March 5, 2014
Written by Dave Mark
A patent troll by the name of Penovia LLC has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple. The lawsuit claims that Apple’s iPad infringes their acquired patent that’s about a maintenance technique that monitors office machine status without personal attention. This is the typical type of case that the Federal Trade Commission is now studying to find ways to assist tech companies from having to waste their time fighting such suits.
When I see the phrase “acquired patent”, I see red. In my opinion, this type of lawsuit is destructive and serves simply to line someone’s pockets. This needs to be fixed.
Written by Dave Mark
“Get together?”
The subject line of the e-mail was like every other come-on that hit Jan Koum’s in-box in the spring of 2012. He was pounded daily by investors who wanted a piece of his company, WhatsApp. Hatched on his birthday, Feb. 24, 2009, WhatsApp was emerging as a global phenomenon. Some 90 million people were using it to text and send photos for free. No social utility had ever grown as fast. Facebook had only 60 million by its third birthday. And at the time close to half of WhatsApp users were returning daily.
Koum looked at the e-mail sender: Mark Zuckerberg. Now, that was a first. The Facebook founder had been using WhatsApp and wanted him over for dinner. Koum stalled, then finally wrote back saying he was traveling soon and dealing with server issues. Zuckerberg suggested they meet before Koum left. Koum forwarded the reply to his cofounder, Brian Acton, and his sole venture backer, Jim Goetz, a partner at Sequoia Capital, adding the word: “Persistent!”
Take the meeting, Acton said: “When someone of Mark’s status contacts you directly, you answer the phone.”
This is a fascinating read.
Written by Dave Mark
In the embedded video, an Apple CarPlay rep gives a detailed hands-on walkthrough of CarPlay in this gorgeous Ferrari. The interface looks exactly like what you’d expect from iOS. The controls seem responsive, the interface elements consistent.
Compatible with the iPhone 5 and up, CarPlay is “loaded” into the Ferrari’s built-in navigation system by way of a Lightning adapter located underneath the armrest. Wireless connections are coming, at least from Volvo, but our test was limited to traditional cables.
I believe this means that you’ll plug your phone into a lightning connector in the console, with wireless (WiFi) support on its way.
Once it’s connected, Ferrari will continue to utilize its own infotainment system, but users can load CarPlay by hitting a dedicated dashboard button, allowing all touch and voice inputs to be diverted to your iPhone. This loads the CarPlay dashboard, which features a familiar array of icons and services you’ll recognize from your iPhone. From here, it’s a case of using the touchscreen or calling upon Siri to load each of the services — the latter of which can be summoned with the Siri Eyes Free button located on the reverse of the steering wheel.
This is what you’d expect. If you don’t own an iOS device, you can still use the radio, etc.
The first thing we noticed is how speedy everything is. Apps load quickly, and Siri’s contextual algorithms hastily recognized our voice commands and responded appropriately. Apple has also implemented safety features to ensure services do not draw your attention away from the road and push forward its “hands-free” theme. For example, when we sent or received a message from a contact, Siri would only read the message back to us and we never once got the chance to see its contents.
The overall impression I got was that this interface belonged in this car. This is the factory media control center, not a 3rd party product grafted in place. The Siri integration was very well done. 3rd party CarPlay apps were also seamlessly integrated. The video shows off playing content from various sources (your music library, I Heart Radio, various podcasts) and it all works exactly as you’d expect.
When I buy my next car, the availability of CarPlay will definitely be a major factor in which car I choose. Sadly, there’s little chance I’ll be buying the Ferrari below. But I can dream, can’t I?
UPDATE: David Barnard pointed out that the wireless connection will be WiFi or WiFi direct, not Bluetooth.
Written by Jim Dalrymple
I like this better than Google’s offering because it has an onscreen interface. While it doesn’t rely on a smartphone to control the device, it is an option, in addition to the included remote.
Written by Dave Mark
Controversial. And fascinating.
The cost of the equipment BeAnotherLab is using to create this illusion is modest: The group uses secondhand PlayStation Eye cameras, arduino-powered servos and motors to control the movement of the camera, laptops, and Oculus Rift headsets. Each set up costs around €500, or $685 but the “gender swap” setup requires two sets of equipment to function, one for each participant.
“In Brazil there are many problems with violence against women, which comes from their own partners,” Bertrand explained. “What would it be like if a man could see through the eyes of a woman? Would he act in the same way?”
Some of this is NSFW.
Written by Dave Mark
These pictures, taken by Latvian photographer Kaija Straumanis are making the rounds right now. I kind of like them. Take a look. If you are interested in how they were made (it might spoil the magic, but read if you must know), read the article below the pics.
Written by Jim Dalrymple
Lisa Fleisher for WSJ:
Speaking at the Saïd Business School in Oxford, U.K., Steve Ballmer, who stepped down from Microsoft one month ago, admitted that he would re-do the last ten years if he could.
“We would have a stronger position in the phone market today if I could re-do the last 10 years,” he said. The answer, he said, is to pick up and try to catch the next wave.
It’s good that he admitted something we all knew for a while now.
If you have even a tiny little taste for Frank Zappa, take the video below for a spin. These are a series of answering machine messages from Zappa’s home recording studio, the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen (UMRK). So very delicious.
As one commenter said, “hmm. Zappa. that’s a twitter feed i would follow.”
[Via brother Stu]
Written by Dave Mark
Phishing is typically done using HTML that lets someone hide a malicious link in an email disguised as a legitimate link.
To circumvent this, companies started sending plain text emails when talking about sensitive matters such as account security and personal information.
The (valid) reasoning behind this decision was that, since the mails were only made up of text, there wouldn’t be any links to click on. They could thus start educating their users to never click on links in emails when about to enter personal information. Instead, they would invite them to manually select the portion of text that corresponds to the URL they’re asked to follow, and paste it in their browser’s address bar.
Such instructions are easy to follow, and shouldn’t lead to any surprise – or so you’d think.
Very interesting article. The big surprise to me was when I actually dragged my cursor to hand-copy a URL, then pasted it into my browser and a completely different text string appeared. I get it, and I should know better, but I was still completely surprised by the result.
Worth a read.
Written by Dave Mark
To me, this is a tragedy. I love RadioShack, grew up building projects using parts I got from their back shelves. Somewhere, they made a wrong turn, trying to compete with the likes of Best Buy and phone retailers.
If I was the CEO, I’d rethink the plan and find a way to become the supplier of choice to the Maker movement. Over time, RadioShock has taken shelf space away from items useful for Makers (like resistors, capacitors, quality soldering kits, and packaged projects) to sell toys and consumer electronics.
Somehow, the RadioShack I grew up with lost its soul. Sad.
Written by Dave Mark
Yesterday, we posted about Peter Oppenheimer accepting a position on the Goldman Sachs Board of Directors. This morning, Apple announced that Oppenheimer would be retiring at the end of September. Luca Maestri will take his place.
Apple today announced that Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s senior vice president and CFO, will retire at the end of September. Luca Maestri, Apple’s vice president of Finance and corporate controller, will succeed Peter as CFO reporting to Apple CEO, Tim Cook. Peter will transition the CFO role to Luca in June and the balance of his responsibilities over the remaining time allowing for a professional and seamless transition.
“Peter has served as our CFO for the past decade as Apple’s annual revenue grew from $8 billion to $171 billion and our global footprint expanded dramatically. His guidance, leadership and expertise have been instrumental to Apple’s success, not only as our CFO but also in many areas beyond finance, as he frequently took on additional activities to assist across the company. His contributions and integrity as our CFO create a new benchmark for public company CFOs,” said Tim Cook, Apple CEO. “Peter is also a dear friend I always knew I could count on. Although I am sad to see him leave, I am happy he is taking time for himself and his family. As all of us who know him would have expected, he has created a professional succession plan to ensure Apple doesn’t miss a beat.”
“Luca has over 25 years of global experience in senior financial management, including roles as a public company CFO, and I am confident he will be a great CFO at Apple,” added Tim. “When we were recruiting for a corporate controller, we met Luca and knew he would become Peter’s successor. His contributions to Apple have already been significant in his time with us and he has quickly gained respect from his colleagues throughout the company.”
“I love Apple and the people I have had the privilege to work with and after 18 years here, it is time for me to take time for myself and my family,” said Peter Oppenheimer. “For quite some time, I have wanted to live on the central coast of California and get more involved at Cal Poly, my alma mater; spend more time with my wife and sons; travel to interesting parts of the world; and something I have wanted to do for years— finish the requirements for my pilot’s license.”
March 3, 2014
Like millions of other people around the world, I cheered Tim Cook’s comments in response to a question from the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) at last Friday’s Apple shareholder meeting. The organization asked Cook to commit to only those things that were profitable—Cook refused, saying that Apple made decisions for a variety of reasons.
You would think that would be the end of the situation—sadly, it wasn’t. I don’t feel the need to defend Tim Cook, but I do feel it’s necessary to clarify some of the things that are being said after the shareholder meeting.
The NCPPR is known to be “climate change deniers.” There is nothing wrong with that—people and organizations are free to express their views and buy stock in companies. Having said that, it is interesting to read Greenpeace’s description of the NCPPR:
…it’s worth noting exactly who the NCPPR is, since the vanilla-sounding name doesn’t offer much. The NCPPR is a front group for fossil fuel companies that has spent decades seeding lies to create doubt about the reality of global warming. It received $445,000 in funding from Exxon Mobil from 1998 to 2008. More recently, the front group has marched in lockstep with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate bill mill that has produced model state legislation for discriminatory voter ID laws, Stand Your Ground gun laws, and attacks on clean energy.
I honestly don’t care about the NCPPR’s views one way or the other. However, they seem to have taken Cook’s comments, twisted them around, and ran with them to suit their needs—that’s dishonest. The truth is a bit different—that’s what I want to address here.
After the shareholder meeting, Justin Danhof, director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project, published the following statement:
“Although the National Center’s proposal did not receive the required votes to pass, millions of Apple shareholders now know that the company is involved with organizations that don’t appear to have the best interest of Apple’s investors in mind,” said Danhof. “Too often investors look at short-term returns and are unaware of corporate policy decisions that may affect long-term financial prospects. After today’s meeting, investors can be certain that Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change. The only remaining question is: how much?”
Here is what Tim Cook actually said during the shareholder meeting when the NCPPR asked him to commit to only pursuing profitable projects:
“No, I wouldn’t be willing to say that because we do things for other reasons than profit motives. We do things because they are right and just and that is who we are. That’s who we are as a company. I don’t…when I think about human rights, I don’t think about an ROI. When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can’t see or to help a kid with autism, I don’t think about a bloody ROI, and by the same token, I don’t think about helping our environment from an ROI point of view. It’s not how I look at it. My simple point was if you did only look at it in that way for the Maiden data center, the same decisions would have been made and so there are cases where you can see these two spheres connecting but I’m not going to say that that’s all I’m going to do by any means. I don’t look at it that way. Just to be very straightforward with you, if that’s a hard line for you, if you only want me to make things, make decisions that have a clear ROI, then you should get out of the stock just to be plain and simple.”
[…]
Thank you. I think it’s so important to remember that the Apple brand stands for something and you can’t take each piece of it and say, “This has a 20% ROI and this has a 15, and you shouldn’t have given this $100 million to education,” and all this kind of stuff. That’s not the way we look at it. It’s not who we are as people.
Danhof would have you believe that Apple is involved in some kind of conspiracy, but as you can see from the comments, Cook was addressing more than Apple’s moves to improve the environment1.
Apple is addressing worker safety in its factories, accessibility options for those in society that can benefit from those features, and yes, improving the environment from toxic chemicals.
Cook isn’t saying that anyone with a different view on climate change should abandon Apple’s stock2—that’s just Danhof’s twisted way of portraying the situation to add fuel to his fire. Cook is merely defending the principles that make Apple a great company. That is the reason most people invested in Apple in the first place.
I applaud Tim Cook for defending the products Apple makes that help the blind, or the autistic children, and the environment. Maybe the ROI isn’t as great on those items, I honestly don’t know, but Apple is a better company for recognizing those issues and addressing them where they can.
Doing what’s right isn’t always the easiest decision to make, but it is always the best one.
Written by Jim Dalrymple
The strategy today is simple: In order to move fast, build what you can’t buy or risk losing control of your fate and becoming the next Palm, Motorola, or HTC. And if, in the process, you disrupt an Oracle or a Qualcomm? So be it.
This is really interesting. I had no idea Facebook built its own servers, but it makes a lot of sense—if the incumbents can’t do it, build it yourself.
Written by Jim Dalrymple
What do you get when you take some of the best Apple dev authors, trainers, and speakers and combine them with the most passionate, engaged developers in a region? You get a learning and networking experience that will not soon be forgotten! You get CocoaConf!
CocoaConf is back this Spring and better than ever! We’ll be bringing the newest and best iOS and Mac developer technology training to five U.S. cities over the next few months:
Since readers of The Loop are just the kind of attendees we’re looking for, we’re offering you a special discount. Register for any CocoaConf event and use the promotional code LOOP to save 20% on your ticket!
Don’t miss out on this exciting opportunity—tickets are going fast!
Note: This article first appeared in The Loop Magazine Issue 17.
867-5309. 911. And… that’s about it. Those two seemingly random strings of digits just so happen to be phone numbers.
One is the emergency line for U.S. citizens, established as a public service to be rung in times of utter distress. The other is best known for being the hook in a Tommy Tutone jam. For all of the technologies that have come, served their time, and went, the antediluvian phone number remains—clinging to life much like a zombie that refuses to remain planted in its grave. Unlike Sony’s MiniDisc, SanDisk’s slotRadio, and Palm’s webOS, the phone number has few meaningful supporters. In fact, it’s easily one of the most complicated and frustrating beacons of communication in the world today, but it’s hanging on for one primary reason: ubiquity.
As they say, old habits die hard, and well-rooted trees require the most effort to poison. The telephone number has served us well. Despite the need for country codes, phone numbers are generally universal, and can be used to connect humans in faraway lands (assuming they’re kosher with the roaming rates, which I’ll touch on in a bit). It’s a protocol that’s supported by every single phone, from dirt cheap to obscenely expensive, and it’s the only number that you can give someone without any doubt that they’ll understand how to use it to contact you. But let’s be honest: the phone number has done absolutely nothing for you lately.
In fact, it’s probably causing you all sorts of grief. What was once a universally accepted standard now feels tremendously limited. For starters, dialing any number outside of your own country involves fees—fees which seem thoroughly absurd in an age where the internet has enabled limitless communication without borders. The cost of making a simplistic voice call has been driven to zero by the likes of Google Voice, Skype, Apple’s FaceTime Audio, Facebook, Viber, and countless others. Even outfits notorious for bilking customers for all that they’re worth (yes, I’m looking your way, mobile carriers of the United States) have given up on the scheme—these days, you get unlimited calling if you pony up for a data plan.
The mere notion of paying to call someone now seems ludicrous. And yet, the phone number lives on.
The upside is that we’re making progress. Facebook’s own Messenger app is slowly but surely becoming one that’ll enable non-Facebook users to input a phone number and forget it, forever using a converted identifier and whatever data connection you can find in order to pass along snippets of text. I’d surmise that voice conversations won’t be far behind. The downside is that the default action for consumers—even technophiles such as myself—is to pass along one’s phone number first, followed by far more fluid tokens such as an email address, a Twitter handle, or a Facebook username. If ever we hope to fully kill the phone number, we’re going to have to make a concerted effort as a society to stop relying on it first and foremost.
My proposal is a simple one from a conceptual standpoint, but one that faces huge challenges due to the monolithic corporations who hold the power to make the necessary changes. When 5G (or whatever happens after LTE) is fully in place, there’s really no reason to not build the networks to transmit all voice calls over data. Today’s networks may not be fully capable of handling every single voice call in VoIP fashion, but bandwidth is going to be far less of an issue once LTE has been eclipsed. It’s already possible for me to ring a conventional phone number from my web browser thanks to a Google Voice plug-in; as far as the receiver of that call knows, I’m calling from a landline. Then also remember that you can use a virtual number for Whatsapp (see https://www.yourbusinessnumber.com/blog/how-can-i-get-a-virtual-number-for-whatsapp for more details) and that allows you to use two numbers on the one phone, so that can be very useful indeed for many users. The technology is already here, but unless mobile operators and network infrastructure outfits jointly decide to make the leap to VoIP for everything, we’re going to remain shackled to an ancient technology.
It doesn’t take an argonaut to understand the benefits of using a different identifier and an internet-based calling platform. Today, a U.S. citizen that travels to England can buy a SIM card in a vending machine upon landing, load it up with data, and effectively use their smartphone exactly as they would in the United States… save for the whole “calling and texting” thing. When you swap the SIM out, your phone number goes dead for the duration of your trip. But why? That new SIM is fully capable of channeling voice calls to your phone via data networks—the only thing we need is implementation.
Why shouldn’t you be able to complete a call using any device tethered to a data connection? A laptop or tablet with a set of headphones seems like a perfectly acceptable way to communicate, but as it stands, the phone number won’t have any of it.
Out society is too large, and far too set in their ways, for anyone to expect the masses to take meaningful action to change our dependence on the traditional phone number. But if we try, we might be able to pressure mobile carriers into considering a VoIP future that at least enables numbers to be ported amongst data-enabled devices.
As with practically everything related to the expansion of internet availability, one shouldn’t underestimate the economic impact that such a change could have. Roaming charges are hurdles for even the affluent amongst us; in a developing nation, they’re outright insurmountable. The thought of a world where every phone could call another, anywhere in the world, using a data network that pays no mind to long distance fees—that’s a thought that thrills me.
Darren Murph Bio:
Darren has roamed the consumer electronics landscape for nearly a decade, most recently serving as Engadget’s Managing Editor and now as SVP of Editorial Strategy for Weber Shandwick. He owns a Guinness World Record as the planet’s most prolific professional blogger, and believes that there’s no such thing as too much travel.
Darren’s Twiiter
