Yet another reason that Apple's handicapped Apple TV box is an expensive boat anchor (okay, an anchor for a rubber raft, maybe): Sling Media has just released its place-shifting software for the Mac.
For those unfamiliar with Sling Media's Slingbox and accompanying software, the Slingbox attaches to your home TV and cable/satellite box. You install the software on your computer and then via any high-speed Internet connection you can control your home television--no matter where you are--and watch programs beamed from your living room over the Net on your computer.
The typical scenario involves being stuck in a hotel room halfway around the world. You're desperate to see the Yankees game (yeah, yeah, or Red Sox game), but it's not on TV in Tokyo. So you plug your laptop into the Internet, log onto your Slingbox (which is sitting at your home in New York), and start watching the game on your laptop screen. Now Mac users can perform the same trick with Sling's latest software release.
Oddly, Sling is pitching the new software release as complimentary to Apple TV, but with the software and a laptop, why bother with Apple's crippled media adapter? True, you can control an Apple TV box remotely using the Slingbox and Sling software...but you can't download anything to the Apple TV remotely and you can't use the Apple device as a digital video recorder (DVR).
My advice is to stick with a cable box DVR or Tivo and add a Slingbox.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Is Mattel's coming Barbie Girls MP3 player an iPod killer? Uh, no. But it does have some kewl features that will appeal to tweeners and pre-tweeners.
The players will come with detachable hair, clothes, and faceplates, and the devices will hold about 120 songs in built-in memory. A docking station is included, and there will be a slew of accessories so that girls can attach faux earrings to the player's earbuds or clip jewels onto the earbud cords. There will even be collectable tiny animal charms.
At the New York City debut of the players, a score of girls in black Barbie T's demonstrated how the players can work with the Barbie Girls virtual world Web site. The kids were excellent Barbie ambassadors, given the fact that they grasp how it all works instantly (and they patiently explained it all to some of the, er, older journalists in attendance). After all, instant messaging and digital downloads are all a part of a little girl's daily world.
After giving the player and Web site a test run (with a lot of help from my daughter), it's clear that Mattel is on to something here. But I have to wonder how quickly its audience will outgrow Barbie Girls and how soon will they be clamoring for a Barbie Girls smart phone.
For more details on Barbie Girls, see the Web site article at J-Q.com.
Lower phone bills? We're all for it. Well, almost all of us are for it. The folks at Verizon aren't too keen on it (neither are the folks at Qwest or AT&T for that matter). But the telecom world is changing, and lawsuits won't hold it back. Although they could result in much higher bills for you.
Struggling to come up with some way to stem the voice-over-the-Internet tide, Verizon has been suing Vonage for allegedly infringing on its patents, and Verizon won an initial judgement in March focusing on three extremely broad patents involving voice mail and how calls can be transferred over a public packet switched network (in other words, over the Internet to the plain old telephone lines). One point about the case, which is now under appeal until June, is that Verizon's patents appear to be too broad, potentially undermining the whole transition to voice over IP (VoIP) that is underway.
Another point is that if Verizon prevails in the Vonage case, Verizon could initiate threats against other VoIP providers. It might mean that other firms would pay inflated licensing fees just to stave off litigation. And it would mean...you guessed it...higher phone bills for you and me. Witness the fact that Verizon's own VoIP service is substantially more expense than Vonage, even though Verizon owes many of the physical phone lines. (All Vonage owns are a lot of computer servers.)
As a side note, it's interesting to point out that the issue of "Net neutrality"--in other words leaving the basic Internet protocol technology and access to it the way it is--wasn't an issue until companies like AT&T and Qwest floated the idea that they might start charging Web sites for better access to the Internet. In other words, they would blockade the lines on which Internet traffic travels and thus wipe out small, online businesses while delivering a major blow to Google's business plans. (Not only would Google have to pay for access, but Google also has a VoIP play of its own called Google Talk.)
All of this is a way of trying to squeeze revenue out of what is a dying telecom business model. The days of charging for minutes or long distance calls is already over. The old teleco's just don't realize it yet.
For more on the changing telecom business, see my article on past mergers in U.S. News & World Report.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Due to system overloads at Intuit, some TurboTax customers may have pulled out a bit more hair than usual filing their tax returns on Tuesday night. However, this is one case where the company is making good with customers. To wit, a JQ on Technology reader forwarded this Intuit missive:
Dear TurboTax Customer,
We want to let you know that Intuit will be refunding any TurboTax credit card charges that were charged to your credit or debit card between 3 p.m. PDT Tuesday, April 17 and 4 a.m. PDT Wednesday, April 18.
We deeply regret the frustration and anxiety you may have experienced trying to e-file your return on April 17.
We worked closely with the IRS to allow taxpayers who were affected by the delay to file their returns until midnight tonight, Thursday, April 19, without penalty. Intuit will also pay any other penalties that customers incur as a result of the delay, although none are anticipated.
We will be contacting you early next week with additional details about this refund. We value your business and appreciate your patience.
Sincerely,
TurboTax Customer Advocacy
Intuit, Inc.
Now there's a company that's got the right attitude and deserves to be the market leader.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
The IRS has confirmed that it will not penalize people who missed the midnight deadline due to delays in the online TurboTax service. Intuit's servers were processing scores of returns every second, according to the company, but experienced delays of several hours for many customers, which meant many missed the midnight point of no return.
The agency also took the opportunity to remind citizens that if they haven't filed yet, they should still do so. In other words, it's never too late, and that dog-ate-my-server excuse isn't going to cut it.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
In the wake of Tuesday's last-minute tax filings, the folks at TurboTax report that there have been delays in processing electronic filings through their service. In other words, some customers who filed online using TurboTax on Tuesday may not have made the IRS deadline.
If you are expecting a refund and used the service, there's no cause for concern (other than the extra day or two it may take for you to receive a check). However, those who owe money may or may not incur additional penalties. So far, a conclusive word on whether or not the IRS will forgive the short delays due to Intuit's swamped servers has not been announced.
In the meantime, if you haven't filed yet, you still should fill out the forms and get them in. To check out how to do it online, see Online Tax Preparation.
By the way, just so I can say I told you so, I told you so (on TV, no less).
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
This kind of trouble is lots of fun!
Google's plan to purchase online ad clearing house DoubleClick for $3.1 billion is generating lots of news. However, the real story isn't how much money the search engine/advertising/online services behemoth is willing to pay a gaggle of private investors. Nor is the real issue how this effects Microsoft or Yahoo (after all, do people really care?). Granted, Yahoo's efforts in the online search arena have been tepid to date, while Microsoft may end up taking only a small slice out of Google's virtual monopoly in Web ad serving.
No, the real story is how this effects me, Al Franken. In other words, the purchase could have far-reaching implications for regular folks who surf the Internet.
The main issue is how Google tracks people online (see "Google Owns You" below). Not only does it use its search engine to record every single click you make, but it can also correlate this information with Web site visits and visits to sponsored links. With the addition of DoubleClick, Google's tentacles could stretch even further. Specific ads can already be served to you based on your surfing habits, but now there's the potential to track how often you visit specific sites, make purchases, or click on ads across a much greater swath of the Web. (If you're skeptical, just take a look at how many cookies these sites store on your computer.)
Marketers, ever prone to creating high-concept neologisms for simple ideas, call this behaviorial marketing. Other folks call it spying. And the potential for abuse is quite real. Google already can shut down a small busines by denying its ad services without redress. And then there are the advertisers. A DoubleClick-Google monster could easily crowd out any remaining competition...and drive up prices.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
UPDATE: In the ongoing battle between Hollywood and digital technology, Cablevision announced this week that it would appeal last month's decision against the company. The March ruling from the U.S. District Court in New York precluded Cablevision from offering subscribers a digital video recording service. Lawyers from Hollywood studios and television networks successfully argued that such a service would violate copyright laws.
Essentially, the court decision regards whether or not cable or satellite operators can record broadcasts that viewers select on remote servers. Currently, you can record programs on a digital video recorder (or, gasp, VCR) that resides in your home for personal use. Cablevision's idea (and it's just an idea, not an actual service or even beta test) is to let you do exactly the same thing, except that the hard drive would be located at their facilities (so-called Network DVR service). The company wouldn't charge for the service, but would instead see a return on investment by saving the money it would otherwise spend putting hard drives in every subscriber's cable set top box.
Cablevision CEO Tom Rutledge issued a statement to announce the news, arguing that a "remote-storage DVR" service is legal under current copyright law. In the initial decision, the judge in the case emphasized the transmission aspect of the service, claiming that aspect made it illegal. No word on how long the appeal could take.
For more on this story, see TV 2.0 Battle, Round One below.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Nearly lost in the flurry of car announcements at the New York Auto Show (April 6 to 15) was news that HD Radio will be offered as an option by two more auto makers.
HD Radio is the free digital radio format that many stations across the US are adopting. To tune it in, however, you need a new radio. BMW now offers an HD option in all of its models, and this week Hyundai and Jaguar revealed plans to offer the digital tuners in some of their models.
Specifically, Hyundai's Genesis sports sedan, scheduled for introduction next year, will come with an HD Radio tuner, while Jaguar's XJ luxury sedan will include the option this fall. Other auto makers continue to hint that they will also offer HD Radio, but no other official statements have been forthcoming.
For more on the auto show, see J-Q.com.
For more on HD Radio, see JQ's article in The New York Times auto section.
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
Apparently, Apple's reality distortion field is now warpng the perspective of music companies.
On Monday, EMI announced it would offer its catalog of music for sale on Apple's iTunes store free of copyright protections. Tracks from the likes of Norah Jones will first be offered without copying restrictions on iTunes next month for $1.29 each. Yes, that's more than the standard 99 cents a track, and no, The Beatles still won't be available online.
The change has come about mainly because Apple refused to do what it begged the music industry to do, namely, open up for licensing (or even for free!) the company's proprietary digital rights management (DRM) controls. That's the part of song file that prevents you from copying it on too many machines, making countless CDs, or--heaven forbid--playing the tracks on any portable player save for the iPod. Indeed, it was the height of disingenuous obfuscation when Steve Jobs issued a statement saying that the record companies should offer music without copy protection...when he is the one who would not open up Apple's music control software.
Be that as it may, next month Apple plans to confuse everyone when it starts offering some songs you can copy at will--and some you can't. Which will be which? Who knows. Like most people, I follow the bands, not what record label they happen to be on. And I don't want to have to jump through hoops (can I copy it or not?) just to play a few tunes. (EMI will also offer the same copy protection free tracks at other sites, it says.)
Of course, there are already plenty of tracks online for sale without copyright protection and hassles, most notably from emusic. Or you could get even better quality sound--and a wider variety of choices--by buying CDs. You could even get a CD of that classic "Never Mind the Bollocks Here's the Sex Pistols." Now, how did that song go? "EMI, EMI..."
FOR MORE OF JQ'S NEWS AND REVIEWS, VISIT J-Q.COM
