After rumors of its demise and resurrection, it looks like WiMax will finally get the push it needs in the U.S. to become a viable contender in the wireless communications space.
Sprint and Clearwire finally rekindled a deal to launch a nationwide service--thanks to a multi-billion-dollar push from investors Comcast, Intel, Time Warner Cable, and Google. The new service will be marketed under the Clearwire brand, and it could offer true wireless broadband Internet access a year or two ahead of Verizon and AT&T's planned offerings.
For those not familiar with WiMax or some of its potential uses (ranging from cars to rural broadband service to virtually free mobile calling), see "WiMax Network's Rollout Abroad" in Popular Mechanics, "Web Surfers Can Take the Internet Along for the Ride" in The New York Times, and "Beyond WiMax" in PC Magazine.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
In the world of mergers and acquisitions, it's never over.
Folks are selling their Yahoo shares after Microsoft abandoned its efforts to take over the company last weekend, but they might want to start buying again in July.
Yes, Yahoo wanted more money than the company is worth (assuming one puts any credence in the valuation of Internet firms when the reality is that a new site can knock out a leading competitor in a couple of months). But it's clear that Yahoo will be worth even less if it follows through on an advertising deal with Mr. Potter, er, Google. That would represent total capitulation in the one promising area of future revenue for the firm. And that's also the one hook that Yahoo had for Microsoft: the potential to combine forces with Microsoft on the Internet ad front to compete with Google.
So, my bet is that Microsoft's Ballmer will launch another takeover bid when Yahoo's shares dip below $20 again. And since M&A kids love to ruin an acquisition target's holidays, send lawyers into double-triple overtime, and look for the bottom price, I fearlessly predict that in August, we'll all be covering this story--again.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
People mulling the idea of buying a computer often ask, "Should I get Windows XP or Vista on it?" That question is about to become moot.
As of June 30th, 2008, computer makers will no longer be able to sell machines with XP installed. But people still clinging to Windows XP on existing systems needn't worry. Kevin Kutz, the director of Microsoft's Windows client group assured me that free support for consumers will continue to June 2009. So patches and fixes will be available. Furthermore, Microsoft will continue to make freely available security updates available for years after that, plus offer paid support, mostly aimed at businesses, through 2014.
Kutz also reminded me that small business folks who purchase machines with Vista Business or higher now have the option to downgrade to Windows XP--even after the June 30th deadline. The reason for this is to allow folks who discover that their company has, say, a custom-built application that doesn't work with Vista time to make changes. So in other words, you could buy 20 Vista machines from HP, then discover that they don't work with a critical application in the office, and simply call HP to get Windows XP free-of-charge for the machines. Kutz also underlined the fact that businesses that go that route can move back up to Vista later, free of charge.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's recent comment that Vista was a "work in progress" set loose rumors that Microsoft would essentially skip Vista and just move on to the next big operating system upgrade. But the next version of Windows, code named Windows 7, isn't due until 2010 "ish" says Kutz. By then, holding onto Windows XP may feel like you're working on a DOS computer.
If you want more on the status of Windows XP, watch my segment tonight, April 23, on CBS News Up to the Minute.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Breaking News: Bloggers Eat Pizza and Twinkies!
One of the funniest stories I've read in a long time came in the form of a below-the-fold item in the Sunday New York Times. Ostensibly a hard news story about how stressful blogging can be, the article, entitled "In Web World of 24/7 Stress, Writers Blog Till They Drop," will doubtless prove excellent fodder for SNL and Jon Stewart. Imagine the archetypal blogger in PJs slurping a latte, and then read the following quote from the story:
"A growing work force of home-office laborers and entrepreneurs, armed with computers and smartphones and wired to the hilt, are toiling under great physical and emotional stress created by the around-the-clock Internet economy that demands a constant stream of news and comment."
When I read that to my 5-year-old daughter, she started laughing. (I am not kidding.) Even in her somewhat limited experience she recognizes that there are more stressful jobs, say, like being a kindergarten student. Obsessing about click-throughs? Brother, you haven't felt real stress until you've done the ERBs or faced down your first spelling test.
Laborers? One can't help recalling the Monty Python sketch of the disappointed author facing the prodigal son who has rejected the brutal, unforgiving world of the arts for the easy-going life of coal mining. The father, suffering from severe writers' cramp, screams at his son: "I've had more gala luncheons than you've had hot dinners!"
In the great blogging tradition of biting the hand that feeds me (the Times, not blogging), I'll take another couple of jabs at the story: The supposed evidence of blogging stress, according to the article, is the less than stellar health of many folks laboring over a hot keyboard and the unfortunate early deaths of two bloggers who had heart attacks. Certainly, both sad losses to family and friends, but compared with other professions, hardly enough to support the high-anxiety conclusion.
Incidentally, under the heading of "People in Tech in San Francisco Take Themselves Way Too Seriously," throwing together a WordPress site and then sitting down to regurgitate other people's news, isn't news--and it sure ain't stressful (no matter how much silly VC money people throw at you).
The daily grind of blogging just isn't all it's hyped up to be. Let's see, Steve Jobs' company is suing some New Yorkers who dare to use an image of an apple (let's make fun of that), Larry can be really aggressive (and he's not such a great sailor either, item two), more VC money is pouring into another online video site no one has ever heard of (call friends to link to this item), and, oh look, Rachel Ray is zesting again on ABC. Think I'll jot down her recipe and then take a break and watch the Formula 1 race I Tivoed (not that I would ever do such a thing during the work day!). Then I'll see how many people I can offend online before hitting on that female blogger typing on her laptop across from me in Starbucks (and then, hey!, I can blog about that, too!).
Mundane, yes. As stressful as being an air traffic controller, uh, no.
Certainly, there are some useful blogs out there: references for those suffering from terrible diseases, for example, or guides for new parents (no, Urban Baby does not count among them--it actually only exists as fodder for other bloggers). But the vast majority of blogs are time sinks for reader and writer alike. There, I've said it.
So weep not for the Blogger's Anxiety at the Penalty Click or for the RSI of the Crackberry addict. Just thank your lucky stars you've chosen a different profession and aren't stressing yourself out reading blogs about people who write blogs about people who write trend stories about people who write blogs.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Another good idea--and there are precious few of them these days--from Down Under: Turn off some of that major light pollution for one hour Saturday night.(NB: Earth Hour was Saturday, March 29th.)
It's called "Earth Hour" and was started last year in Sydney. This year, over 370 cities and towns around the world are expected to turn off most of the lights at landmarks and major government edifices at 9 GMT for 60 minutes. The idea, which you've no doubt guessed, is--no, not to cause panic in the streets--but to increase awareness of global warming.
We think it's a great idea if only because of the energy it will save. The only potential drawback could be the overall increase in the planet's carbon footprint. That's right, more babies.
On the other hand, we could all turn off our televisions for the hour (advertising dollars be damned) and shut down our (no, don't say it!) computers as well. Then we could just turn on a lamp with an energy-saving CFL bulb and read a book. (Okay, if you must, a Kindle.)
While Comcast began backtracking (well, sort of) on its policy of shutting down certain Internet traffic, those north of the 49th parallel look like they're about to become second-class Netizens. The culprit? Bell Canada. And to think that all these years they were worried about the ugly Americans controlling the media.
First off: Comcast and BitTorrent (one of only dozens of technologies that legitimately use peer-to-peer software on the Web) have announced that they are talking about how Comcast handles spikes in traffic on its network. To date, Comcast has shut down or tricked peer-to-peer software to interrupt downloads, but it now promises that in future it will adopt a protocol agnostic network management technique to keep data flowing on its overwhelmed lines. (You can read the release for yourself here.)
However, it still means that popular applications, such as digital phone service like Skype could be thwarted for Comcast customers. It also means that Comcast still wants to make the Internet its own and could shut out (or "manage") competitors looking to deliver video entertainment online or digital phone service competing with Comcast's offerings. Indeed, Comcast wants to introduce new standards to control Internet traffic--without going to the official Internet and Web standards bodies (well, it said it would submit its ideas to the Internet Engineering Task Force). Not exactly what people had in mind, we think. And you can imagine the uproar if another company, say, Microsoft had proposed such a thing. There'd be H E double L hockey sticks to pay. (By the way, there's already such an internationally accepted standard for addressing these "management" issues: IPv6.) Of course, what Comcast is really doing is desperately trying to avoid potential government legislation that would protect the Internet as it stands (see Net Neutrality).
Meanwhile, back in Canada (no, we haven't forgotten about you) several companies that sell high-speed Internet service to folks have learned the hard way that there's some fine print in their contracts with Bell Canada. It seems that Bell, which delivers the main Internet hookup to those companies, can reduce service whenever the mood strikes it. And the mood has struck.
Bell Canada has already begun slowing down certain traffic on Canadian Internet connections. In the process, subscribers to so-called high-speed services are experiencing serious slow downs (can you say, "dial-up") and even the venerated CBC got caught up in the controversy when its program,“Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister,” (notice how I'm restraining myself from making a joke about this) was made unavailable online due to Bell Canada's slow down. So much for those Canadian content rules.
The question is: Would Alanis Morissette call this ironic?
For more on the inequities of living in the Great White North, see an article from one of my former employers, The Globe and Mail. By the way, Bell Canada, polite as can be, is planning to slow down all Internet traffic it finds objectionable by April. Well, at least most of the snow should have melted by then and Canucks can play outside...
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
All mobile phones will eventually be "smart" phones. But for now, the Crackberry, er, Blackberry is the leader. Apple promises to hook its hot iPhone into corporate e-mail systems this summer, which should give the devices a boost in the business market. However, the iPhone's tardy data service and lack of GPS functions for navigation and location-based services mean it still has a lot of catching up to do.
I took a quick look at the iPhone and two promising alternatives on competing carriers for one of my regular Fox Business segments. You can can watch it here, or get a brief rundown of how the LG Voyager and Samsung Ace stack up against the iPhone at J-Q.com.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
One wonders when Yahoo will wake up and smell the cat food. (Microsoft's cat food, that is, to contort a musical sub-reference into a tech marketing quasi cliche.)
Naturally, Yahoo had to at least nominally (and oh so predictably) reject Microsoft's initial offer, but as the days of speculation drag on, the discussion seems about as serious as considering another Nader run for the presidency (okay, never mind the fact that Ralph is actually taking that idea seriously).
Sitting in the green room at Fox the other day and watching the Yahoo-Microsoft banter (which included the possibility that some of the largest Yahoo shareholders could sue if management doesn't take the deal), I could not help noticing that no one's heart was really in it. What everyone wanted to say but simply couldn't say on the air is that this deal is done. It's logical, obvious, and necessary for both parties. It's even a necessity for Google (they desperately need the competition or they'll die like Woody Allen's shark, and it will blunt the growing anti-trust problems Google faces).
And the idea that has been floated of melding AOL and Yahoo is such a terrifically terrible idea (and the source of endless jokes in New York), it only serves to underscore the fact that the Microhoo deal is all but done. The preposterous AOL idea--let's give Time Warner Yahoo so that it drive it straight into the ground like its other online endeavors (as if that would preserve Time Warner's core businesses)--illustrates in high-contrast colors that Yahoo has no other option than to accept the Microsoft offer. Joining with AOL is almost as crazy an idea as letting Mr. Potter "help" George Bailey (hello, Google?).
The cynics among us, of course, are going to point to the rather half-hearted rejection from Yahoo as being utterly disingenuous. There wasn't even any indignation in the tone, they'll say, which has been standard operating procedure in dealing with Microsoft proposals for over a decade and a half. A lack of indignation means you (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) really want to be acquired.
So, Yahoo's apparent rejection reminds me of those wonderfully subversive Nancy Reagan era "Just Say No" buttons that when tilted said "Yes!" Maybe someone should get a box of the buttons and send then to Yahoo HQ.
Those who want to bet on when Yahoo will officially accept a Microsoft bid can post their bets in the comments section here....
Update: Apparently some major Yahoo shareholders agree that this is all but over. See The Deal's Legg Mason: Yahoo! in a "tough spot."
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
The recent hostile bid by Microsoft for the flagging Yahoo is taking on "It's A Wonderful Life" proportions. Unfortunately for the world's search engine, Google is casting itself in the role of Mr. Potter.
Witness one of the funniest blog postings of the last few hours by Google svp David Drummond, who enumerates dire warnings about a Microsoft--Yahoo marriage. Dripping with irony (dripping? he's soaking in it), Drummond complains that, gee, Microsoft is really big, it once had some like legal problems, and, well, heck, between Yahoo and Microsoft they have a way lot of IM and e-mail users.
In the words of John McEnroe: You cannot be serious.
Of course Drummond didn't say a word about how Google has a worldwide stranglehold on Web advertising, which is what all this is about. And he didn't mention that Google reportedly called poor little Yahoo (Mr. Potter-style) to offer its assistance in fighting off the Microsoft bid. (One can just imagine that conversation and how long it took George Bailey, er, Yahoo to realize it was about to be tricked into shutting down the old building and loan.)
All this hand-wringing, slapstick, and hilarity from Google over the mere possibility that it might, maybe, possibly, finally get some competition and have to hitch up its britches makes Google CEO Eric Schmidt look more paranoid than Dick Cheney. Maybe he's having nightmares about his days back at Novell.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Time Warner was unable to deliver the Fox channel in high definition during the Super Bowl Sunday night in one of its biggest and most lucrative markets, New York, home of the New York Giants.
Flooded with complaints, the cable provider was unable to resolve a long-standing problem with its HD service. Customers who jammed the company's technical support lines were not offered a refund or credit. Instead, the cable provider lamely offered those who hung on for over 30-minutes on the phone a free premimum channel for one month. (And the problem with Fox persisted.)
No word yet on lost revenues due to the outage with the biggest, most expensive advertisements of the entire year on the line. However, doubtless Fox's Murdoch will be looking for some payback from the collapsing cable firm. As for customers of Time Warner, they have endured outages on the cable company's HD service for at least 8 months, yet Time Warner has been unwilling or unable to correct the problems.
Such technical imcompetence on the part of Time Warner calls into question the company's ability to deliver everything from digital phone service to high-speed Internet service. If it can't even deliver a televison picture, one wonders how on earth the company can ever hope to hijack the Internet and defeat the net neutrality movement.
No word on how many New York Super Bowl parties were blown out by Time Warner's fumble.
PS: Time Warner's HD service for the Super Bowl also reportedly crashed in the Cleveland area.
PPS: Time Warner also reportedly botched the Super Bowl in the California towns of Twentynine Palms , Yucca Valley, and Barstow.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Recent Comments
-
Prudence said:
[this is good]I love the comparison to It's a Wonderful Life. Excellent post! Signed, One of George Bailey's Kids. read more
on Google Calls Kettle Black -
morell said:
i think google has little to worry about, those two can merge but without the technology, they aint knocking google... read more
on Google Calls Kettle Black -
-
superpixel said:
interesting perspective. I'll agree about 80% of what we're seeing is hype, but there's a 20% of gold in there... read more
on Et Tu, Business 2.0?
What a cool idea! I have a friend who is an Orthodox Jew who does this all Saturday long (turning... read more
on Earth Hour Baby Boom