PocketMac for BlackBerry 5.0 redesigned for Snow
Leopard

post from MacNN | The Macintosh News Network on 18 March 2010 05:05:00 PM. © MacNN | The Macintosh News Network

PocketMac has launched an update to its self-titled sync software for BlackBerry users. The software...

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.macnn.com/click.phdo?i=1eb31db1ebd203fc769fae8648747e73

Digg this

Proactive Sleep 1.2 - iPhone application that
Promotes Healthy Sleep

post from on 18 March 2010 04:55:00 PM. ©

Virginia based Proactive Life LLC has released Proactive Sleep 1.2 for iPhone and iPod touch.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://prmac.com/release-id-11507.htm

Digg this

Code by Kevin releases PacketStream 3.1

post from on 18 March 2010 04:50:00 PM. ©

Code by Kevin has released PacketStream 3.1, an update to its Macintosh network-monitoring program.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://prmac.com/release-id-11506.htm

Digg this

Leak: early iPad sales could outpace original
iPhone

post from MacNN | The Macintosh News Network on 18 March 2010 04:45:00 PM. © MacNN | The Macintosh News Network

The iPad's pre-orders have been strong enough that they could outrun even the original iPhone launch...

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.macnn.com/click.phdo?i=df556728441a97f8bb970bb3380d8513

Digg this

Mozilla, Video, and Mobile Computing

post from Daring Fireball on 18 March 2010 04:15:00 PM. © Daring Fireball

With Microsoft’s announcement this week that IE9 will support H.264 HTML5 video, three of the big four browsers — IE, Safari, and Chrome — will soon support H.264. The only major browser holdout is Firefox.¹

Mozilla is couching their position in terms of ideals: H.264 is an open industry standard but patent-encumbered and has licensing fees; Ogg Theora is open, not patent-encumbered, and free of licensing fees.

Brian Crescimanno has written a fine argument that this is a situation where pragmatism should win out over idealism, and that Mozilla should include support for H.264 (in addition to Ogg Theora) in Firefox. As he points out, it’s not as though Mozilla has never before supported proprietary formats (e.g. GIF). But Crescimanno’s best point is that Mozilla’s support for Ogg Theora is doomed because it’s technically inferior to H.264:

People and businesses are willing to embrace free software when it provides an equal or better product than the proprietary alternatives (see the success of Linux on the server). However, when free software doesn’t keep up with the best non-free products, people stay away (see the lack of success of Linux on the desktop). Simply put, there just aren’t that many people who share the same moral imperative as the Free Software Foundation; most of just want it to work.

Put another way, “open and better” is a recipe for success; “open but worse” is a recipe for obscurity. Popular video publishing sites aren’t going to use Ogg Theora instead of H.264, and I think they’re very unlikely to support it in addition to H.264, either. Encoding and storage are expensive; supporting both would at least double those costs.

The practical effect of Mozilla’s current position will not be to drive adoption of Ogg Theora. What’s going to happen is that Safari, Chrome, and even IE9 users will be served HTML5 video, and Firefox users will get Flash. Publishers will support both HTML5 video (for Safari, Chrome, and IE9 users) alongside Flash (for browsers that don’t support HTML5 and H.264) because they already have the Flash video publishing infrastructure in place, and because Flash can be used to publish H.264-encoded video. Publishers don’t have to encode (and store) video twice; they can encode (and store) it once and serve it two different ways. The sites that are the most popular — YouTube being number one, obviously — would bear the most expense to support an additional encoding format. It isn’t going to happen.

So, even those using the latest version of Firefox will be treated like they’re using a legacy browser. Mozilla’s intransigence in the name of “openness” will result in Firefox users being served video using the closed Flash Player plugin, and behind the scenes the video is likely to be encoded using H.264 anyway.

There’s another factor that occurred to me recently: mobile computing. Apple, Google, and Microsoft all seem to view mobile computing as a top-level priority. H.264 video playback on mobile devices is aided by dedicated H.264 decoding hardware. That’s how the iPhone and iPods get such long battery life for video playback. I believe this is also true for Android devices, and will be true for Windows Phone 7 and Zunes. Relying on the CPU for video playback simply isn’t practical on mobile devices. There are no hardware decoding chips for Ogg Theora. If you want to send video to mobile devices, H.264 is the only practical encoding for the near future. (I think this explains why Microsoft is throwing its support behind H.264 rather than some proprietary video codec of its own — Microsoft knows a winning position when it sees one.) Ogg Theora may well be “good enough” for desktop computers, but it’s completely unacceptable for mobile devices.

Mozilla, as an organization, doesn’t seem to value mobile computing as a top priority. Yes, they have mobile initiatives. But the only platform they have a mobile browser for is Nokia Maemo. All of you using a Nokia Maemo, please raise your hands. Crickets. Compare and contrast with WebKit, which I suspect will soon have more mobile than desktop users.

The needs of mobile computing are driving the adoption of H.264 HTML5 video more than anything else, but Mozilla doesn’t feel that pressure because it isn’t a mobile company. And at this point, “not a mobile company” is getting hard to distinguish from “not a relevant company”.²

Opera is on Mozilla’s side, supporting Ogg Theora instead of H.264, but Opera isn’t a major browser in my book. Feel free to include it in your book, though. ↩
Opera, on the other hand, is a major player in the mobile market. I think it’s safe to say that Opera is far more relevant in mobile computing than on the desktop. So it strikes me as odd that they aren’t on board with H.264. Perhaps (unlike Mozilla) they truly can’t afford the licensing fees. ↩

Read The Full Article:
http://daringfireball.net/2010/03/mozilla_video_mobile

Digg this

Briefly: Bookmaker's odds on iPad sales,
Cinedition launched

post from MacNN | The Macintosh News Network on 18 March 2010 04:05:00 PM. © MacNN | The Macintosh News Network

Oddsmakers at YouWager.com have set down odds on when Apple's iPad will hit one million units sold. ...

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.macnn.com/click.phdo?i=71a7ffe83400898e349069bd76be2d29

Digg this

Surprise! HTC Doesn’t Agree With Apple
Regarding Suit

post from TheAppleBlog on 18 March 2010 04:00:00 PM. © TheAppleBlog

HTC has finally spoken out regarding the pending lawsuit Apple launched against the smartphone maker regarding its use of multi-touch as an interface navigation mechanism, and around 20 other technologies. It should surprise absolutely no one that the Taiwanese company doesn’t see eye-to-eye with the iPhone maker regarding the appropriateness of its use of the tech.

HTC CEO Peter Chou released a statement Wednesday addressing the recently filed suit directly. According to Chou, as quoted by InformationWeek, “HTC disagrees with Apple’s actions and will fully defend itself.” HTC’s stance, like that of Apple, is that it respects and values healthy competition and innovation. Of course, that shared premise leads both companies to quite different conclusions.

Chou elaborates HTC’s position further in the official statement:

HTC strongly advocates intellectual property protection and will continue to respect other innovators and their technologies as we have always done, but we will continue to embrace competition through our own innovation as a healthy way for consumers to get the best mobile experience possible.

Apple is no stranger to suits from other companies, and it certainly hasn’t shied away from pursuing legal action itself in the past. A suit against Nokia along similar lines is still ongoing. HTC shouldn’t be surprised about the move, either, considering the fact that multi-touch wasn’t officially introduced as a launch feature on the Nexus One, even though the hardware supported it. It was added later by Google to the device via a software update. Sure seems like an attempt to dodge the ire of multi-touch’s proclaimed originator to me.

The Nexus One is almost certainly the catalyst for this suit, and with good reason. Despite the fact that the device itself isn’t selling anywhere near at the level of the iPhone, recent evidence suggests that the phone has raised the profile of Android, which seems to be positioning itself to make a serious bid on Apple’s smartphone market dominance. If Apple is ever to strip Google of some of that momentum, the time to do so is now.

But are the claims Apple is making valid, or is it just an attempt to strike down any and all competition before the consumer gets a chance to choose? I’m no legal expert, but it seems to me that Apple is going after some very basic concepts in its legal claims, ones without which the concept of a modern smartphone would be untenable. I’m all for giving credit where credit is due, but if we’re to see cell tech progress, it has to be at the behest of the free market, and that means not unduly placing restrictions on Apple’s competitors.

Read The Full Article:
http://theappleblog.com/2010/03/18/surprise-htc-doesnt-agree-with-apple-regarding
-suit/

Digg this

Scosche intros new headphones, chargers, iPad
accessories

Scosche has announced its 2010 netbook accessory lineup, which includes several new products such as...

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.macnn.com/click.phdo?i=c5ee8448fb83915338d9a9b334bccb65

Digg this

T-Mobile US angling to get iPhone in late 2010,
2011

Deutsche Telekom chief René Obermann in an interview today hinted that T-Mobile USA is hoping to lan...

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.macnn.com/click.phdo?i=7a646c1e2c2cfe55845700c8793e48f8

Digg this

Google Alleges That Viacom Secretly Uploaded Its
Content to YouTube, Even While Publicly Complaining About Its Presence There

Zahavah Levine, chief counsel for YouTube in its litigation with Viacom:

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately “roughed up” the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. […]

Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Astounding hypocrisy.

?

Read The Full Article:
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html

Digg this