it more costly for them to attain prominent placement for their advertisements. Microsoft has provided the Commission with a considerable body of expert analysis concerning how search engine algorithms work and the competitive significance of promoting or demoting various advertisements.

Over the past year, a growing number of advertisers, publishers, and consumers have expressed to us their concerns about the search market in Europe. They’ve urged us to share our knowledge of the search market with competition officials. As they’ve pointed out, the stakes are high for the European economy. On any given day, more than half of all Europeans use the Internet, and more than 90 percent of them look for information about goods and services on the Web. Indeed, the European Commission’s Digital Agenda made clear that commerce is moving online, where two-thirds of Europeans begin their shopping process. It’s therefore critical that search engines and online advertising move forward in an open, fair and competitive manner.

There of course will be some who will point out the irony in today’s filing. Having spent more than a decade wearing the shoe on the other foot with the European Commission, the filing of a formal antitrust complaint is not something we take lightly. This is the first time Microsoft Corporation has ever taken this step. More so than most, we recognize the importance of ensuring that competition laws remain balanced and that technology innovation moves forward.

We readily appreciate that Google should continue to have the freedom to innovate. But it shouldn’t be permitted to pursue practices that restrict others from innovating and offering competitive alternatives. That’s what it’s doing now. And that’s what we hope European officials will assess and ultimately decide to stop.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

“Cell phones are no longer a luxury for a few among us, but a basic necessity. The last thing New Yorkers need during these difficult economic times is to see cell phone prices rise,” said Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. “Affordable wireless service and technology, including smart phones and next generation handheld devices, are the bridge to the digital broadband future. We want to ensure all New Yorkers benefit from these important innovations that improve lives.”

The statement highlighted some of Sprint’s talking points against the deal, such as the fact that, should the deal go through, AT&T and Verizon would have a combined 80 percent share of the U.S. market.

He also added that some areas in New York, such as Rochester, Albany, Buffalo and Syracuse, have fewer wireless options already. One of AT&T’s big arguments as to why there is sufficient competition is that in many markets consumers have five or more options, when adding in regional and low-cost carriers such as Metro PCS, Cricket and others.

AT&T has also touted the deal as key to making good use of limited spectrum and expanding LTE service faster and to more of the country.

“The attorney general’s review will weigh the benefits to New Yorkers against the anti-competitive risks posed to them,” Schneiderman said.

The state review–and any others–come on top of necessary regulatory approval from both the Federal Communications Commission and U.S. antitrust regulators at the Department of Justice.

Update: AT&T issued a statement in response to Schneiderman’s concerns, making the expected arguments.

“We look forward to sharing information with the (Attorney General’s) office and remain excited about the significant consumer and competition benefits that this transaction will provide, including improved customer service and expanded high-speed LTE wireless coverage to additional residents and areas across New York State and the rest of the U.S.,” AT&T said.

On March 27, Nintendo is introducing the 3DS. This apparent breakthrough turned negative for some when Nintendo added a warning to the device that said viewing 3-D images by children age 6 and under may cause vision damage.

Unaffected by age restrictions, I’ve been using the 3DS for the past week, and it’s a lot of fun—though its chunky design looks like the company is taking a step back rather than forward. Its 3-D screen works as advertised without 3-D glasses, though its effects can’t be seen from side angles, so friends trying to peek at the screen won’t see much. It made me a bit dizzy after a while, so I adjusted a 3-D Depth Slider to make the screen images appear less three-dimensional. This slider, or a setting in parental controls, can turn off the 3-D.

The videogame industry has a lot riding on Nintendo’s launch. Sales of new videogame consoles in 2010 fell 13% to $6.29 billion from $7.19 billion a year earlier, according to market-research firm NPD Group. Sales have begun edging up in the past few months following the launch in November of Microsoft Corp.’s Kinect motion-controller for its Xbox 360 console.

The industry is facing competition from sleeker, lighter smartphones which offer good quality, downloadable games free or for a few dollars, much less than the average $40 price for each Nintendo 3DS game. While Nintendo has created products with 3-D capabilities since the mid-1980s, none have caught on. Nintendo 3DS is the result of improvements in screen technology and lower prices for these screens. The company, which is based in Kyoto, Japan, saw no apparent damage to its headquarters after the recent earthquake, a spokesman says. Business operations, including future product shipments, haven’t been affected, he adds.

Nintendo’s competitors aren’t jumping on the portable 3-D bandwagon quite yet. Apple has no intention of introducing a 3-D, portable display anytime soon, say people familiar with the situation. When Sony announced plans for its Next Generation Portable gaming device in January, the company confirmed this device wouldn’t have 3-D. A spokesman says Sony considered including 3-D during the development process for this device, but decided to focus on other features. A Microsoft spokesman says as consumer demand evolves for 3-D, the company is committed to evolving its technology. Both Sony and Microsoft offer 3-D games and movies in the living room via their PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 consoles.

On March 27, 18 game titles will launch including Nintendogs + cats from Nintendo, and Madden NFL Football and Sims 3 from EA Sports. Almost all Nintendo DS games and DSiWare games will be playable in 2-D on the Nintendo 3DS.

Games that come loaded on the 3DS include Face Raiders and Nintendo 3DS Sound, which plays MP3 or AAC files and mixes your voice using funny sound effects. A Mii Maker program lets people make a Mii (personalized game character) with photos they take with the device. I created a particularly funny looking Mii with features that mirrored some of mine. But these Miis can’t be exported back to the Wii gaming console, where Miis first became popular.

Nintendo’s 3DS has cameras that capture 3-D photos for use in games.

Another cool game called AR Games lets users look through the 3DS cameras at six augmented-reality cards that come with the device. The cards make images more animated and three-dimensional. I found the effect so realistic, I reached out with my hand to make sure the imposed images, like a card with mini bull’s-eyes, weren’t actually on the table in front of me.

The 3DS has a few new features besides 3-D. A new circle pad works like a super flexible joystick for smoother navigation. Two outward-facing, stereo cameras take 3-D photos of friends or things, which can then be used in games. This made the games more personal and fun.

I used the 3-D photos I took in games like Face Raiders, which makes use of its motion and gyro sensors. The 3DS has an Internet browser, which wasn’t available on the device I tested. A Nintendo spokesman says it won’t work on devices until May. Also in May, Nintendo will start offering downloadable games for the 3DS.

Programs called SpotPass and StreetPass allow the 3DS to wirelessly receive or send data on the go even when the device is in sleep mode. SpotPass detects wireless hot spots so the 3DS can download free software, videos or game data. In late May, SpotPass will let users access AT&T’s Wi-Fi hot spots, free of charge. StreetPass lets one 3DS wirelessly exchange data with others within range (roughly 100 feet). A light on the 3DS indicates when the device has received new notifications.

The 3DS can perform other functions in sleep mode, like counting steps for a built-in pedometer. I carried the 3DS in my bag on several occasions throughout a conference and noticed a tiny icon of feet at the top of the screen with a number of steps beside it.

But the addition of 3-D technology to this device meant compromises on some key features. At eight ounces and 0.8-inch thick, the 3DS is slightly heavier and thicker than its comparable predecessor, the Nintendo DSi, which came out in 2009. (Apple’s iPod touch weighs less than half as much and is 0.28-inch thick.)

The 3DS’s estimated battery life is up to five hours while playing 3DS games, while regular Nintendo DS games will last up to eight hours. The DSi’s estimated battery life is up to 14 hours of game play. The 3DS is $100 more expensive than the DSi and its games are also pricier.

The Nintendo 3DS does a good job of incorporating 3-D with photos and games, as long as the games don’t make you feel dizzy. But its clunky form and limited functionality is up against steep competition from smartphones that cost less and offer more games.

Ian Sherr in San Francisco contributed to this article.

Write to Katherine Boehret at katie.boehret@wsj.com

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110315/nintendos-3ds-brings-dizzying-fun-on-the-go/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20110303/new-ipad-could-help-hinder-asian-players/ http://allthingsd.com/20110303/new-ipad-could-help-hinder-asian-players/#comments Thu, 03 Mar 2011 18:02:26 +0000 Yun-Hee Kim http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=37211 Apple Inc.’s latest iPad is a mixed blessing for many of Asia’s electronic companies, which stand to benefit from a surge in demand for components but will see their already battered ambitions to make their own tablets challenged further.

Companies from South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Display Co. to Japan’s Toshiba Corp. supply key components such as memory chips and flat-screens used in the iPad. But LG Display’s parent company, LG Electronics Inc., as well as Samsung and Toshiba compete with Apple in the burgeoning tablet space with their own devices.

If the new version of the iPad launched Wednesday is as successful as the original version, these component makers stand to benefit from an increase in sales, analysts say. But their profit margins could slip in tablets given their late entry into the market and because more devices are being launched this year, intensifying competition.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110303/new-ipad-could-help-hinder-asian-players/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20110223/motorolas-xoom-starts-tablet-wars-with-ipad/ http://allthingsd.com/20110223/motorolas-xoom-starts-tablet-wars-with-ipad/#comments Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:01:36 +0000 Walter S. Mossberg http://ptech.allthingsd.com/?p=1785 After months of speculation, the tablet wars begin in earnest this week. Motorola is releasing its Xoom tablet on Feb. 24, and I consider it the first truly comparable competitor to Apple’s hit iPad. That is partly because it is the first iPad challenger to run Honeycomb, an elegant new version of Google’s Android operating system designed especially for tablets.

Both Motorola’s hardware and Google’s new software are impressive and, after testing it for about a week, I believe the Xoom beats the first-generation iPad in certain respects, though it lags in others. Like the iPad, the Xoom has a roomy 10-inch screen, and it’s about the same thickness and weight as the iPad, albeit narrower and longer. And, like the iPad’s operating system, Honeycomb gives software the ability to make good use of that screen real estate, with apps that are more computer-like than those on a smartphone.

The Xoom has a more potent processor than the current iPad; front and rear cameras versus none for the iPad; better speakers; and higher screen resolution. It also can be upgraded free later this year to support Verizon’s faster 4G cellular data network (though monthly fees may rise.)

Motorola is taking aim at the iPad just as Apple is expected to announce, next week, a second-generation of its tablet. Little is known about this second iPad, but it’s widely expected to take away at least one of the Xoom’s advantages over the original iPad—cameras—and is rumored to be thinner and lighter, since weight was one of the most common complaints about the generally praised first iPad.

The iPad has way more tablet-specific apps—around 60,000 versus a handful—and, in my tests, much better battery life. Plus, whatever the specs say, it’s a fast device with a beautiful screen that delights people daily. But, overall, the Xoom with Honeycomb is a strong alternative to the original iPad, and one that will only improve over time.

The Xoom’s screen is long and narrow, good for widescreen video.

Unfortunately for consumers looking for iPad alternatives, the Xoom has an Achilles’ heel: price. While iPads come in a range of models priced all the way up to $829—none of which requires a cellphone contract—Apple’s entry price for the iPad is just $499. By contrast, the base price of a Xoom without a cellphone contract is $800—60% more. And even with a Verizon two-year contract at $20 to $80 a month—depending on the data limit you choose—the least you can pay for a Xoom is $600, or 20% more before counting the contract costs.

In fairness, the iPad model with the same memory as the Xoom and a 3G cellular modem like the Xoom’s is $729, which is a closer comparison. But it is still less than $800, and consumers still focus on that $499 iPad entry price (for a Wi-Fi-only model.)

As much as I like the Xoom and Honeycomb, I’d advise consumers to wait to see what Apple has up its sleeve next before committing to a higher price for the Motorola product.

Meanwhile, here’s what I found in testing the Xoom.

Hardware

Though it works fine in portrait, or vertical, mode, the Xoom is mainly designed as a landscape, or horizontal, device. The screen is long and narrow, proportioned to best fit widescreen video. The HD screen boasts a resolution of 1280 by 800, versus 1024 by 768 for the iPad.

It felt heavier than the iPad, though the weight of 1.6 pounds is the same as on the cellular version of the Apple product. Overall, it has a solid, high-quality feel. There aren’t any physical buttons except for an on-off switch at the rear and volume controls on an edge. The common Android home, back and other buttons are rendered in the software. The glass on the front is surrounded by a relatively thin black border.

I found it generally comfortable to hold, except when I was reading for long periods in vertical mode, where the long, thin shape and weight made it feel a bit unbalanced.

I performed the same battery test on the Xoom as I have on other tablets. I played video constantly with the connectivity turned on and the screen at almost full brightness until the battery died. Alas, while the Xoom claims up to 10 hours of video playback, I got just 7 hours and 32 minutes. By contrast, on the same test, the iPad, which also claims 10 hours, logged 11.5 hours, or four hours more.

I also tested the Xoom’s front-facing 2-megapixel camera by performing a video chat with a Motorola employee using Google Talk software. The chat broke up or froze several times over Verizon’s network, but we eventually got it to work pretty well on Wi-Fi.

The Xoom’s battery is sealed, and it only comes with 32 gigabytes of memory, versus a range of between 16 and 64 GB for various models of the iPad. However, it has a slot for a memory card that Motorola says will work after a software upgrade to add more memory. There is also a removable back and a SIM card slot that would be used only if you chose to upgrade to 4G in the second quarter of this year.

Software

Perhaps even more impressive than the hardware is the Honeycomb software, which, for now, Google won’t offer on cellphones, only tablets, of which the Xoom is the first.

I’ve always felt that Android had a rough-around-the edges, geeky feel, with too many steps to do things and too much reliance on menus. But Honeycomb eliminates much of that. Actions like composing emails, or changing settings are much more obvious and quicker. The smart but cluttered notification bar has been moved to the lower right and simplified. A tap on it pops up relevant information.

There is still a separate email app for Gmail, as opposed to other email services you may use. But, now, as on the iPad, email is presented in multiple columns and is more attractive and easier to use.

The browser is especially impressive, with PC-like features, such as visible tabs for open pages and the ability to open a private browsing session. Apps like Maps and YouTube have 3-D views. There’s a movie-editing app and live widgets for the home screens that show email previews or video frames.

There are some downsides. The ability to play Flash video—a big Android selling point—won’t work on the Xoom at launch. It will take some weeks to appear. And I found numerous apps in the Android Market that wouldn’t work with the Xoom. I couldn’t locate a working video download or rental service, though Google says these will be available soon.

Some apps for phones, like the popular game Angry Birds, filled the screen beautifully and worked fine.

Bottom line: The Xoom and Honeycomb are a promising pair that should give the iPad its stiffest competition. But price will be an obstacle, and Apple isn’t standing still.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos at the All Things Digital website, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110223/motorolas-xoom-starts-tablet-wars-with-ipad/feed/ 0