Apple rolled out a new iPhone today. Sort of.

Except it did not have a bigger, flatter screen. It did not have a sleeker, thinner body. It would not need all new polypropylene sleeves and other fancy accessories.

In other words, it was not an iPhone 5.

Oops, after all the breathless stories about this ideal and groundbreaking new device and predictions — including here — that this was the name of whatever Apple was releasing.

In fact, everyone was using that moniker for it, from local television news to vendors to my mother.

Instead, the tech giant launched the new iPhone 4S, which has a faster processor, an improved camera and Siri voice control feature, at a cheaper price.

Very slick, as usual, and full of cool Apple bells and whistles.

Still. Prolonged sighs could be felt all over the blogosphere and on Twitter, where Steve Brown tweeted me: “Can I be bummed now?!?”

You may.

Better still, Davin Bentti wrote: “The ‘S’ stands for ‘Steve, come back!’”

He was referring to the missing Apple icon Steve Jobs, who recently turned over leadership at the company to new CEO Tim Cook. Jobs’s Apple event performances are legendary.

Wall Street also had its iPhone 5 bubble burst, with investors shunning Apple stock. Shares are down almost five percent now.

RELATED POSTS:

• Commas, Zeros and No. 1: Apple’s iPhone 4S Event by the Numbers
• In Depth With Siri: The Full Demo From the D7 Conference (Plus an Old-School Bonus)
• Tim Cook Follows Steve Jobs’s Footsteps Closely in Big Stage Debut
• Just Like We Didn’t Tell You: No Apple-Facebook Tie-Up Today
• Why Siri Sounds Like a Lady
• I Am Number 4S? — No Sparkly iPhone 5 Disappoints Apple Fans (and Wall Street)
• Exclusive: AT&T’s New App Will Let You Get a New iPhone — From Your Existing iPhone
• Apple’s Quiet iPhone Move: More Price Pressure
• Apple Wants You to Meet Siri, Your New Personal Assistant
• Apple’s Game Center Scores 67 Million Players
• So What Puts the S in the New iPhone 4S?
• Apple’s “Find My Friends” Location Feature Is More Like Glympse Than Foursquare
• Apple Updates iPods with Cheaper iPod Touch and Nano
• Apple Turns the iPhone into a Hallmark Store
• Apple’s “Let’s Talk iPhone” Event, LIVE
• Even If He’s Not at Apple Event, Steve Jobs Sure Knows How to Put on a Show
• Viral Video: The iPhone 5 as Love Potion #9
• Mostly Sunny With 100 Percent Chance of Apples
• What’s Behind a Tim Cook Apple Event (Comic)
• Apple Launching iPhone 5 in October
• Apple’s Next Event to Be Held on October 4, Starring Its New CEO
• October iPhone Event to Be Held on Apple Campus
• Apple Announces October 4 Event: Let’s Talk iPhone

Here’s some electric weekend reading for those interested in the push and pull between venture investors and start-ups in the frothy Web 2.0 environment.

In an email to Airbnb CEO and co-founder Brian Chesky (which I obtained, embedded below), former Facebook exec Chamath Palihapitiya, who now runs an investment fund called the Social+Capital Partnership, is passing on participating in the recent $112 million round for the hot online rental site that was announced in July.

The deal — which values the company at $1.2 billion — has not officially closed yet, but includes venture firms such as DST Global, Andreessen Horowitz and others. Previous investors include Sequoia Capital.

Palihapitiya confirmed to me that it was his email and that his possible investment in Airbnb was small.

That said, his concerns center on how much voting control of new investors’ preferred shares the founders have in the latest round and also a $22.5 million cashing out, $21 million of which is going to those founders.

Another $9.6 million is being used to buy secondary stock from current Airbnb shareholders, who have to render parts of their vested stakes for the money.

Such wrangling between investors and entrepreneurs is not uncommon in Silicon Valley these days, as ever-dumber money chases ever-more-powerful geeks. But Palihapitiya’s email is a smart, reasonable and well-written argument to stop the madness.

According to sources close to Airbnb, the numbers that he refers to below are accurate, as is what appears to be an unusual level of voting control by its founders. Presumably, it is to protect the company from possible future sales on the secondary markets and to keep control with its founders as the number of investors grows.

In any case, the Palihapitiya email to Chesky is well worth the read (I have removed email addresses as a courtesy):

From: Chamath Palihapitiya
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 11:16:05 -0700

To: Brian Chesky

Subject: Airbnb financing…

Brian,

Cc Marc, Reid, my deal team

Thanks again for giving me the chance to participate in your latest financing. I had a chance to review the docs at length yesterday and I wanted to follow up as, quite honestly, I’ve never seen a deal like this over ~60 investments I’ve done and I’m pretty concerned.

I’m all for getting the best valuation you can, minimizing dilution and maximizing control. We did this brilliantly at Facebook…all of our financings (except our first $$$ from Peter Thiel) were done not out of necessity but opportunity. As such, our investors had virtually no control and it resulted in a much better outcome. As we’ve discussed, I generally don’t believe investors add much to a success story and so minimizing their impact is a great strategy when you are onto something that is working.

This said, while several of these concepts are reflected in the current deal, there is one big thing that I am fundamentally against and violates my principles and will prevent me from participating in your round. When I saw that you guys were taking $31M out of the company, I didn’t think much of it as I just assumed it would entirely be via a secondary sale.

But as I understand the deal, it seems that you are doing only $9.6M in secondary and $22.5M as a dividend to common (of which $21M goes to you and your co-founders). I am really uncomfortable with this and don’t think its in the spirit of building a good, long term business. Effectively, it is a strategy that allows you guys to take money out of the business and not dilute yourself — I’m not sure why this is such a big deal when you guys are almost 90% vested and the financing is at $1.2B where your dilution is marginal. Further, it excludes many of the employees that probably have helped you and your co–founders get the company to this place as most of these folks probably don’t have any stock but have unexercised stock options and thus won’t get a dividend.

My basic principle on this stuff is that if you want liquidity, that’s fine, but you should make it available to everyone. Otherwise, no one should get it. Your current deal is the farthest away from this principle that I’ve seen in a while…this strategy has been done once before — at Groupon. We can see how “well” they are doing and how short term the investor community is now viewing their motives. I really think you can do better than this…and that you are better than this.

Separately, when you look at successful tech companies, it seems that dividends are an approach used by cash rich operations to distribute excess earnings — in fact, the most successful, cash rich tech company in the world, Apple, hasn’t issued a dividend and they have more than $75B in cash! Again, while I think Airbnb will be a good company, this is nowhere near the truth now — you guys still need to scale and build this thing for the future.

I really think you are onto something but I would implore you to not take the easy way out. Treat your employees the same as you’d treat yourself. Do things that you will be proud of and can defend to anyone including your Board, employees, prospective hires etc. In such a competitive hiring market, you are competing with not just your obvious competitors, but also any successful tech company who is also looking for great talent. A principle that treats your employees as well as you’d treat yourself is a huge strategy for differentiation, retention and long term happiness of the exact types of people you will need to be successful. In contrast, if you are viewed as self-dealing and shady, it will only hurt your long term prospects…

In summary, I’m passing on this financing because I strongly disagree with what’s going on. I’m not sure who advocated this approach but I did mention this to Reid [Hoffman, another Airbnb investor via Greylock Partners] last night and he was of a similar mind to myself and surprised this was the approach being taken. If you want some good advice — I would ask that you consider pinging him about different ways to think about going about the liquidity portion.

If you change your mind on how to close this financing, let me know and I’d love to reconsider. Otherwise, good luck and lets keep in touch.

Take care,

Chamath

Silicon Valley’s Silver Lake and DST Global of Russia, as well as Chinese private equity firm Yunfeng Capital, are leading a $1.6 billion tender offer for privately held employee and shareholder stock of China’s Alibaba Group, according to sources close to the situation.

Yunfeng, by the way, was co-founded by Alibaba Chairman and CEO Jack Ma, as well as other prominent Chinese entrepreneurs.

Along with DST, Silver Lake and Yunfeng, Singapore-based investment firm Temasek is also participating in the tender offer as an investor, but in a smaller way.

The deal, which has been discussed for some time, was signed earlier today and will be presented to its employees in an internal company blog, which will be in Chinese.

To get around persistent foreign ownership issues in China, sources said, DST and Silver Lake are ceding voting control of their stakes to Alibaba management.

If the tender is fully subscribed, that would mean a stake of just under five percent for the group, sources said, and it gives Alibaba a $32 billion enterprise valuation.

The impetus for the tender offer, which begins today, appears to be trying to address a cash-out, paper-rich issue for Alibaba employees.

There are no active secondary private markets in China, as is the case for tech start-ups in the U.S., and there is also no IPO in the foreseeable future for Alibaba. Thus, management has been looking for a way to give its employees and also other shareholders some liquidity.

This tender offer is not a capital raise by Alibaba and is only aimed at eligible employees and shareholders. The purchase of the Alibaba shares is expected to close before the end of December.

It will be done via a special investment vehicle, specifically aimed at this purchase, that includes a spate of investors. Giant Interactive Group, a Chinese online game developer, for example, said it had committed $50 million to the fund.

It’s not clear what the implications are for Alibaba’s biggest shareholder, Yahoo, which sources said is not selling shares in the tender offer. Yahoo’s fully diluted Alibaba 39 percent stake is now worth $12.5 billion in the deal.

That’s discounted due to tax issues and also the inability of the Silicon Valley Internet giant to sell its Alibaba shares.

In other words, investors will likely welcome this higher valuation, but realize a public offering is farther away than ever.

But it is interesting in that it clearly shows a strong relationship between DST and Silver Lake, which have jointly been mulling a possible bid for Yahoo along with Silicon Valley venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, as I previously reported.

Some will speculate that Silver Lake and DST now have an in with Alibaba, which is important, since a large slug of Yahoo’s market valuation is due to its Alibaba and also Yahoo Japan! assets.

If Yahoo is sold, of course, the disposition of the Alibaba asset is an important part of the deal.

More to come, including the implications for Ma, who has been under siege of late around his spinning out of Alibaba’s Alipay payments service and the noisy battle that later ensued with Yahoo. Yahoo and Alibaba, as well as its other large shareholder, Japan’s SoftBank, settled that dispute earlier this summer.

His involvement in Yunfeng, which is buying the company’s shares in a special fund that Ma is not in, will likely attract some scrutiny, anyway.

Sources said Ma is a minority investor in Yunfeng itself, has no control rights and is not a director. In addition, Yunfeng has no relationship with Alibaba.

In another interesting twist, Alibaba rival Tencent has close ties with DST’s Internet affiliate that used to share the same name, having invested $300 million last year in the affiliate that holds major Russian Internet properties.

If you’re going to trash the competition in the online advertising business in a widely quoted press interview, it’s probably a good idea to check if someone on your staff was, you know, buying up the very product you dissed.

That’s precisely the case with Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz, whose shoot-from-her-hip stylings in a wide-ranging chat with Reuters, published earlier this week, took aim at–among many others–Apple and its mobile iAds product.

“That’s going to fall apart for them,” she said to Reuters, apparently referring to reports that the perfection-obsessed tech giant would involve itself in the creative part of ads on its service. “Advertisers are not going to have that type of control over them. Apple wants total control over those ads.”

At an Apple event in April, Apple CEO Steve Jobs was certainly insisting on beauty and usefulness, as well as on deep interactivity within the app itself, unlike other mobile ads that take a user from the app to a Web site.

It’s definitely a clear strategic direction by Apple, exerting more control as they do with its App Store, and many are not going to like it.

Thus, Bartz, whose company has been lagging in the mobile-ad arena behind both Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG), took the obvious shot.

Except, as you can see below, Yahoo (YHOO) bought one of many iAds last week within the Pandora music app, which went live this week, touting its Sportacular iPhone app.

What adds a level of irony here is that Bartz, in another interview, in The Wall Street Journal, this week, continued to compare Yahoo to Apple and herself to Jobs, when insisting investors be patient with the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s continued lackluster performance.

According to the Journal:

“Apple’s stock-market capitalization was ‘dead a– flat’ for a number of years after Mr. Jobs returned in 1997, Ms. Bartz said in a wide-ranging interview on Wednesday. ‘You don’t come in and do fairy dust. You upgrade technology, you see what drives engagement,’ she said.”

Bartz has used this comparison a lot over the last year–although I am not sure it is the best idea unless she is certain there is a golden iPod-like innovation coming out in the end for Yahoo.

The iHoo? I think not.

BoomTown has a call into Yahoo PR, on whose last nerve I am working this week, for an explanation.

And here is the lovely iAd Yahoo bought:

Later today, as BoomTown previously reported, Facebook is likely to show off what it has been working on for a while now in the geo-location arena.

We’ll see whassup at 4:30 pm PT, when Facebook will hold a “news event” at the social-networking powerhouse’s HQ in Silicon Valley. (I will be liveblogging from it, natch.)

While most agree that the unveiling of the powerful social-networking site’s geo-location plans will have big impact, it will be much more interesting to see precisely what Facebook will do and how it innovates.

The company has certainly been talking about some sort of location feature for a long time–even as start-ups such as Foursquare and Booyah have grown like gangbusters–so much so that it has become a mini-waiting game in Silicon Valley.

But how Facebook integrates the hot trend into what it has built rather than bought–Facebook considered buying the New York-based Foursquare–is full of all kinds of complexities and possible sand traps.

Here is what I think it might–and should–show off:

NO PLAYING GAMES

There is plenty of that kind of silliness offered by others, and the badge, mayorships and general gaming is not really Facebook’s style.

In fact, gimmickry, which eventually becomes tiresome, is not really one of the tools in Facebook’s arsenal. Creating features–such as the Wall–that have become daily helpers is the ticket here.

In fact, it would be great if Facebook could go radically useful with a check-in feature, which would be for the rest of us who are not interested in broadcasting our presence at New York clubs into the wee hours.

Still, it would be nice to get all kinds of offers and freebies for using the service and giving up even more personal information to the hungry maw of this–still–Mark Zuckerberg production.

SEAMLESS THIRD-PARTY AGGREGATION

A must, given Facebook is all about integration and coordination for its users. It has already easily welcomed in all kinds of third-party services, and it must give developers on its platform geo-location capabilities.

So, any Facebook offering would need to integrate all the current location services, both on the Web site and in its mobile app.

That said, it is also important that Facebook also has a strong and effective offering of its own.

PLEASE MARK, I WANT SOME MORE

Location-sharing needs to be more than location-sharing, IMHO.

That’s because check-ins can become as inane as some Twitter posts.

In my bedroom! Now, in my bathroom! Now, in my kitchen. Hey from the 7-11! Aaaaaagh!

In fact, what is most useful about Foursquare is a part the service seems to give little attention to–user-generated info about various places.

Facebook could give truly helpful on-the-go info if it did a good job here, letting me know–for example–that I need to avoid the shrimp-puff appetizer at all costs or alerting me to the joys of some esoteric spa service.

Best of all, it would be nice if this info were not generated just by my friends, but by everyone. Because my friends are really boring.

WHAT HAPPENS ON FACEBOOK CHECK-IN, STAYS ON FACEBOOK CHECK-IN

Facebook has a long-running and much-deserved reputation for not treating privacy issues with enough concern and care.

While it is one thing to have a status update that you are enjoying 43 cold ones by the Jersey Shore with Snooki, it is quite another to geo-locate your trashy sojourn without a terrific level of control.

And, of course, controls that are comprehensible and easy to use.

Thus, some rules:

Any location service must be opt-in only.

Any location service must be set to private to start and allow users to change settings with each update.

Check-ins must be verified, so people cannot lie and manipulate the system.

The entire Facebook community of 500 million users must know exactly where Mark Zuckerberg is at every moment–wait, that’s just my secret wish.

Well, not a wish: All Facebook execs should publicly and actively be using the check-in services to let us all know that everyone is on the exact same page.

According to numerous sources close to the situation, Foursquare is in the final stages of striking a funding deal with the very venture firm–Andreessen Horowitz–that had publicly dissed the hot social location site and walked away from earlier talks.

The deal is likely to be completed and announced by early next week, at a valuation of about $80 million, barring unusual hiccups.

“Light at the end of a very long and very twisty tunnel,” joked one source familiar with the situation.

Indeed, the wrapping-up of what has been a very convoluted funding process comes after a series of missteps and switchbacks over what’s next for the start-up, which allows users to “check in” from various places.

The last curve came with serious talks for Foursquare to be acquired by Facebook, which came very close to happening–“one inch to the end zone,” as one person close to the situation described it.

But those discussions broke off largely due to price, strategy and control issues, sources said.

In addition, Foursquare had recently been in serious acquisition talks with Yahoo (YHOO) as well, along with endless rounds of chatter with a variety of prominent Silicon Valley VCs–including Khosla Ventures, Accel Partners and Institutional Venture Partners–over the last several months.

The overhyped interest is because Foursquare and many others like it have seen strong growth and much innovation, although it is not clear yet if that will translate into solid businesses. Still, many location-based companies are girding up with investments in order to race ahead.

That has also been the case with Foursquare, except its funding process has been unusually complicated, in part due to indecision and in part due to some very noisy deal-making.

In fact, that’s what initially scotched very advanced funding talks between Foursquare and Andreessen Horowitz.

But after discussions with Andreessen Horowitz and other firms were leaked to the media, the high-flying New York-based Foursquare was smacked back hard by the higher-profile Silicon Valley firm, which is helmed by Internet icon Marc Andreessen and his longtime partner, Ben Horowitz.

In an exclusive interview with BoomTown in April, Horowitz took the unusual step of talking publicly about VC frustrations that are typical in deals around hot companies.

At the time, Horowitz acted as if he were checking out of Foursquare:

“We withdrew our funding offer to Foursquare and we are out,” said Horowitz in an interview with BoomTown. “This is playing out too much in public and clearly someone has an interesting agenda here, so this is not something we want to participate in.”

In addition–after making an offer three weeks ago at valuations lower than have been reported, though he would not specify the exact number–Horowitz said he felt the company had conducted a “process that is very long and undefined.”

A company run by VC-pampered young geek dudes centered on game-playing was playing silly, immature deal games? This comes as a complete shock to…well, no one!

At the same time, Horowitz left the door open. “If the process was changed, we still like the company,” he said then. “But since it has been long and undefined, it is prone to manipulation.”

That sentiment obviously changed recently, as TechCrunch reported two weeks ago.

And indeed, it looks like Horowitz finally won that contest of hardball with Foursquare CEO and co-founder Dennis Crowley.

But it was a very close call, said many, who noted that Foursquare thought acquisition talks with Facebook were almost in the bag, something many sources said Crowley had wanted most of all.

And in fact, Facebook would have been a natural fit for Foursquare, on paper. The only fit, really: Facebook’s users already get the status-update concept, as well as the game-play part of the service.

And as MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka previously wrote:

“[Facebook] has something Foursquare won’t be able to boast of for a very long time: A sales team to match the location service up with big brands and a self-service ad platform that local businesses can plug into.”

Nonetheless, sources close to the company said Foursquare is now saying it wants more independence and more cash over stock in any deal with the social networking giant.

Dictating terms to the powerful Facebook seems unlikely to be effective. And sources familiar with Facebook’s thinking said the company simply felt it could do its own location service better, as well as federate many others in the arena.

Could that change? Sure, because when it comes to Foursquare, it seems like a wacky turn could be just around the corner!

Still, sources said that while the term sheet Foursquare has from Andreessen Horowitz is not quite done, it is nearly complete, with some remaining back and forth about the exact valuation for the social location start-up, the funding number and other small issues.

A spokeswoman for the firm declined comment.

Foursquare’s current investors–who recently gave it a bridge investment–will also participate in the new round.

Foursquare’s original $1.35 million funding was raised from Union Square Ventures and O’Reilly AlphaTech Ventures, as well as some well-known angel investors.

And then, after all the papers are signed, hopefully, we’ll all see what Foursquare can do with a new pile of money.

Of course, that is the greatest unknown of all.

Amit Singh–a 20-year Oracle exec who has worked in product development, channel management, sales, strategy and acquisitions–has taken a job as VP of International Sales for Google’s enterprise business.

Singh (pictured) was most recently part of the North American team at Oracle (ORCL) responsible for running the company’s applications business.

At the search giant, he will focus on recruiting Fortune 500-size companies, especially in Europe and Asia, to use cloud-based apps being aggressively pushed by Google of late.

Google (GOOG) recently launched its Google Apps Marketplace store to offer more online business tools to customers as it seeks to compete with business software companies, especially Microsoft (MSFT), in providing all kinds of Web-based productivity and collaborative tools in the enterprise space.

Google’s approach has been to focus on the cloud-computing arena, which is what attracted Singh.

“I have become increasingly fascinated by the cloud and what it is doing,” said Singh in an interview with BoomTown this morning. “It is an absolutely exciting area.”

Singh said he got more interested in the arena and Google’s role in it, from his son, who is a big user of its online apps.

“I then became a user myself, and it was clear that there was real potential for a company that is accelerating into the space,” he said.

While Singh is aware that there is still some reluctance by big companies to turn over major swathes of their business computing to the cloud–mostly over issues of control, security and scalability–he said that attitude is changing fast.

“They are using Web-based technologies in the consumer market and then get to work and are frustrated by antiquated systems,” said Singh. “But it’s process and they have to get comfortable.”

Singh pointed to some recent big wins for Google in the enterprise space, such as Genentech (DNA) and Jaguar Land Rover.

“Everyone has a vision of business transformation and Google is at the forefront of that,” said Singh, who noted the cultural differences between his old job at Oracle and new one. “It will be an incredible change for me.”

Here’s Singh’s bio, via Google, and details about the new job, which he started at a week ago:

Amit Singh joins Google as Vice President, International Sales and Operations for Enterprise after nearly 20 years of leadership at Oracle in different facets of the business including Product Development, Channel Management, Sales, Strategy and Acquisitions. He started his career in Product Development designing and building some of the first Oracle Applications. He then moved into channel management to recruit ISV’s to build solutions on the Oracle database platform. Amit then joined direct sales and spent the next decade as a Sales Rep, Regional Manager and Vice President managing different regions in the country with responsibility for both database and Applications products. In his most recent role as Group Vice President, he led the Applications Strategy Group for Oracle and was responsible for Applications acquisitions. He also managed shared service functions in North America and ran Sales and Operations for some of the fastest growing acquisitions including Demantra, G-Log, Agile, Logical Apps and Peoplesoft HR. Amit also managed Oracle’s competitive strategies against companies like SAP and Salesforce. He is a graduate of Rensselaer with a Masters in Industrial and Management Engineering and an undergraduate Electrical Engineering degree from the Delhi College of Engineering. Amit, his wife Monika, and their three children live in the Boston area and are in the process of relocating to Mountain View, California.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Here’s a potentially noteworthy development in the patent litigation-riddled mobile device market. Last week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a very broad patent on motion-based smartphone control, one that could have significant implications for the industry.

The patent is #7,679,604, “Method and apparatus for controlling a computer system,” and it describes motion control as a means of interacting with smartphones and the like.

The invention, the patent’s authors explain, “facilitates an intuitive motion control of the application by physically manipulating the electronic device…it enables a user to intuitively control the state and/or displayed content of a computing device without the conventional need of pressing button(s), or manipulating a trackpad, trackball, etc. In this regard, the motion control agent represents a new paradigm in user control of computing systems.”

Sounds quite a bit like the motion control you find today in Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone, doesn’t it? Or in Palm’s (PALM) Pre. Or Google’s (GOOG) Nexus One (ironically, one of the inventors to which the patent is credited is a Google engineer). Or Motorola’s (MOT) Droid. Or Nokia’s (NOK) 5800.

Which is interesting, because none of those companies owns patent #7,679,604. It belongs to Durham Logistics, a Las Vegas limited liability company about which I can find little information.

When I contacted the Nevada Secretary of State’s office about Durham Logistics, it referred me to CSC Services of Nevada, the company that did the paperwork on Durham’s LLC status. CSC Services Of Nevada refused to provide any information. Ygomi, the company that now owns ArrayComm, the software outfit to which the patent was first assigned, doesn’t know much about it either. The law firm listed on Durham Logistics’ patent assignment hasn’t responded to my inquiries. Nor has ArrayComm founder Marty Cooper, who might be able to shed a bit of light on the transfer of the patent to Durham.

Finally, the lead inventor to which the patent is credited declined to comment on the record.

Is Durham Logistics a legitimate company? Is it an IP holding company for another entity? A patent troll? Who knows? But, it’s sitting on this patent.

Now, I’m no expert on intellectual property, but it’s worrisome to me that a patent as broad as this exists at all, let alone that it’s in the hands of some mysterious Vegas LLC we know nothing about. After all, patent #7,679,604 seems to apply not just to any smartphone with an accelerometer, but to any device that uses any method of measuring motion as a means of control. As one patent attorney told me, “It’s obscenely broad.” And it’s old enough to predate many of the motion-sensing smartphones currently on the market.

Though issued just last week, the patent was filed in July 2006. And it was preceded by a nearly identical patent granted in 2004 after a 2001 application.

The first smartphones to feature built-in accelerometers–among them, the Sony Ericsson W910i and the iPhone–didn’t begin arriving at market until 2007-2008, right around the time the companies building them began filing motion-interface patents of their own.

For example, at least two major motion-related Apple patent applications–“Movement-based interfaces for personal media device” and “Varying User Interface Element Based on Movement”–weren’t filed until October 2007.

Which means that Durham Logistics could be sitting on a powder keg of a patent, one that, if allowed to stand, extends to a technology that has been widely built into today’s smartphones–the one sitting on my desk and perhaps yours as well.

Question is, will the company assert it? And if it does, is there prior art that would render its claims anticipated?

COMPLETE COVERAGE:

• New Motion Control Patent Could Shake Up Smartphone Industry
• Smartphone Motion Patent’s Authors Are Google, Apple Engineers
• Confirmed: Intellectual Ventures Owns Smartphone Motion-Control Patent

US7679604

“EPIC urges the Commission to investigate Google, determine the extent of the harm to consumer privacy and safety,” EPIC said in its complaint. “[And it asks that the Commission] require Google to provide Gmail users with opt-in consent to the Google Buzz service, require Google to give Gmail users meaningful control over personal information, require Google to provide notice to and request consent from Gmail users before making material changes to their privacy policy in the future, and seek appropriate injunctive and compensatory relief.”

Another embarrassing blow for Google (GOOG), which has spent the better part of a week being pilloried for its unfortunate misstep. Responding to EPIC’s complaint, Google again stressed its efforts to improve Buzz and, somewhat ironically, thanked the group for airing its concerns.

“We designed Buzz to make it easy for users to connect with other people and have conversations about the things that interest them,” the company said. “Buzz was launched only a week ago. We’ve already made a few changes based on user feedback, and we have more improvements in the works. We look forward to hearing more suggestions and will continue to improve the Buzz experience with user transparency and control top of mind. We also welcome dialogue with EPIC and appreciate hearing directly from them about their concerns. Our door is always open to organizations with suggestions about our products and services.”

Evidently, Buzz is a work in progress to which all are free to contribute–even if they do so in the form of an FTC complaint.

Less than two days after pulling books published by Macmillan in a dispute over e-book pricing, Amazon has conceded.

The world’s dominant e-commerce company says it has agreed to Macmillan’s demands to sell its e-books at a higher price–and in doing so, has made a tacit admission that e-book prices will rise across the board.

That’s because most of the industry’s big players have embraced a similar plan, advanced by Apple (AAPL) to support its iPad launch, to sell e-books for $12.99 and $14.99 instead of the $9.99 Amazon (AMZN) had been pushing.

In an extraordinary statement published on Amazon’s site, the retailer says that it “will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan’s terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books.”

No word yet from the other big publishers that have sided with Apple in the e-book pricing war–Pearson’s Penguin Group, News Corp.’s (NWS) HarperCollins, Hachette Book Group and CBS’s (CBS) Simon & Schuster. But keep in mind Steve Jobs’s all-knowing pronouncement about Amazon and Apple e-books: “The prices will be the same.”

Also bear in mind that publishers will actually make less money with the Apple pricing plan. Under the old plan, they sold books to Amazon for around $15 wholesale, and Amazon took a loss in order to retail them for $9.99. Under the new plan, the publishers will get closer to $10 per book.

But the publishers are so freaked out by the parable of the music labels, in which Apple replaced $15 CDs with $1 songs, that they are willing to take the hit in order to maintain some control of their digital pricing.

Odd as this sounds, there’s logic to it, since e-book sales will be small for some time and publishers think that this strategy will help keep the prices up when buyers really do embrace digital.

(Aside: The notion that digital pricing should be dirt cheap simply because it doesn’t cost publishers–or music labels, or Hollywood studios, or whatever–very much to distribute bits, is facile. If you don’t believe me, try ordering a vegetarian entree the next time you go out to dinner, and then tell your waiter you refuse to pay full price because you know that vegetables cost much less than meat. It may be dumb for publishers to try to keep digital prices high, but it’s equally stupid to demand that they lower them on principle.)

It will be interesting to see what Kindle buyers make of the impending price hike, particularly since so many of them are price-conscious consumers who prefer to pay nothing at all for their books.

But the iPhone is drawing increasing competition from entrenched smart-phone makers anxious to emulate the upstart. The most significant of these is Palm’s (PALM) impressive new Pre, which is off to a good start with an estimated 100,000 or so units sold since it launched on June 6.

So, like a shark, Apple (AAPL) must keep moving. This week, it is introducing two new products designed to consolidate and increase its position as the leader in this new generation of hand-held computers. I’ve been testing both and I like them a lot, with some minor caveats.

One of the new products is a refreshed model of the iPhone itself, called the iPhone 3G S. It looks the same, but offers more speed, more memory, more battery life, and a few new features, including video recording and a better camera for still photos.

The second is OS 3.0, the third version of the iPhone’s operating system, which comes on the 3G S and also can be installed on all prior iPhones and Touches. It includes a much longer list of added features, some innovative and some long overdue catch-ups to other phones. These include such widely requested capabilities as cut, copy and paste; systemwide searching; a wider virtual keyboard; and a feature called MMS that allows users to send photos and videos directly to other phones without using email.

Apple last week also made a bold business move to complement these new products. It decided to keep making the current model, the iPhone 3G, and to slash its price by 50%, to $99. That’s an unheard-of price tag for a pocket computer of this power and versatility, and gives millions of additional consumers a reason to choose the iPhone instead of a competitor.

In my tests, both the new phone and the new operating system performed well, with a few small exceptions. I believe the two strengthen the iPhone platform, make it likely the iPhone will continue to attract scads of apps, and are good for consumers.

But I also regard these changes as more evolutionary than revolutionary, and I don’t think this latest iPhone is as compelling an upgrade for the average user as the 3G model was last year for owners of the original 2007 iPhone.

Current iPhone owners can get an improved product by merely sticking with their existing phones and upgrading to the feature-laden new operating system, which is free (it costs $10 for iPod Touch owners), rather than shelling out at least $199 for the new iPhone 3G S. And many new iPhone buyers can opt for the $99 3G model, which is not only cheaper, but also greatly improved by the new OS 3.0.

On the other hand, power users will crave the new model’s much-better performance, battery life, storage and other features. And some will want the new model because, unlike the current model, it’s capable of handling a new cellular network feature that, in the next few years, will offer double the current data speeds.

The new, free operating system is available for download starting June 17. The iPhone 3G S will go on sale June 19 for $199 for a version with 16 gigabytes of memory, and $299 for 32 gigabytes of memory. Those memory capacities are double the amounts offered on the previous model last year at the same prices, and far exceed the built-in memory on most competing smart phones.

These prices are for new U.S. customers on the AT&T network, plus current owners who are eligible for what AT&T (T) calls a “standard” upgrade. If you already own an older iPhone, you could pay $200 more to upgrade, depending on how far along you are in your two-year service contract and how much you spend monthly. But AT&T, stung by criticism in recent days, has just decided to offer the lower, new-customer prices at launch to iPhone 3G owners eligible for upgrades at any time up to Sept. 30 of this year, even if they were originally told they’d have to pay the $200 premium.

Before I detail the new features and how they worked in my tests, let me state up-front what the new iPhone and its new operating system don’t deliver. The iPhone still lacks a physical keyboard. It still can’t run more than one third-party app at a time, as the Pre does. Its otherwise excellent Web browser still can’t play videos created in Adobe’s Flash software, which is widely used on the Web. And it still isn’t available on any U.S. carrier besides AT&T.

Also, AT&T won’t enable MMS until late this summer, even though dozens of other iPhone carriers in other countries are doing so immediately. And AT&T hasn’t set a date by which it will offer tethering, a new iPhone feature that allows the device to be used as a modem for a laptop. Other carriers in other countries are allowing this right away.

Here’s a rundown of the most important new features of both the new hardware and software, and how they performed in my tests.

The iPhone 3G S

Speed: To me, this is the most important feature of the new iPhone 3G S. In fact, the “S” in the name stands for speed. During my week of testing, the new model proved dramatically snappier in every way than my iPhone 3G. Its processor is 50% faster than in the prior model, and it sports a new graphics chip.

Applications opened much more quickly. Web pages loaded far faster. The camera was ready to use almost instantly. And I never once saw the occasional, annoying iPhone behavior where you strike a key while typing and it sits there, seemingly stuck, before you can continue.

Cellular-data speeds were about the same, but in repeated testing on different Wi-Fi networks, the 3G S racked up speeds 30% to 50% faster than on the 3G running at the same time on the same networks.

Battery Life: On my 3G iPhone, I usually could make it through the day, but it was often a close call, with the battery indicator winding up in the red. By contrast, the new model did much better, never hitting the red zone and rarely requiring interim charging at the office or in the car, even though, because I was testing it, I was pounding it much harder than usual, making more voice calls, playing lots of videos and music, trying numerous apps, constantly downloading email from two accounts, and syncing two calendars over the air.

Apple claims about the same talk time for the new model as on the old, and about the same Web-surfing time over the cellular network. But it says the 3G S gets about 50% more battery life when playing videos or surfing the Internet over Wi-Fi and 25% more time — an astounding 30 hours — for continuous music playback.

Memory: With the new 32-gigabyte model, I was able to store over 3,000 songs, more than 1,600 photos, 74 videos, 67 applications, 400 emails, nearly 1,000 contacts, months of calendar data, and dozens of documents, and still have 5 gigabytes left over—more than most phones offer out of the box.

Camera: The new model’s camera has a 3 megapixel resolution, up from 2 megapixels, and has autofocus and a feature that lets you tap the screen to change the focus to an object or person in the background of a shot. It still lacks zoom or a flash, though it does better in low light. It also has a macro feature for close-up shots. In my tests, all of this worked, but I didn’t think the pictures it took were dramatically better than those on the old model, and it can’t compete with phones like Nokia’s (NOK) new $700 N97, which has a 5-megapixel camera with zoom.

Video: The new video recorder worked well, even in low light, and lets you post videos directly to YouTube, among other places. You can also trim your videos right on the phone. This all worked well, but the videos aren’t high definition, and pale in comparison to those on the latest HD model of the popular $229 Flip pocket camcorder.

Voice Control: By simply holding down the new iPhone’s home button, you can dial contacts and control music playback by uttering voice commands. The phone will even tell you which song is playing. Like most voice-recognition systems, this one isn’t perfect. But it worked most of the time.

Compass: I don’t consider this important for most users, but it did work when I was walking or driving. It can orient maps in the direction you’re heading.

Small Touches: You can optionally turn on a new battery indicator that shows a precise percentage of battery life left. The screen has a new coating that resists oil and grease from fingerprints.

Downsides: The new phone crashed on me twice during my tests. Once, the voice-control feature killed the sound on the built-in iPod, requiring a reboot. But I couldn’t replicate this problem. Another time, the phone froze while downloading a TV show. Apple blamed this on a prerelease server issue, and it didn’t happen again.

iPhone Operating System 3.0

Copy, Cut and Paste: Apple is late with this common feature, but it’s the best implementation I’ve seen on a phone. In a text page, you just double tap on a word, and it is selected with little handles around it that let you expand or contract the selected area. Then, you just click on a copy icon that pops up over the selection. To paste, you tap elsewhere in the page, or even in another app, and a paste icon pops up. Click that icon, and the selected text is pasted in. It worked well in all my tests.

The feature works a bit differently for some Web pages, where you hold down your finger over an area and it selects a whole block of text, like a paragraph, but still has the handles that allow adjusting the selection. It also allows copying and pasting photos. You can also just select a word or a section or a whole page of text and delete it. And if you want to undo a paste, just shake the phone.

Some Web pages and third-party apps don’t yet support this feature, but most do.

Search: Before, you could search only in the Contacts app. Now, there are search features in Mail, Calendar, the built-in iPod and Notes. And there is a way to search the whole phone at once. You just hit the home button, slowly, twice, and a special search screen appears. Type in any phrase, and it brings up every instance in multiple apps.

This is another catch-up feature, but it works well. For instance, when I searched for the word “Phil,” it brought up songs by Phil Collins, a note about Philadelphia, calendar items mentioning people named Phil or Phillips, emails to or from people with those names, and contacts for people named Phil or Phillips.

In email, the search function will even find messages that aren’t on your phone but that are stored on the servers of certain email services. For instance, I was able to almost instantly find emails from two years ago stored on Google’s (GOOG) Gmail.

One downside — in email, search looks for words only in email headers, not in the body of the messages.

Landscape Keyboard: In older iPods, the only built-in program that supported a wider, landscape keyboard, which is better for thumb typing, was the Web browser. Now, you can turn the phone horizontally and use a landscape keyboard in the Mail, Messages and Notes programs as well.

Find My iPhone: If you belong to Apple’s $99 a year MobileMe service, you can now locate a lost iPhone on a map on any computer, send the iPhone a message saying how to return it to you, and cause it to emit a beep, even if the sound is turned off. I tested this and it worked well. You can even remotely wipe all your data off the phone.

Voice Memos: The OS includes a Voice Memo app that lets you dictate reminders or other messages, and then edit and email them. I found it worked well.

Navigation: Another catch-up feature, turn-by-turn navigation with voice prompts, is also now supported. I tested this with a third-party app called Gokivo, and it did OK, though the developer admits to a prerelease bug I encountered.

Auto-Authentication: In the new OS, the iPhone can remember your log-in credentials for commercial Wi-Fi hotspot services, so you don’t have to enter them again and again. Unfortunately, in my tests with the AT&T Wi-Fi service, this failed repeatedly in several Starbucks (SBUX) shops. Apple blames a glitch in my prerelease phone’s SIM card.

Push Notification: To make up for its lack of multitasking, the new iPhone OS has a feature where third-party apps can notify you of new events, like a sports score, or a new invitation to an online game. I tried this with a game called TapTap Revenge, and it worked fine.

Stocks: The built-in stock application now has much more detailed data, including market cap, news headlines and price/earnings ratio for each stock.

MMS and Tethering: I couldn’t test these useful features because my tests were all done on AT&T, which hasn’t rolled them out.

Minor Touches: You can now move an icon among screens with one continuous motion, instead of stopping at each screen. And there are two more screens to house icons. You can finally synchronize Notes with your PC or Mac. You also can now maintain both calendars and contacts synced wirelessly with online services and those synced via cable with your computer. And you can play games and transfer files wirelessly over Bluetooth with other iPods or Touches that are nearby.

Bottom Line: Both the new iPhone and iPhone OS are packed with features that make a great product even better. But, for many users, the software may be enough of a boost to keep them from buying the new model.

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

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090617/new-iphone-is-better-model-or-just-get-os-30/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20081215/the-168-hour-work-week/ http://allthingsd.com/20081215/the-168-hour-work-week/#comments Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:34:46 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=9637 If the line between your work and home life hasn’t yet been blurred by near-ubiquitous Internet connectivity, just you wait. Because by 2020 it’s likely to have been erased entirely. That’s the word from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, whose recent “Future of the Internet III” study suggests that the dawn of the mobile phone as a “primary” Internet connection will essentially obliterate the boundaries between work and home. Fifty-six percent of the Pew survey’s respondents agreed that by 2020 the formalized delineation of social, personal, and work time will have disappeared. “The 9-to-5 approach will disappear completely, with few exceptions,” ICANN Board member Roberto Gaetano told Pew. “The current separation between ‘work time’ and ‘free time’ is a byproduct of the industrial revolution, and is bound to disappear with it.”

So 12 years from now our work lives will be our lives entire?

That’s an unsettling thought. But if we’re always connected, always on the grid, then what’s to stop it from coming to pass? What’s to stop “the expansion of the work to encompass all time and all space,” as Nick Carr described it in his comments to Pew researchers. A reassertion of the same boundaries we’re seeing erased, I imagine. Otherwise we may have this to look forward to…

Said Benjamin Ben-Baruch, senior market intelligence consultant and applied sociologist for Aquent: “In 2020…a myth will develop that outside of formally scheduled activities, work and play can be seamlessly integrated in most of these workers’ lives. Employers will attempt to convince us that this is a net positive for people because we will be able to blend personal/professional duties…. However the reality will be quite different. Because we can be surveilled whenever we are ‘connected’ and especially because we can be surveilled whenever we are connected using our employer-provided devices, we can and will be controlled. Our employers will gain even more control over work-time discipline and over our lives and will be able to force even more productive working hours from us. Our lives will in fact be increasingly controlled by those who provide us with the devices that will have become increasingly necessary for us in both our work and personal lives as well as those who own and control the networks and network sites that we use and visit. Some companies will try to distinguish themselves as companies that do not actually use their power to watch and control us–but most companies will do the ‘fiscally responsible’ thing of using available technology to assert control.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20081215/the-168-hour-work-week/feed/ 2