Someday, they’ll build wireless Internet into every building, just the way they build in running water, heat and electricity today. Someday, we won’t have to drive around town looking for a coffee shop when we need to check our e-mail.
If you want ubiquitous Internet today, though, you have several choices. They’re all compromised and all expensive.
You could get online using only a smartphone, but you’ll pay at least $80 a month and you’ll have to view the Internet through a shrunken keyhole of a screen. You could equip your laptop with one of those cellular air cards or U.S.B. sticks, which cost $60 a month, but you’d be limited to 5 gigabytes of data transfer a month (and how are you supposed to gauge that?). You could use tethering, in which your laptop uses your cellphone as a glorified Internet antenna — but that adds $20 or $30 to your phone bill, has a fixed data limit and eats through your phone’s battery charge in an hour.
Last year, you could hear minds blowing coast to coast when Novatel introduced a new option: the MiFi. It creates a personal Wi-Fi bubble, a portable, powerful, password-protected wireless hot spot that, because it’s the size of a porky credit card, can go with you everywhere. The MiFi gets its Internet signal from a 3G cellphone network and converts it into a Wi-Fi signal that up to five people can share.
You can just leave the thing in your pocket, your laptop bag or your purse to pump out a fresh Internet signal to everyone within 30 feet, for four hours on a charge of the removable battery. You’re instantly online whenever you fire up your laptop, netbook, Wi-Fi camera, game gadget, iPhone or iPod Touch.
The MiFi released by Virgin Mobile this week ($150) is almost exactly the same thing as the one offered by Verizon and, until recently, Sprint — but there’s a twist that makes it revolutionary all over again.
The Virgin MiFi, like its rivals, is still an amazing gizmo to have on long car rides for the family, on woodsy corporate offsite meetings, at disaster sites, at trade show booths or anywhere you can’t get Wi-Fi. If you live alone, the MiFi could even be your regular home Internet service, too — one that you can take with you when you head out the door. And it’s still insanely useful when you’re stuck on a plane on a runway.
But three things about the Virgin MiFi are very, very different. First, Virgin’s plan is unlimited. You don’t have to sweat through the month, hoping you don’t exceed the standard 5-gigabyte data limit, as you do with the cellular-modem products from Verizon, Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile. (If you exceed 5 gigabytes, you pay steep per-megabyte overage charges, or in T-Mobile’s case, you get your Internet speed slowed down for the rest of the month.)
If you hadn’t noticed, unlimited-data plans are fast disappearing — but here’s Virgin, offering up an unlimited Internet plan as if it never got the memo.
Second, Virgin requires no contract. You can sign up for service only when you need it. In other words, it’s totally O.K. with Virgin if you leave the thing in your drawer all year, and activate it only for, say, the two summer months when you’ll be away. That’s a huge, huge deal in this era when every flavor of Internet service, portable or not, requires a two-year commitment.
Third, the service price for this no-commitment, unlimited, portable hot spot is — are you sitting down? — $40 a month.
That’s no typo. It’s $40 a month. Compare that with the cheapest cellular modems from AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint: $60 a month. T-Mobile also charges $40 a month for its cellular modems. But all four of those big companies require a two-year contract, and come with those scary 5-gigabyte monthly data limits.
(There’s actually another Virgin plan available, too: you can pay $10 for a 100-megabyte chunk of Internet use that expires in 10 days. It’s intended for people who are heading out for the weekend and just want to keep in touch with e-mail without having to fork over a whole month’s worth of money — and without paying $15 or $25 for each night of overpriced hotel Wi-Fi. And speaking of options, Virgin also offers a standard U.S.B. plug-in cellular modem with exactly the same pricing details.)
I’ve pounded my head against the fine print, grilled the product managers and researched the heck out of this, and I simply cannot find the catch.
Is it the speed? No. You’re getting exactly the same 3G speed you’d get on rival cellular modems and MiFi’s. That is, about as fast as a DSL modem. A cell modem doesn’t give you cable-modem speed, but you’ll have no problem watching online videos and, where you have a decent Sprint signal, even doing video chats.
Is it the coverage? Not really; Virgin uses Sprint’s 3G cellular Internet network, which is excellent. You’re getting exactly the same battery life and convenience of Verizon’s MiFi — for two-thirds the monthly price.
(Why would Sprint allow Virgin to use its data network but undercut its own pricing in such a brazen way? Because Sprint is focused on promoting its 4G phones and portable hot spots — even faster Internet, available so far only in a few cities. For example, its Overdrive portable hot spot is $100 after rebate, with a two-year commitment. The service is $60 a month for 5 gigabytes of 3G data and unlimited 4G data.)
That’s not to say that there’s no fine print whatsoever.
First, the Virgin plan doesn’t include roaming off Sprint’s network; the old Sprint MiFi plans did. According to Virgin, that’s not a big deal — the regular Sprint network covers 262 million people, whereas roaming would cover 12 million more — but it means that you might be out of luck in smaller towns.
Second, the Virgin MiFi can’t plug directly into your computer’s U.S.B. port to act as a wired cellular modem, like other carriers’ MiFi units. You can connect to it only wirelessly, if you care. (You can still charge it from your computer’s U.S.B. jack, but very slowly. A wall outlet or car adapter is a much better bet.)
Finally, remember that the Virgin MiFi is still a MiFi, so it’s a bit uncommunicative. It has only a single, illuminated button that serves as the on-off switch and an indicator light that blinks cryptically in different colors. You have to press that button and wait about 20 seconds before you can get online.
But come on: $40 a month? With no commitment or contract?
I did a little survey of broadband Internet prices among my Twitter followers. Turns out $40 a month is not only a great price for cellular (portable) Internet service — it’s among the lowest broadband prices in America, period. In some areas you can pay $35 a month for DSL service. But most people pay $50 to $60 for high-speed Internet, which makes the Virgin deal seem even more incredible.
And unlike those plans, Virgin lets you turn on service only when you want it. You can buy service — as with a prepaid phone —either by calling an 800 number or visiting a Web site. Handily enough, you can get onto the Virgin Web site to re-activate your MiFi, even if you’d previously stopped paying for service.
The MiFi’s portability has always made it an exceptionally flexible and useful little gadget — and Virgin’s prepaid model, unlimited data plan and dirt-cheap pricing just multiply that flexibility. And if Virgin can make money with a plan like this, the mind boggles at just how overpriced the similar offerings from its rivals must really be
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Microsoft to spend a fortune on Windows 7 push
Microsoft's marketing and development costs could reach $1 billion as it pushes its new mobile platform. Also, the more you use your smartphone, the more damage you may cause to your brain.
Emptying deep pocketsWhile Apple wows us with design, and Google panders to the open-source set, Microsoft plans to push its new mobile operating system onto the masses and developers with a familiar tactic: cash.
According to TechCrunch, Microsoft is planning an aggressive and expensive campaign to push Windows 7 -- arriving on phones this fall -- to give the platform some leverage as it battles Apple and Google's Android for customers. Microsoft "could spend a half-billion dollars or more in marketing costs and payments to developers and handset manufacturers to subsidize the expense of building phones and apps, so that the Windows Phone 7 ecosystem is well-seeded at launch," writes Kim-Mai Cutler in a TechCrunch guest post.
Those costs could reach $1 billion, the story notes, with half spent on marketing and half for other development costs.
“We have a long-term view and Microsoft has been in this position before in other businesses where we’ve had to take a long-term view,” said Microsoft senior product manager Greg Sullivan. He would not comment on the estimates. “The mobile phone market is growing by leaps and bounds, but it’s still in the early stages.”
The story details troubles Microsoft may be having with hardware manufactures for the Windows 7 phones. Only HTC, LG and Samsung will offer Windows 7 phones, down from as many as eight partners when Microsoft started discussing the operating system earlier this year. Yet despite Microsoft's noted phone problems over the years and even this year -- remember the Kin line-up of phones? -- all that money might buy some love.
Here's how Cutler concludes her fine piece: "The $100 million (Deutsche Bank analyst Jonathan) Goldberg estimates that Verizon, Motorola and Google collectively spent on marketing helped turn the Droid line of phones into a serious stable of competitors against the iPhone."
Will it work? One has to believe that Microsoft freed a lot of marketing dollars when it yanked the Kin from the market. We shall see, but it is wise to go after the developers who can create a boatload of apps. Without apps, Microsoft will start looking more like Research in Motion, where sales are falling fast because BlackBerry phones are not offering anything close to the sizable app library that Apple and Android have built.
Brain failAs much as we love our phones, there is growing concern that our need to constantly check email or play a casual game while waiting in line for lunch is not allowing our brains to breathe, so to speak. Therefore, we may be negatively impacting our ability to "learn and remember information, or come up with new ideas," according to a recent piece in the New York Times.
That piece was the latest installment of a fascinating series titled "Your Brain on Computers." In this one, reporter Matt Richtel points to emerging research that "even though people feel entertained, even relaxed, when they multitask while exercising, or pass a moment at the bus stop by catching a quick video clip, they might be taxing their brains, scientists say. 'People think they’re refreshing themselves, but they’re fatiguing themselves,' said Marc Berman, a University of Michigan neuroscientist."
The story is fascinating, but I may have overlooked the piece had I not heard Richtel, a Pulitzer Prize winner, talking to Terry Gross on the PBS show Fresh Air. Richtel spoke of all the emerging research surrounding our constant need for communicating with technology and the side effects that result. Not all of those are bad, he pointed out, but there appears to be unintended consequences we are just now starting to understand.
Listen to this Ironically, that Fresh Air interview reminded me of one of my favorite Android Apps: Google's Listen. With Listen, you can search for Fresh Air and a list of recent episodes will pop up on your phone. You can then listen to the program as well as subscribe to a feed for new episodes of the show. Basically, Listen searches the web for audio content, much like a Google search scours websites for relevant information.
Emptying deep pocketsWhile Apple wows us with design, and Google panders to the open-source set, Microsoft plans to push its new mobile operating system onto the masses and developers with a familiar tactic: cash.
According to TechCrunch, Microsoft is planning an aggressive and expensive campaign to push Windows 7 -- arriving on phones this fall -- to give the platform some leverage as it battles Apple and Google's Android for customers. Microsoft "could spend a half-billion dollars or more in marketing costs and payments to developers and handset manufacturers to subsidize the expense of building phones and apps, so that the Windows Phone 7 ecosystem is well-seeded at launch," writes Kim-Mai Cutler in a TechCrunch guest post.
Those costs could reach $1 billion, the story notes, with half spent on marketing and half for other development costs.
“We have a long-term view and Microsoft has been in this position before in other businesses where we’ve had to take a long-term view,” said Microsoft senior product manager Greg Sullivan. He would not comment on the estimates. “The mobile phone market is growing by leaps and bounds, but it’s still in the early stages.”
The story details troubles Microsoft may be having with hardware manufactures for the Windows 7 phones. Only HTC, LG and Samsung will offer Windows 7 phones, down from as many as eight partners when Microsoft started discussing the operating system earlier this year. Yet despite Microsoft's noted phone problems over the years and even this year -- remember the Kin line-up of phones? -- all that money might buy some love.
Here's how Cutler concludes her fine piece: "The $100 million (Deutsche Bank analyst Jonathan) Goldberg estimates that Verizon, Motorola and Google collectively spent on marketing helped turn the Droid line of phones into a serious stable of competitors against the iPhone."
Will it work? One has to believe that Microsoft freed a lot of marketing dollars when it yanked the Kin from the market. We shall see, but it is wise to go after the developers who can create a boatload of apps. Without apps, Microsoft will start looking more like Research in Motion, where sales are falling fast because BlackBerry phones are not offering anything close to the sizable app library that Apple and Android have built.
Brain failAs much as we love our phones, there is growing concern that our need to constantly check email or play a casual game while waiting in line for lunch is not allowing our brains to breathe, so to speak. Therefore, we may be negatively impacting our ability to "learn and remember information, or come up with new ideas," according to a recent piece in the New York Times.
That piece was the latest installment of a fascinating series titled "Your Brain on Computers." In this one, reporter Matt Richtel points to emerging research that "even though people feel entertained, even relaxed, when they multitask while exercising, or pass a moment at the bus stop by catching a quick video clip, they might be taxing their brains, scientists say. 'People think they’re refreshing themselves, but they’re fatiguing themselves,' said Marc Berman, a University of Michigan neuroscientist."
The story is fascinating, but I may have overlooked the piece had I not heard Richtel, a Pulitzer Prize winner, talking to Terry Gross on the PBS show Fresh Air. Richtel spoke of all the emerging research surrounding our constant need for communicating with technology and the side effects that result. Not all of those are bad, he pointed out, but there appears to be unintended consequences we are just now starting to understand.
Listen to this Ironically, that Fresh Air interview reminded me of one of my favorite Android Apps: Google's Listen. With Listen, you can search for Fresh Air and a list of recent episodes will pop up on your phone. You can then listen to the program as well as subscribe to a feed for new episodes of the show. Basically, Listen searches the web for audio content, much like a Google search scours websites for relevant information.
Apple TV poist for the Living Room
Apple (AAPL) failed to make a case Wednesday that Apple TV could replace cable TV. Instead, it did something smarter: It introduced an Apple TV that consumers will want alongside their cable boxes.
Which, for the first time, is a winning strategy to get Apple on the big family room screen. Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled the new Apple TV at the company’s press conference Wednesday, along with a new iPod Touch and a music-centered social network called Ping.
But the star of the show was Apple TV – a product that has so far been a glaring failure for a company that does so much right. Jobs even introduced the segment by saying Apple TV has been a “hobby” for Apple, and that the company has learned a lot about what consumers want.
So the new Apple TV costs $99 – nearly $200 less than the old Apple TV – and the box is the size of two iPhones side-by-side, about one-fourth the size of the previous version. In one shot, that makes Apple TV a no-brainer purchase for many consumers. The price is about the same as dinner for two and wine at a P.F. Chang’s, and the box won’t have to find a chunk of space amid all the DVRs, DVD players and video game consoles piled by the TV.
Big win for Netflix
The content has one killer app that matters: Netflix (NFLX) streaming. Yeah, Apple will sell streaming movies for $4.99, but you’d be a dope for paying that much. For $8.99 a month, you can watch unlimited streaming movies on Netflix (and still get DVDs by mail). If you have an iPhone or iPad, you can start watching a movie at home, and if you have to go to the kids’ swim meet, pick up where you left off and watch the rest from the bleachers.
Apple TV will also rent streaming TV shows from Fox and ABC for 99 cents. "We think the rest of the studios will see the light and get on board with us," Jobs said. That’s half the price of buying and downloading a show through iTunes or Amazon, and it brings the price down to an impulse buy. Instead of replacing cable and your DVR, just know that if you plunk down in front of the TV and are curious about “Cougar Town,” for a buck you can take that chance.
Ping is no match for Facebook
The rest of Jobs’ press conference was pretty underwhelming. Hard to imagine that Ping is going to set the world on fire. It acts sort of like Last.fm, allowing users to follow the listening habits of other users, and looks a little like Facebook. But it’s built into iTunes. Ping seems to be the one thing Apple got out of its purchase of Lala.com last year.
Otherwise, the new iPod Touch is basically an iPhone 4 without the phone – better screen, front-facing camera. A new Nano is half the size of its predecessor. The new Shuffle isn’t that much different from the old Shuffle.
Apple got those products right from the beginning. It’s interesting that Apple learned from its failures with Apple TV, and the company finally should win a place in the living room.
Which, for the first time, is a winning strategy to get Apple on the big family room screen. Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled the new Apple TV at the company’s press conference Wednesday, along with a new iPod Touch and a music-centered social network called Ping.
But the star of the show was Apple TV – a product that has so far been a glaring failure for a company that does so much right. Jobs even introduced the segment by saying Apple TV has been a “hobby” for Apple, and that the company has learned a lot about what consumers want.
So the new Apple TV costs $99 – nearly $200 less than the old Apple TV – and the box is the size of two iPhones side-by-side, about one-fourth the size of the previous version. In one shot, that makes Apple TV a no-brainer purchase for many consumers. The price is about the same as dinner for two and wine at a P.F. Chang’s, and the box won’t have to find a chunk of space amid all the DVRs, DVD players and video game consoles piled by the TV.
Big win for Netflix
The content has one killer app that matters: Netflix (NFLX) streaming. Yeah, Apple will sell streaming movies for $4.99, but you’d be a dope for paying that much. For $8.99 a month, you can watch unlimited streaming movies on Netflix (and still get DVDs by mail). If you have an iPhone or iPad, you can start watching a movie at home, and if you have to go to the kids’ swim meet, pick up where you left off and watch the rest from the bleachers.
Apple TV will also rent streaming TV shows from Fox and ABC for 99 cents. "We think the rest of the studios will see the light and get on board with us," Jobs said. That’s half the price of buying and downloading a show through iTunes or Amazon, and it brings the price down to an impulse buy. Instead of replacing cable and your DVR, just know that if you plunk down in front of the TV and are curious about “Cougar Town,” for a buck you can take that chance.
Ping is no match for Facebook
The rest of Jobs’ press conference was pretty underwhelming. Hard to imagine that Ping is going to set the world on fire. It acts sort of like Last.fm, allowing users to follow the listening habits of other users, and looks a little like Facebook. But it’s built into iTunes. Ping seems to be the one thing Apple got out of its purchase of Lala.com last year.
Otherwise, the new iPod Touch is basically an iPhone 4 without the phone – better screen, front-facing camera. A new Nano is half the size of its predecessor. The new Shuffle isn’t that much different from the old Shuffle.
Apple got those products right from the beginning. It’s interesting that Apple learned from its failures with Apple TV, and the company finally should win a place in the living room.
Computing at the Speed of light
Replacing metal wiring with fiber optics could change everything from supercomputers to laptops.
By Tom Simonite
The world of computing could change rapidly in coming years thanks to technology that replaces the metal wiring between components with faster, more efficient fiber-optic links.
Seeing the light: A chip in the center of this circuit board contains four lasers that convert electrical signals into light pulses. The pulses travel at high speeds along a fiber-optic link.
Credit: Intel
"All communications over long distance are driven by lasers, but you've never had it inside devices," says Mario Paniccia, director of Intel's photonics lab in Santa Clara, CA. "Our new integrated optical link makes that possible."
Paniccia's team has perfected tiny silicon chips capable of encoding and decoding laser signals sent via fiber optics. Today, when data arrives at a computer via a fiber optic connection it has to be moved from a separate photonic device to an electronic circuit. This new system promises to speed things up because everything works in silicon.
Last week, Paniccia's team demonstrated the first complete photonic communications system made from components fully integrated into silicon chips. Electronic data piped into one chip is converted into laser light that travels down an optical fiber and is transferred back into electrical signals a few fractions of a second later. The system can carry data at a rate of 50 gigabytes per second, enough to transfer a full-length HD movie in less than a second.
The silicon photonic chips could replace the electronic connections between a computer's key components, such as its processors and memory. Copper wiring used today can carry data signals at little more than 10 gigabytes per second. That means critical components like the central processing unit and the memory in a server cannot be too far apart, which restricts how computers can be built.
The new Intel setup has four lasers built into its transmitter chip that shine data into a single optical fiber at slightly different wavelengths, or "colors." Chips with even more lasers should make it possible to communicate at 1,000 gigabytes per second.
"Having a chip the size of your fingernail that can deliver a terabit per second changes the way you can think about design," says Paniccia. Such chips could make a big difference inside the sprawling data centers operated at great expense by Web giants like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook. "Data centers today are big piles of copper--that imposes the limits on how you arrange components inside a server," Paniccia says.
"If I could just move the memory a foot away [from the processors], I could add a whole board of memory for a single CPU instead," says Paniccia, whose team is experimenting with prototype servers to work out how to build them with photonics links inside.
Moving a server's memory away from the CPUs would also make ventilating them easier. Since roughly half the cost of running a data center, used for everything from services like Facebook to banking records, comes from cooling, that could have a significant impact.
By Tom Simonite
The world of computing could change rapidly in coming years thanks to technology that replaces the metal wiring between components with faster, more efficient fiber-optic links.
Seeing the light: A chip in the center of this circuit board contains four lasers that convert electrical signals into light pulses. The pulses travel at high speeds along a fiber-optic link.
Credit: Intel
"All communications over long distance are driven by lasers, but you've never had it inside devices," says Mario Paniccia, director of Intel's photonics lab in Santa Clara, CA. "Our new integrated optical link makes that possible."
Paniccia's team has perfected tiny silicon chips capable of encoding and decoding laser signals sent via fiber optics. Today, when data arrives at a computer via a fiber optic connection it has to be moved from a separate photonic device to an electronic circuit. This new system promises to speed things up because everything works in silicon.
Last week, Paniccia's team demonstrated the first complete photonic communications system made from components fully integrated into silicon chips. Electronic data piped into one chip is converted into laser light that travels down an optical fiber and is transferred back into electrical signals a few fractions of a second later. The system can carry data at a rate of 50 gigabytes per second, enough to transfer a full-length HD movie in less than a second.
The silicon photonic chips could replace the electronic connections between a computer's key components, such as its processors and memory. Copper wiring used today can carry data signals at little more than 10 gigabytes per second. That means critical components like the central processing unit and the memory in a server cannot be too far apart, which restricts how computers can be built.
The new Intel setup has four lasers built into its transmitter chip that shine data into a single optical fiber at slightly different wavelengths, or "colors." Chips with even more lasers should make it possible to communicate at 1,000 gigabytes per second.
"Having a chip the size of your fingernail that can deliver a terabit per second changes the way you can think about design," says Paniccia. Such chips could make a big difference inside the sprawling data centers operated at great expense by Web giants like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook. "Data centers today are big piles of copper--that imposes the limits on how you arrange components inside a server," Paniccia says.
"If I could just move the memory a foot away [from the processors], I could add a whole board of memory for a single CPU instead," says Paniccia, whose team is experimenting with prototype servers to work out how to build them with photonics links inside.
Moving a server's memory away from the CPUs would also make ventilating them easier. Since roughly half the cost of running a data center, used for everything from services like Facebook to banking records, comes from cooling, that could have a significant impact.
Computing at the Speed of light ( part 2 )
Further savings may come from the fact that optical links require less power to operate, says Keren Bergman, who leads a silicon photonics research group at Columbia University. "With electrical wires, the longer you go, the more energy you spend in an exponential fashion," she says. Optical fiber allows low-power signals to travel farther faster. Bergman's group has used data on the performance of computers at Lawrence Berkeley and MIT's Lincoln Laboratories to simulate how systems with optical interconnects might perform. "You can get an order of magnitude gain in energy efficiency," she says, with the largest gains seen for applications such as high-bandwidth image processing and video streaming, she says.
Data centers aren't the only things that may see their insides lit up with lasers. "We've developed this technology to be low-cost so we can take it everywhere, not just into high-performance computing or the data center," says Paniccia. The components of the Intel system, including the lasers, are made with the same silicon-sculpting methods used to construct computer chips in vast quantities. "I'm drafting Moore's law," says Paniccia. "We've enabled the benefits of using light with the low-cost, high-volume, scalability of silicon."In consumer computers like laptops, that would allow innovations in industrial design. I could put the memory in the display instead, and change the design of the whole thing."
This could make it easier to swap in new components without having to open up a machine. It would also allow core components to be installed in peripherals. Extra memory could, for example, be hidden in a laptop or smart phone dock to increase a portable device's computing power when plugged in.
Fully exploiting the benefits of the optical age will, however, means changes to the components being linked up. "It's not just a case of whip out the electrical wires and replace them with optical fiber," says Bergman.
Ajay Joshi, an assistant professor at Boston University, who is also exploring design options for high-performance computers with optical interconnects, agrees. "If we speed up the channel between logic [processors] and memory, we need to rethink the way you design that memory."
The speed gap between processors and optical links is smaller, but ultimately, that too will likely change. "It would be nice to also see processors that work optically instead of electronically," Joshi says
Data centers aren't the only things that may see their insides lit up with lasers. "We've developed this technology to be low-cost so we can take it everywhere, not just into high-performance computing or the data center," says Paniccia. The components of the Intel system, including the lasers, are made with the same silicon-sculpting methods used to construct computer chips in vast quantities. "I'm drafting Moore's law," says Paniccia. "We've enabled the benefits of using light with the low-cost, high-volume, scalability of silicon."In consumer computers like laptops, that would allow innovations in industrial design. I could put the memory in the display instead, and change the design of the whole thing."
This could make it easier to swap in new components without having to open up a machine. It would also allow core components to be installed in peripherals. Extra memory could, for example, be hidden in a laptop or smart phone dock to increase a portable device's computing power when plugged in.
Fully exploiting the benefits of the optical age will, however, means changes to the components being linked up. "It's not just a case of whip out the electrical wires and replace them with optical fiber," says Bergman.
Ajay Joshi, an assistant professor at Boston University, who is also exploring design options for high-performance computers with optical interconnects, agrees. "If we speed up the channel between logic [processors] and memory, we need to rethink the way you design that memory."
The speed gap between processors and optical links is smaller, but ultimately, that too will likely change. "It would be nice to also see processors that work optically instead of electronically," Joshi says
Nano Switches that store More Data Head to Market
Products featuring memristors could appear in 2013.
By Katherine Bourzac
An electronic component that offers a new way to squeeze more data into computers and portable gadgets is set to go into production in just a couple of years. Hewlett-Packard announced today that it has entered an agreement with the Korean electronics manufacturer Hynix Semiconductor to make the components, called "memristors," starting in 2013. Storage devices made of memristors will allow PCs, cellphones, and servers to store more and switch on instantly.
Making memories: This colorized atomic-force microscopy image shows 17 memristors. The circuit elements, shown in green, are formed at the crossroads of metal nanowires.
Memristors are nanoscale electronic switches that have a variable resistance, and can retain their resistance even when the power is switched off. This makes them similar to the transistors used to store data in flash memory. But memristors are considerably smaller--as small as three nanometers. In contrast, manufacturers are experimenting with flash memory components that are 20 nanometers in size.
"The goal is to be at least double whatever flash memory is in three years--we know we'll beat flash in speed, power, and endurance, and we want to beat it in density, too," says Stanley Williams, a senior fellow at HP who has been developing memristors in his lab for about five years.
HP makes memristors by laying down parallel metal nanowires onto a substrate, coating them with a layer of titanium dioxide, and placing a second layer of nanowires perpendicular to the first layer. Where the wires cross, a memristor is formed. HP expects the first devices containing memristors to offer about 20 gigabytes of storage per square centimeter, twice the projected capacity of flash at this time. The company has dubbed memristor-based data storage "ReRAM", which stands for Resistive Random Access Memory.
Like other silicon technologies, flash memory is approaching the physical limits of what's possible in miniaturization. Flash memory also wears out after about 100,000 read-write cycles (longer than the lifetime of most gadgets), while lab tests have shown that memristors can withstand up to about a million read-write cycles.
Under the terms of the new agreement, HP will maintain the intellectual property related to memristors. Hynix will make and sell memristor memory to HP and other customers. Williams says the company's goal is to encourage the industry to adopt memristor memory. "The economic benefit to HP will be as the first mover," says Jim McGregor, chief technology strategist at industry analyst firm InStat.
Displacing flash could still take years and billions of dollars, and the industry has other experimental kinds of memory to consider, notes McGregor. Researchers are working on phase-change and ferroelectric materials that can make new forms of memory. McGregor believes that, given the likelihood of speed bumps in manufacturing, it's unlikely a commercial memristor product will be available in 2013, as HP and Hynix predict.
But Williams does not foresee any major manufacturing hurdles. He says HP has been working for the past year on prototype devices with an undisclosed semiconductor manufacturer. Williams adds that memristors can be made with materials and machinery already present in semiconductor factories.
Dan Olds, a consultant with Gabriel Consulting Group in Beaverton, Oregon, is optimistic about the technology. "The sky's the limit if they can deliver on the promise of memristors--the question is at what price, and how fast prices will come down," he says. "Any new technology is a crapshoot, but if it's a matter of engineering and not basic research, then you feel more confident betting on it."
By Katherine Bourzac
An electronic component that offers a new way to squeeze more data into computers and portable gadgets is set to go into production in just a couple of years. Hewlett-Packard announced today that it has entered an agreement with the Korean electronics manufacturer Hynix Semiconductor to make the components, called "memristors," starting in 2013. Storage devices made of memristors will allow PCs, cellphones, and servers to store more and switch on instantly.
Making memories: This colorized atomic-force microscopy image shows 17 memristors. The circuit elements, shown in green, are formed at the crossroads of metal nanowires.
Memristors are nanoscale electronic switches that have a variable resistance, and can retain their resistance even when the power is switched off. This makes them similar to the transistors used to store data in flash memory. But memristors are considerably smaller--as small as three nanometers. In contrast, manufacturers are experimenting with flash memory components that are 20 nanometers in size.
"The goal is to be at least double whatever flash memory is in three years--we know we'll beat flash in speed, power, and endurance, and we want to beat it in density, too," says Stanley Williams, a senior fellow at HP who has been developing memristors in his lab for about five years.
HP makes memristors by laying down parallel metal nanowires onto a substrate, coating them with a layer of titanium dioxide, and placing a second layer of nanowires perpendicular to the first layer. Where the wires cross, a memristor is formed. HP expects the first devices containing memristors to offer about 20 gigabytes of storage per square centimeter, twice the projected capacity of flash at this time. The company has dubbed memristor-based data storage "ReRAM", which stands for Resistive Random Access Memory.
Like other silicon technologies, flash memory is approaching the physical limits of what's possible in miniaturization. Flash memory also wears out after about 100,000 read-write cycles (longer than the lifetime of most gadgets), while lab tests have shown that memristors can withstand up to about a million read-write cycles.
Under the terms of the new agreement, HP will maintain the intellectual property related to memristors. Hynix will make and sell memristor memory to HP and other customers. Williams says the company's goal is to encourage the industry to adopt memristor memory. "The economic benefit to HP will be as the first mover," says Jim McGregor, chief technology strategist at industry analyst firm InStat.
Displacing flash could still take years and billions of dollars, and the industry has other experimental kinds of memory to consider, notes McGregor. Researchers are working on phase-change and ferroelectric materials that can make new forms of memory. McGregor believes that, given the likelihood of speed bumps in manufacturing, it's unlikely a commercial memristor product will be available in 2013, as HP and Hynix predict.
But Williams does not foresee any major manufacturing hurdles. He says HP has been working for the past year on prototype devices with an undisclosed semiconductor manufacturer. Williams adds that memristors can be made with materials and machinery already present in semiconductor factories.
Dan Olds, a consultant with Gabriel Consulting Group in Beaverton, Oregon, is optimistic about the technology. "The sky's the limit if they can deliver on the promise of memristors--the question is at what price, and how fast prices will come down," he says. "Any new technology is a crapshoot, but if it's a matter of engineering and not basic research, then you feel more confident betting on it."
Super Capacitors Could Power Phone, Laptop for Days
If optimized, this new technology could fully charge consumer electronic devices almost instantaneously.
By Eric Bland
Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:05 AM ET
THE GIST
* A new super capacitor inspired by the onion has been developed by scientists.
* Super capacitors are currently used to power small devices such as toys.
* The new tech could provide enough energy to power a cell phone for weeks or a laptop battery for days.
Drawing on the layered design of tear-inducing onions, scientists have created a new super capacitor that is powerful enough -- and cheap enough -- to replace the larger, heavier capacitors used in consumer electronics such as computers and cells phones.
If commercialized, the new super capacitor could be fully charged in a second and, coupled to a normal battery, provide enough energy to power a cell phone for weeks or a laptop battery for days.
"If you open any computer, you will see a lot of these small, cylindrical round capacitors," said Vadym Mochalin, a scientist at Drexel University and a co-author on the new Nature Nanotechnology paper.
Capacitors, like batteries, store energy, but that's where most of the similarities end. Generally speaking, a battery, like the one inside your cell phone or laptop computer, stores energy chemically. That chemical energy is then converted into electrical energy.
Converting electrical energy into chemical energy and vice versa is a relatively slow process, which is why the lithium-ion batteries in laptops and cell phones can last for hours or even days but also require a long time to charge.
A capacitor is different. Simply put, a capacitor stores an electrical charge between two conductive plates separated by an electrical insulator.
Without the chemical-electrical conversion, a capacitor can be charged and discharged much more rapidly than a battery, last longer and weigh less. Capacitors are ideal for camera flashes and other electrically intensive consumer devices.
However, in contrast to batteries, a capacitor cannot store enough energy to power anything that lasts longer than a flash -- some fraction of a second.
Super capacitors, however, store much more energy than their traditional counterparts and are used to power small devices such as toys including model planes and helicopters.
In the future, super capacitors will be more powerful and replace batteries in more and more devices. Super capacitors or "electric double layer capacitors" store charge in a layer of ions adsorbed on the surface of carbon.
The new super capacitor began its electrically charged life with a literal bang. A powerful blast, usually hexagen or TNT, converts carbon contained in the molecules of explosives into a thin sheet of nanodiamonds.
The researchers then transformed those nanodiamonds into dozens or even hundreds of graphene layers, all nestled inside one another like little Russian dolls.
When the graphene "onions" are bathed and charged in an organic electrolyte, they can discharge up to 200 volts every second. If the technology is optimized that number could be further increased several times, said Mochalin. That would be enough to fully charge a cell phone, laptop or other electrical device almost instantaneously, and then dole out that power to a waiting battery for long-term storage.
The performance is excellent, and if commercialized -- something the Drexel scientists are working on -- the price should be right as well. The diamonds found in jewelry are expensive, but nanodiamonds are cheap. A few hundred dollars will get you a pound of nanodiamonds, said Mochalin.
"You need an electrically conductive material for a capacitor, and diamonds are insulators," said Olga Shenderova, a nanodiamond expert at the International Technology Center in North Carolina.
Additionally, by using a material that is relatively inexpensive, said Shenderova, the research could eventually lead to a whole new generation of super capacitors
By Eric Bland
Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:05 AM ET
THE GIST
* A new super capacitor inspired by the onion has been developed by scientists.
* Super capacitors are currently used to power small devices such as toys.
* The new tech could provide enough energy to power a cell phone for weeks or a laptop battery for days.
Drawing on the layered design of tear-inducing onions, scientists have created a new super capacitor that is powerful enough -- and cheap enough -- to replace the larger, heavier capacitors used in consumer electronics such as computers and cells phones.
If commercialized, the new super capacitor could be fully charged in a second and, coupled to a normal battery, provide enough energy to power a cell phone for weeks or a laptop battery for days.
"If you open any computer, you will see a lot of these small, cylindrical round capacitors," said Vadym Mochalin, a scientist at Drexel University and a co-author on the new Nature Nanotechnology paper.
Capacitors, like batteries, store energy, but that's where most of the similarities end. Generally speaking, a battery, like the one inside your cell phone or laptop computer, stores energy chemically. That chemical energy is then converted into electrical energy.
Converting electrical energy into chemical energy and vice versa is a relatively slow process, which is why the lithium-ion batteries in laptops and cell phones can last for hours or even days but also require a long time to charge.
A capacitor is different. Simply put, a capacitor stores an electrical charge between two conductive plates separated by an electrical insulator.
Without the chemical-electrical conversion, a capacitor can be charged and discharged much more rapidly than a battery, last longer and weigh less. Capacitors are ideal for camera flashes and other electrically intensive consumer devices.
However, in contrast to batteries, a capacitor cannot store enough energy to power anything that lasts longer than a flash -- some fraction of a second.
Super capacitors, however, store much more energy than their traditional counterparts and are used to power small devices such as toys including model planes and helicopters.
In the future, super capacitors will be more powerful and replace batteries in more and more devices. Super capacitors or "electric double layer capacitors" store charge in a layer of ions adsorbed on the surface of carbon.
The new super capacitor began its electrically charged life with a literal bang. A powerful blast, usually hexagen or TNT, converts carbon contained in the molecules of explosives into a thin sheet of nanodiamonds.
The researchers then transformed those nanodiamonds into dozens or even hundreds of graphene layers, all nestled inside one another like little Russian dolls.
When the graphene "onions" are bathed and charged in an organic electrolyte, they can discharge up to 200 volts every second. If the technology is optimized that number could be further increased several times, said Mochalin. That would be enough to fully charge a cell phone, laptop or other electrical device almost instantaneously, and then dole out that power to a waiting battery for long-term storage.
The performance is excellent, and if commercialized -- something the Drexel scientists are working on -- the price should be right as well. The diamonds found in jewelry are expensive, but nanodiamonds are cheap. A few hundred dollars will get you a pound of nanodiamonds, said Mochalin.
"You need an electrically conductive material for a capacitor, and diamonds are insulators," said Olga Shenderova, a nanodiamond expert at the International Technology Center in North Carolina.
Additionally, by using a material that is relatively inexpensive, said Shenderova, the research could eventually lead to a whole new generation of super capacitors
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Bill Gates Favorite Teacher
Innovation in Education
Bill Gates' favorite teacher
sal_khan.top.jpgKhan turns out thousands of videos from a converted walk-in closet in his Silicon Valley home. By David A. Kaplan, contributorAugust 24, 2010: 5:53 AM ET
FORTUNE -- Sal Khan, you can count Bill Gates as your newest fan. Gates is a voracious consumer of online education. This past spring a colleague at his small think tank, bgC3, e-mailed him about the nonprofit khanacademy.org, a vast digital trove of free mini-lectures all narrated by Khan, an ebullient, articulate Harvard MBA and former hedge fund manager. Gates replied within minutes. "This guy is amazing," he wrote. "It is awesome how much he has done with very little in the way of resources." Gates and his 11-year-old son, Rory, began soaking up videos, from algebra to biology. Then, several weeks ago, at the Aspen Ideas Festival in front of 2,000 people, Gates gave the 33-year-old Khan a shout-out that any entrepreneur would kill for. Ruminating on what he called the "mind-blowing misallocation" of resources away from education, Gates touted the "unbelievable" 10- to 15-minute Khan Academy tutorials "I've been using with my kids." With admiration and surprise, the world's second-richest person noted that Khan "was a hedge fund guy making lots of money." Now, Gates said, "I'd say we've moved about 160 IQ points from the hedge fund category to the teaching-many-people-in-a-leveraged-way category. It was a good day his wife let him quit his job." Khan wasn't even there -- he learned of Gates' praise through a YouTube video. "It was really cool," Khan says.
In an undistinguished ranch house off the main freeway of Silicon Valley, in a converted walk-in closet filled with a few hundred dollars' worth of video equipment and bookshelves and his toddler's red Elmo underfoot, is the epicenter of the educational earthquake that has captivated Gates and others. It is here that Salman Khan produces online lessons on math, science, and a range of other subjects that have made him a web sensation.
Khan Academy, with Khan as the only teacher, appears on YouTube and elsewhere and is by any measure the most popular educational site on the web. Khan's playlist of 1,630 tutorials (at last count) are now seen an average of 70,000 times a day -- nearly double the student body at Harvard and Stanford combined. Since he began his tutorials in late 2006, Khan Academy has received 18 million page views worldwide, including from the Gates progeny. Most page views come from the U.S., followed by Canada, England, Australia, and India. In any given month, Khan says, he's reached about 200,000 students. "There's no reason it shouldn't be 20 million."
His low-tech, conversational tutorials -- Khan's face never appears, and viewers see only his unadorned step-by-step doodles and diagrams on an electronic blackboard -- are more than merely another example of viral media distributed at negligible cost to the universe. Khan Academy holds the promise of a virtual school: an educational transformation that de-emphasizes classrooms, campus and administrative infrastructure, and even brand-name instructors.
Quick, free, and easy to understand
Distance learning and correspondence courses have been around since the invention of mail. And private, for-profit schools flourish; the University of Phoenix has half a million students enrolled, most of them online. Other private operations, like the Teaching Co., specialize in amalgamating "great courses" from nationally known teachers: the 12-hour Game Theory in Life, Business, and Beyond, from one academic star, costs $254.95 on DVD.
What's remarkable about Khan Academy, aside from its nonpareil word of mouth and burgeoning growth, is that it's free and prizes brevity. Remember your mumbling macroeconomics teacher whose 50-minute monologue in a large auditorium could bore the dead? That isn't Khan. He rarely cracks wise -- if you want shtick, check out Darth Vader trying to teach Euclidean geometry on YouTube ("The Pythagorean theorem is your destiny!") -- but in less than 15 minutes Khan gets to the essence of the topics he's carved out.
Online critics question whether he amounts to a dilettante who's turning learning into pedagogical McNuggets. But while you obviously don't learn calculus in one session -- the subject is divided into 191 parts, which doesn't include 32 more in precalc -- Khan's components seem to hit the sweet spot of length and substance. And he covers an astonishing array. There are the core subjects in math -- arithmetic, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, and statistics -- and the de rigueur science offerings, like biology, chemistry, and physics. But Khan also gives lessons in Economics of a Cupcake Factory, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Alien Abduction Brain Teaser.
The seeds of education
Like so many entrepreneurial epiphanies, Khan's came by accident. Born and raised in New Orleans -- the son of immigrants from India and what's now Bangladesh -- Khan was long an academic star. With his MBA from Harvard, he has three degrees from MIT: a BS in math and a BS and a master's in electrical engineering and computer science. He also was the president of his MIT class and did volunteer teaching in nearby Brookline for talented children, as well as developed software to teach children with ADHD. What he doesn't know he picks up from endless reading and cogitation: His gift, like that of many teachers, is being able to reduce the complex. "Part of the beauty of what he does is his consistency," says Gates. Of Khan's capacity to teach, Gates, who says he spends considerable time trying to help his three kids learn the basics of math and science, tells Fortune, "I kind of envy him."
In the summer of 2004, while still living in Boston, Khan learned that his seventh-grader cousin, Nadia, in New Orleans was having trouble in math class converting kilograms. He agreed to remotely tutor her. Using Yahoo Doodle software as a shared notepad, as well as a telephone, Nadia thrived -- so much so that Khan started working with her brothers, Ali and Arman. Word spread to other relatives and friends. Khan wrote JavaScript problem generators to keep up a supply of practice exercises. But between their soccer practices, his job, and multiple time zones, scheduling became impossible. "I started to record videos on YouTube for them to watch at their own pace," Khan recalls. Other users tuned in, and the blueprint for Khan Academy was created.
Khan continued to work for the small hedge fund he had joined after Harvard, Wohl Capital Management. He said he took away "under $1 million" before the Silicon Valley-based hedge fund wound down, and briefly started his own fund in mid-2008, which didn't really get off the ground because of the financial crisis. ("I called it Khan Capital," he says, "but it never got much beyond 'Khan's Capital.'") He used his nest egg to buy a house with his wife, Umamia, a rheumatology fellow at Stanford Medical School, and as a reserve when he gave up his investment career. On a typical day he tapes a few tutorials, answers posts from students, calls experts when he's stuck on how best to explicate a concept, and fields queries from curious potential backers.
He maintains he has no interest in monetizing the operation by charging subscriptions or selling ads. "I already have a beautiful wife, a hilarious son, two Hondas, and a decent house," he declares on his website. But that hasn't stopped the inquiries, the most notable from John Doerr, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and his wife, Ann. Not long ago a PayPal donation on Khan's site came in for $10,000 (a typical gift is $100). Khan e-mailed the donor. Her name was Ann Doerr. He knew of a John Doerr but just assumed the name was more popular than he realized. He e-mailed her to say thanks. She suggested lunch.
When they met, Ann Doerr told him she couldn't believe hers was the largest donation. "This is, like, criminal," she said. "I love what you're doing." When he got home, he found a message from her: "There's $100,000 in the mail."
Khan is using that money to pay himself a salary. Later, he met John Doerr and has since relied on both Doerrs for entrée to others in the philanthropic establishment. After Gates mentioned Khan in Aspen, John tweeted it to his Silicon Valley legions. In July the academy received another $100,000 -- from John McCall MacBain, a Canadian entrepreneur who made a fortune in publishing. "If I had a million dollars," Khan says, he'd fund software development of more automated problem sets and extensive translations of his videos. Gates, whose foundation spends $700 million a year on U.S. education, plans to talk to Khan soon as well.
An academy or a library?
Khan has his skeptics in the education business. They don't doubt he means well and is helping students, but they question the broad impact of any tutorial that doesn't test performance or allow student-teacher discussion. "It's a solid supplemental resource, particularly for motivated students," says Jeffrey Leeds, president of Leeds Equity Partners, the largest U.S. private equity firm specializing in for-profit education. "But it's not an academy -- it's more of a library."
But Khan intends nothing less than "tens of thousands" of tutorials offering the "first free, world-class virtual school where anyone can learn anything." The advances envisioned by Leeds and others wouldn't hurt either. The education industry can use all the innovation it can find.
Bill Gates' favorite teacher
sal_khan.top.jpgKhan turns out thousands of videos from a converted walk-in closet in his Silicon Valley home. By David A. Kaplan, contributorAugust 24, 2010: 5:53 AM ET
FORTUNE -- Sal Khan, you can count Bill Gates as your newest fan. Gates is a voracious consumer of online education. This past spring a colleague at his small think tank, bgC3, e-mailed him about the nonprofit khanacademy.org, a vast digital trove of free mini-lectures all narrated by Khan, an ebullient, articulate Harvard MBA and former hedge fund manager. Gates replied within minutes. "This guy is amazing," he wrote. "It is awesome how much he has done with very little in the way of resources." Gates and his 11-year-old son, Rory, began soaking up videos, from algebra to biology. Then, several weeks ago, at the Aspen Ideas Festival in front of 2,000 people, Gates gave the 33-year-old Khan a shout-out that any entrepreneur would kill for. Ruminating on what he called the "mind-blowing misallocation" of resources away from education, Gates touted the "unbelievable" 10- to 15-minute Khan Academy tutorials "I've been using with my kids." With admiration and surprise, the world's second-richest person noted that Khan "was a hedge fund guy making lots of money." Now, Gates said, "I'd say we've moved about 160 IQ points from the hedge fund category to the teaching-many-people-in-a-leveraged-way category. It was a good day his wife let him quit his job." Khan wasn't even there -- he learned of Gates' praise through a YouTube video. "It was really cool," Khan says.
In an undistinguished ranch house off the main freeway of Silicon Valley, in a converted walk-in closet filled with a few hundred dollars' worth of video equipment and bookshelves and his toddler's red Elmo underfoot, is the epicenter of the educational earthquake that has captivated Gates and others. It is here that Salman Khan produces online lessons on math, science, and a range of other subjects that have made him a web sensation.
Khan Academy, with Khan as the only teacher, appears on YouTube and elsewhere and is by any measure the most popular educational site on the web. Khan's playlist of 1,630 tutorials (at last count) are now seen an average of 70,000 times a day -- nearly double the student body at Harvard and Stanford combined. Since he began his tutorials in late 2006, Khan Academy has received 18 million page views worldwide, including from the Gates progeny. Most page views come from the U.S., followed by Canada, England, Australia, and India. In any given month, Khan says, he's reached about 200,000 students. "There's no reason it shouldn't be 20 million."
His low-tech, conversational tutorials -- Khan's face never appears, and viewers see only his unadorned step-by-step doodles and diagrams on an electronic blackboard -- are more than merely another example of viral media distributed at negligible cost to the universe. Khan Academy holds the promise of a virtual school: an educational transformation that de-emphasizes classrooms, campus and administrative infrastructure, and even brand-name instructors.
Quick, free, and easy to understand
Distance learning and correspondence courses have been around since the invention of mail. And private, for-profit schools flourish; the University of Phoenix has half a million students enrolled, most of them online. Other private operations, like the Teaching Co., specialize in amalgamating "great courses" from nationally known teachers: the 12-hour Game Theory in Life, Business, and Beyond, from one academic star, costs $254.95 on DVD.
What's remarkable about Khan Academy, aside from its nonpareil word of mouth and burgeoning growth, is that it's free and prizes brevity. Remember your mumbling macroeconomics teacher whose 50-minute monologue in a large auditorium could bore the dead? That isn't Khan. He rarely cracks wise -- if you want shtick, check out Darth Vader trying to teach Euclidean geometry on YouTube ("The Pythagorean theorem is your destiny!") -- but in less than 15 minutes Khan gets to the essence of the topics he's carved out.
Online critics question whether he amounts to a dilettante who's turning learning into pedagogical McNuggets. But while you obviously don't learn calculus in one session -- the subject is divided into 191 parts, which doesn't include 32 more in precalc -- Khan's components seem to hit the sweet spot of length and substance. And he covers an astonishing array. There are the core subjects in math -- arithmetic, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, and statistics -- and the de rigueur science offerings, like biology, chemistry, and physics. But Khan also gives lessons in Economics of a Cupcake Factory, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Alien Abduction Brain Teaser.
The seeds of education
Like so many entrepreneurial epiphanies, Khan's came by accident. Born and raised in New Orleans -- the son of immigrants from India and what's now Bangladesh -- Khan was long an academic star. With his MBA from Harvard, he has three degrees from MIT: a BS in math and a BS and a master's in electrical engineering and computer science. He also was the president of his MIT class and did volunteer teaching in nearby Brookline for talented children, as well as developed software to teach children with ADHD. What he doesn't know he picks up from endless reading and cogitation: His gift, like that of many teachers, is being able to reduce the complex. "Part of the beauty of what he does is his consistency," says Gates. Of Khan's capacity to teach, Gates, who says he spends considerable time trying to help his three kids learn the basics of math and science, tells Fortune, "I kind of envy him."
In the summer of 2004, while still living in Boston, Khan learned that his seventh-grader cousin, Nadia, in New Orleans was having trouble in math class converting kilograms. He agreed to remotely tutor her. Using Yahoo Doodle software as a shared notepad, as well as a telephone, Nadia thrived -- so much so that Khan started working with her brothers, Ali and Arman. Word spread to other relatives and friends. Khan wrote JavaScript problem generators to keep up a supply of practice exercises. But between their soccer practices, his job, and multiple time zones, scheduling became impossible. "I started to record videos on YouTube for them to watch at their own pace," Khan recalls. Other users tuned in, and the blueprint for Khan Academy was created.
Khan continued to work for the small hedge fund he had joined after Harvard, Wohl Capital Management. He said he took away "under $1 million" before the Silicon Valley-based hedge fund wound down, and briefly started his own fund in mid-2008, which didn't really get off the ground because of the financial crisis. ("I called it Khan Capital," he says, "but it never got much beyond 'Khan's Capital.'") He used his nest egg to buy a house with his wife, Umamia, a rheumatology fellow at Stanford Medical School, and as a reserve when he gave up his investment career. On a typical day he tapes a few tutorials, answers posts from students, calls experts when he's stuck on how best to explicate a concept, and fields queries from curious potential backers.
He maintains he has no interest in monetizing the operation by charging subscriptions or selling ads. "I already have a beautiful wife, a hilarious son, two Hondas, and a decent house," he declares on his website. But that hasn't stopped the inquiries, the most notable from John Doerr, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and his wife, Ann. Not long ago a PayPal donation on Khan's site came in for $10,000 (a typical gift is $100). Khan e-mailed the donor. Her name was Ann Doerr. He knew of a John Doerr but just assumed the name was more popular than he realized. He e-mailed her to say thanks. She suggested lunch.
When they met, Ann Doerr told him she couldn't believe hers was the largest donation. "This is, like, criminal," she said. "I love what you're doing." When he got home, he found a message from her: "There's $100,000 in the mail."
Khan is using that money to pay himself a salary. Later, he met John Doerr and has since relied on both Doerrs for entrée to others in the philanthropic establishment. After Gates mentioned Khan in Aspen, John tweeted it to his Silicon Valley legions. In July the academy received another $100,000 -- from John McCall MacBain, a Canadian entrepreneur who made a fortune in publishing. "If I had a million dollars," Khan says, he'd fund software development of more automated problem sets and extensive translations of his videos. Gates, whose foundation spends $700 million a year on U.S. education, plans to talk to Khan soon as well.
An academy or a library?
Khan has his skeptics in the education business. They don't doubt he means well and is helping students, but they question the broad impact of any tutorial that doesn't test performance or allow student-teacher discussion. "It's a solid supplemental resource, particularly for motivated students," says Jeffrey Leeds, president of Leeds Equity Partners, the largest U.S. private equity firm specializing in for-profit education. "But it's not an academy -- it's more of a library."
But Khan intends nothing less than "tens of thousands" of tutorials offering the "first free, world-class virtual school where anyone can learn anything." The advances envisioned by Leeds and others wouldn't hurt either. The education industry can use all the innovation it can find.
INTEL warns Sales will fall short of Forecasts
chart_ws_stock_intelcorp.top.png By David Goldman, staff writerAugust 27, 2010: 11:40 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Intel Corp. on Friday warned investors that its third-quarter revenue will fall below its forecasts as consumer demand for personal computers slipped.
The world's largest chipmaker said that it now expects sales in the current quarter will be in a range of $10.8 billion to $11.2 billion. That falls short of the company's previous revenue guidance of $11.2 to $12 billion.
Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters had expected sales of $11.5, with the most bearish analyst forecasting revenue of $11 billion.
Shares of Intel (INTC, Fortune 500), which were halted for 15 minutes on Friday following the warning, gained more than 1% once they resumed trading. Rival AMD (AMD, Fortune 500) also rose slightly.
The likely reason that Intel and AMD's shares didn't fall Friday is because investors may have already priced in a less optimistic outlook for sales. Intel's shares had already fallen 17%, and AMD's had dropped 29% since the last week of July.
Chip sales have dipped below expectations due to a sudden shift in demand for personal computers. In July, Intel and AMD reported strong second quarters on the back of booming PC sales, with Intel reporting its "best quarter ever."
That tide shifted late last month, and analysts noted that PC manufacturers have begun to scale back their orders from suppliers. Several analysts downgraded shares of Intel and AMD two weeks ago, with analysts at JPMorgan saying that PC order rates in Taiwan were "falling off a cliff."
That shift was rather quick and unexpected, given bullish forecasts from Intel and tech consulting firms like Gartner, which predicted PC shipments would rise more than 20% this year. Analysts said the fact that the economic recovery seems to have tapered off a bit caused manufacturers to grow a bit more cautious.
"The tone in the first half of the year was that the economy looked like it was getting better and the PC business would continue on with strength. But then more uncertain data came in and changed that tone,"said Cody Acree, analyst at Williams Financial Group.
Graphics chipmaker Nvidia (NVDA) also revised its sales forecast down late last month, citing a shift toward lower-priced processors.
The good news for Intel is that corporate PC customers continue to replace their old hardware, as predicted. Chips for servers and computers sold to businesses tend to have higher selling prices than those for consumer PCs.
Still, that was more than offset by the lower than expected consumer PC demand. That led Intel to lower its gross margin expectations from previous forecasts. Intel said its current-quarter gross margin will be in a range of 65% to 67%, compared to a previous range of 65% to 69%.
Intel will report its third-quarter earnings on Oct. 12.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Intel Corp. on Friday warned investors that its third-quarter revenue will fall below its forecasts as consumer demand for personal computers slipped.
The world's largest chipmaker said that it now expects sales in the current quarter will be in a range of $10.8 billion to $11.2 billion. That falls short of the company's previous revenue guidance of $11.2 to $12 billion.
Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters had expected sales of $11.5, with the most bearish analyst forecasting revenue of $11 billion.
Shares of Intel (INTC, Fortune 500), which were halted for 15 minutes on Friday following the warning, gained more than 1% once they resumed trading. Rival AMD (AMD, Fortune 500) also rose slightly.
The likely reason that Intel and AMD's shares didn't fall Friday is because investors may have already priced in a less optimistic outlook for sales. Intel's shares had already fallen 17%, and AMD's had dropped 29% since the last week of July.
Chip sales have dipped below expectations due to a sudden shift in demand for personal computers. In July, Intel and AMD reported strong second quarters on the back of booming PC sales, with Intel reporting its "best quarter ever."
That tide shifted late last month, and analysts noted that PC manufacturers have begun to scale back their orders from suppliers. Several analysts downgraded shares of Intel and AMD two weeks ago, with analysts at JPMorgan saying that PC order rates in Taiwan were "falling off a cliff."
That shift was rather quick and unexpected, given bullish forecasts from Intel and tech consulting firms like Gartner, which predicted PC shipments would rise more than 20% this year. Analysts said the fact that the economic recovery seems to have tapered off a bit caused manufacturers to grow a bit more cautious.
"The tone in the first half of the year was that the economy looked like it was getting better and the PC business would continue on with strength. But then more uncertain data came in and changed that tone,"said Cody Acree, analyst at Williams Financial Group.
Graphics chipmaker Nvidia (NVDA) also revised its sales forecast down late last month, citing a shift toward lower-priced processors.
The good news for Intel is that corporate PC customers continue to replace their old hardware, as predicted. Chips for servers and computers sold to businesses tend to have higher selling prices than those for consumer PCs.
Still, that was more than offset by the lower than expected consumer PC demand. That led Intel to lower its gross margin expectations from previous forecasts. Intel said its current-quarter gross margin will be in a range of 65% to 67%, compared to a previous range of 65% to 69%.
Intel will report its third-quarter earnings on Oct. 12.
How to create a Super Password!
By John D. Sutter, CNN
August 20, 2010 -- Updated 1349 GMT (2149 HKT) | Filed under: Innovation
Want to keep your online data secure? You may need a 12-character password, researchers say.
Want to keep your online data secure? You may need a 12-character password, researchers say.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Researchers now say computer passwords should be 12 characters long
* The old standard -- 8 characters -- won't stand up to sophisticated hacks
* The news comes from the Georgia Institute of Technology
* Researchers say you can use sentences as passwords these days
RELATED TOPICS
* Georgia Institute of Technology
* Technology
* Carnegie Mellon University
(CNN) -- Say goodbye to those wimpy, eight-letter passwords.
The 12-character era of online security is upon us, according to a report published this week by the Georgia Institute of Technology.
The researchers used clusters of graphics cards to crack eight-character passwords in less than two hours.
But when the researchers applied that same processing power to 12-character passwords, they found it would take 17,134 years to make them snap.
"The length of your password in some cases can dictate the vulnerability," said Joshua Davis, a research scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute.
It's hard to say what will happen in the future, but for now, 12-character passwords should be the standard, said Richard Boyd, a senior research scientist who also worked on the project.
The researchers recommend 12-character passwords -- as opposed to those with 11 or, say, 13 characters -- because that number strikes a balance between "convenience and security."
They assumed a sophisticated hacker might be able to try 1 trillion password combinations per second. In that scenario, it takes 180 years to crack an 11-character password, but there's a big jump when you add just one more character -- 17,134 years.
Passwords have gotten longer over time, and security experts are already recommending that people use full sentences as passwords.
Here's one suggested password-sentence from Carnegie Mellon University:
"No, the capital of Wisconsin isn't Cheeseopolis!"
Or maybe something that's easier to remember, like this:
"I have two kids: Jack and Jill."
Even though advances in cheap computing power are making long, complicated passwords a necessity, not all websites will accommodate them, Boyd said.
It's best to use the longest and most complex password a site will allow, he said. For example, if a website will let you create a password with non-letter characters -- like "@y;}v%W$\5\" -- then you should do so.
There are only 26 letters in the English alphabet, but there are 95 letters and symbols on a standard keyboard. More characters means more permutations, and it soon becomes more difficult for a computer to generate the correct password just by guessing.
Some websites allow for super-long passwords. The longest one Boyd has seen is at Fidelity.com, a financial site that lets users create 32-character passwords.
On a Microsoft website devoted to password security, the tech giant tells the password-creating public not to use real words or logical combinations of letters. That keeps you safer from a "dictionary attack," which uses a database of words and common character sequences to try to guess the code.
The Georgia Tech researchers carried out a "brute force" attack when they determined that passwords should be at least 12 characters long.
To do so, they deployed computer graphics cards, which are cheap and can be programmed to do basic computations very quickly.
The processors in those cards run simultaneously, trying to guess all of the possible password combinations. The more characters in a password, the more guesses are required.
But if your password has to be really long in order to keep up with this computational power -- and if you're supposed to have a new password for each website you frequent -- then how are you supposed to remember everything?
That's a real problem, the Georgia Tech researchers said.
There are a few solutions, however.
A website called Password Safe will store a list of passwords for you, but Boyd and Davis said it may still be possible for a hacker to obtain that list.
Other companies sell tokens that people carry around with them. These keychain-sized devices generate random numbers several times a minute, and users must enter those numbers and a shorter password to log in.
Some sites -- Facebook for example -- are marketing their log-ins and user names as a way to access sites all over the Web.
That's good for the user but is potentially dangerous because if hackers figure out a single password, they can access multiple banks of information, the researchers said.
The reason passwords have to keep getting longer is that computers and graphics cards are getting faster, the Georgia Tech researchers said.
"These things are really inexpensive -- just a few hundred dollars -- and they have a performance that's comparable to supercomputers of only just a few years ago," Boyd said of fast-processing graphics cards.
Maybe our brains will have to get bigger and faster, too. We'll need some way to remember these tome-like character strings.
August 20, 2010 -- Updated 1349 GMT (2149 HKT) | Filed under: Innovation
Want to keep your online data secure? You may need a 12-character password, researchers say.
Want to keep your online data secure? You may need a 12-character password, researchers say.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Researchers now say computer passwords should be 12 characters long
* The old standard -- 8 characters -- won't stand up to sophisticated hacks
* The news comes from the Georgia Institute of Technology
* Researchers say you can use sentences as passwords these days
RELATED TOPICS
* Georgia Institute of Technology
* Technology
* Carnegie Mellon University
(CNN) -- Say goodbye to those wimpy, eight-letter passwords.
The 12-character era of online security is upon us, according to a report published this week by the Georgia Institute of Technology.
The researchers used clusters of graphics cards to crack eight-character passwords in less than two hours.
But when the researchers applied that same processing power to 12-character passwords, they found it would take 17,134 years to make them snap.
"The length of your password in some cases can dictate the vulnerability," said Joshua Davis, a research scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute.
It's hard to say what will happen in the future, but for now, 12-character passwords should be the standard, said Richard Boyd, a senior research scientist who also worked on the project.
The researchers recommend 12-character passwords -- as opposed to those with 11 or, say, 13 characters -- because that number strikes a balance between "convenience and security."
They assumed a sophisticated hacker might be able to try 1 trillion password combinations per second. In that scenario, it takes 180 years to crack an 11-character password, but there's a big jump when you add just one more character -- 17,134 years.
Passwords have gotten longer over time, and security experts are already recommending that people use full sentences as passwords.
Here's one suggested password-sentence from Carnegie Mellon University:
"No, the capital of Wisconsin isn't Cheeseopolis!"
Or maybe something that's easier to remember, like this:
"I have two kids: Jack and Jill."
Even though advances in cheap computing power are making long, complicated passwords a necessity, not all websites will accommodate them, Boyd said.
It's best to use the longest and most complex password a site will allow, he said. For example, if a website will let you create a password with non-letter characters -- like "@y;}v%W$\5\" -- then you should do so.
There are only 26 letters in the English alphabet, but there are 95 letters and symbols on a standard keyboard. More characters means more permutations, and it soon becomes more difficult for a computer to generate the correct password just by guessing.
Some websites allow for super-long passwords. The longest one Boyd has seen is at Fidelity.com, a financial site that lets users create 32-character passwords.
On a Microsoft website devoted to password security, the tech giant tells the password-creating public not to use real words or logical combinations of letters. That keeps you safer from a "dictionary attack," which uses a database of words and common character sequences to try to guess the code.
The Georgia Tech researchers carried out a "brute force" attack when they determined that passwords should be at least 12 characters long.
To do so, they deployed computer graphics cards, which are cheap and can be programmed to do basic computations very quickly.
The processors in those cards run simultaneously, trying to guess all of the possible password combinations. The more characters in a password, the more guesses are required.
But if your password has to be really long in order to keep up with this computational power -- and if you're supposed to have a new password for each website you frequent -- then how are you supposed to remember everything?
That's a real problem, the Georgia Tech researchers said.
There are a few solutions, however.
A website called Password Safe will store a list of passwords for you, but Boyd and Davis said it may still be possible for a hacker to obtain that list.
Other companies sell tokens that people carry around with them. These keychain-sized devices generate random numbers several times a minute, and users must enter those numbers and a shorter password to log in.
Some sites -- Facebook for example -- are marketing their log-ins and user names as a way to access sites all over the Web.
That's good for the user but is potentially dangerous because if hackers figure out a single password, they can access multiple banks of information, the researchers said.
The reason passwords have to keep getting longer is that computers and graphics cards are getting faster, the Georgia Tech researchers said.
"These things are really inexpensive -- just a few hundred dollars -- and they have a performance that's comparable to supercomputers of only just a few years ago," Boyd said of fast-processing graphics cards.
Maybe our brains will have to get bigger and faster, too. We'll need some way to remember these tome-like character strings.
Be polite and put your Smartphone down
By Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich, Special to CNN
August 27, 2010 -- Updated 1614 GMT (0014 HKT) | Filed under: Mobile
Constantly perusing your phone is rude, say CNN.com's netiquette columnists Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich.
Constantly perusing your phone is rude, say CNN.com's netiquette columnists Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Phones do not belong on the table at restaurants, CNN.com's netiquette columnists say
* You're more likely to get run over while yakking on the phone, research finds
* Idle but interesting moments have become excuse to busy yourself with your phone
* Challenge from columnists: Stick to phone calls and texting
RELATED TOPICS
* Cellular Phones
* Facebook Inc.
* Twitter Inc.
Editor's note: Brenna Ehrlich and Andrea Bartz are the sarcastic brains behind humor blog and soon-to-be-book Stuff Hipsters Hate. When they're not trolling Brooklyn for new material, Ehrlich works as a news editor at Mashable.com, and Bartz holds the same position at Psychology Today.
(CNN) -- Remember the good ol' days, circa mid-naughts, when most people's phones just alerted them of incoming calls and the occasional text message?
After a two-second peek, you knew that you were not in desperate demand, and you were free to slip your cell back into your pocket or purse (or cell phone holster, if you were a huge geek). You'd then go back to standing in line, taking in a raucous concert or attending your grandma Bunny's funeral.
Now we're more stupidly available, and a phone check involves, at minimum, viewing your e-mails, scanning Twitter mentions, perusing blog comments and stalking that dude's Facebook wall.
Even if there's nothing remarkable in any digi-venue, we keep tapping away -- reading the latest headlines, checking the weather (often, bafflingly, while outside or near a window) or ordering the most darling collectible Hummel set from eBay. You know, the usual.
Last year, a study even hinted that fresh bits of info may hook into the brain's reward system, shedding light on how whipping out your phone is analogous to that whiskey-and-taco bender you went on last weekend. (It just hurts so gooooood.)
The problem, of course, is that constantly perusing your phone is freaking rude -- a clear signal that your reception is more important than anything going on in the here and now.
Get this: 10 percent of people 24 and younger think it's OK to text during sex, according to consumer electronics shopping and review site Retrevo. That brings a whole meaning to the term multitasking.
But unless you're among that ADD-addled 10 percent, there's hope for you yet. May we suggest holsterin' the old communication cannon during the following situations:
At a restaurant
Putting your phone screen-up on the table is like ordering dessert -- one person does it and everyone else follows suit. Never mind that phones do not belong amidst tableware. As soon as a text pops up or a call comes through, everyone else at the table is trapped in conversational limbo while you have your own digital tete-a-tete.
If you must remain imminently reachable, simply make a big show out of it: "I'm so sorry to have to keep my phone out. Jess is supposed to get here soon, and I don't want to miss her."
The others will get the point. Either that, or they'll stick you with the bill. Don't worry, you'll likely be too distracted by Foursquare to notice.
On the sidewalk
It's one thing to walk and talk with your phone glued to your ear. Research finds that you're more likely to get run over while yakking, but hey, that's a risk you take. However, tucking your chin to your chest and staggering along whilst reviewing your Match.com updates or checking the Facebook RSVP list for your "America's Got Talent" viewing party is both stupid (cars!) and obnoxious.
It's all about spatial awareness: Those who walk-n-surf tend to weave to and fro, making them impossible to pass on crowded or skinny sidewalks. Park yourself out of the current and against a wall, finish your phone time and pocket your cell before re-entering the deadened, zombified stream of pedestrian humanity.
Special request to those of you who live in subway-arteried cities: I know you're super eager to breach fresh air and burst into the service zone, but for heaven's sake, wait until you've crested the stairs to turn your attention to your mobile.
Your slow climb is pissing off scads of already addled public transportation users. One day they will push you to your death, and all those shuffling aforementioned zombies will likely trample you under their distracted soles.
When cool stuff is happening
Manners aside, here's the big danger with packing every spare moment with a cybercheck: Eventually, idle but perfectly interesting moments (sitting on a park bench, people-watching at a café) become excuses to busy yourself with your touch screen.
Remember that iconic New Yorker cover from last Halloween? Clever, sure. Terrifying, absolutely.
Soapbox, prepare to be climbed: Challenge yourself to go a week without using your data plan. Pretend you're on vacation overseas and can't afford the rate. Turn off Push and Fetch and all the other emphatic verbs that bring inane Facebook updates and new e-mails to your attention like a cat proudly dropping an especially fresh rodent at your feet. Stick to phone calls and texting and check everything else exclusively from a computer.
You'll see passersby, not pixels, when you're riding in a car; squirrels, not a screen, when you're waiting outside to meet a friend. And you'll make the liberating (albeit depressing) discovery that when you fire up your e-mail again, the world has continued to swivel without your immediate viewage of e-coupons from Suave and that cat video from Uncle Bob.
Those are best dealt with when you're at your desk and supposedly working anyway./iframe>
August 27, 2010 -- Updated 1614 GMT (0014 HKT) | Filed under: Mobile
Constantly perusing your phone is rude, say CNN.com's netiquette columnists Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich.
Constantly perusing your phone is rude, say CNN.com's netiquette columnists Andrea Bartz and Brenna Ehrlich.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Phones do not belong on the table at restaurants, CNN.com's netiquette columnists say
* You're more likely to get run over while yakking on the phone, research finds
* Idle but interesting moments have become excuse to busy yourself with your phone
* Challenge from columnists: Stick to phone calls and texting
RELATED TOPICS
* Cellular Phones
* Facebook Inc.
* Twitter Inc.
Editor's note: Brenna Ehrlich and Andrea Bartz are the sarcastic brains behind humor blog and soon-to-be-book Stuff Hipsters Hate. When they're not trolling Brooklyn for new material, Ehrlich works as a news editor at Mashable.com, and Bartz holds the same position at Psychology Today.
(CNN) -- Remember the good ol' days, circa mid-naughts, when most people's phones just alerted them of incoming calls and the occasional text message?
After a two-second peek, you knew that you were not in desperate demand, and you were free to slip your cell back into your pocket or purse (or cell phone holster, if you were a huge geek). You'd then go back to standing in line, taking in a raucous concert or attending your grandma Bunny's funeral.
Now we're more stupidly available, and a phone check involves, at minimum, viewing your e-mails, scanning Twitter mentions, perusing blog comments and stalking that dude's Facebook wall.
Even if there's nothing remarkable in any digi-venue, we keep tapping away -- reading the latest headlines, checking the weather (often, bafflingly, while outside or near a window) or ordering the most darling collectible Hummel set from eBay. You know, the usual.
Last year, a study even hinted that fresh bits of info may hook into the brain's reward system, shedding light on how whipping out your phone is analogous to that whiskey-and-taco bender you went on last weekend. (It just hurts so gooooood.)
The problem, of course, is that constantly perusing your phone is freaking rude -- a clear signal that your reception is more important than anything going on in the here and now.
Get this: 10 percent of people 24 and younger think it's OK to text during sex, according to consumer electronics shopping and review site Retrevo. That brings a whole meaning to the term multitasking.
But unless you're among that ADD-addled 10 percent, there's hope for you yet. May we suggest holsterin' the old communication cannon during the following situations:
At a restaurant
Putting your phone screen-up on the table is like ordering dessert -- one person does it and everyone else follows suit. Never mind that phones do not belong amidst tableware. As soon as a text pops up or a call comes through, everyone else at the table is trapped in conversational limbo while you have your own digital tete-a-tete.
If you must remain imminently reachable, simply make a big show out of it: "I'm so sorry to have to keep my phone out. Jess is supposed to get here soon, and I don't want to miss her."
The others will get the point. Either that, or they'll stick you with the bill. Don't worry, you'll likely be too distracted by Foursquare to notice.
On the sidewalk
It's one thing to walk and talk with your phone glued to your ear. Research finds that you're more likely to get run over while yakking, but hey, that's a risk you take. However, tucking your chin to your chest and staggering along whilst reviewing your Match.com updates or checking the Facebook RSVP list for your "America's Got Talent" viewing party is both stupid (cars!) and obnoxious.
It's all about spatial awareness: Those who walk-n-surf tend to weave to and fro, making them impossible to pass on crowded or skinny sidewalks. Park yourself out of the current and against a wall, finish your phone time and pocket your cell before re-entering the deadened, zombified stream of pedestrian humanity.
Special request to those of you who live in subway-arteried cities: I know you're super eager to breach fresh air and burst into the service zone, but for heaven's sake, wait until you've crested the stairs to turn your attention to your mobile.
Your slow climb is pissing off scads of already addled public transportation users. One day they will push you to your death, and all those shuffling aforementioned zombies will likely trample you under their distracted soles.
When cool stuff is happening
Manners aside, here's the big danger with packing every spare moment with a cybercheck: Eventually, idle but perfectly interesting moments (sitting on a park bench, people-watching at a café) become excuses to busy yourself with your touch screen.
Remember that iconic New Yorker cover from last Halloween? Clever, sure. Terrifying, absolutely.
Soapbox, prepare to be climbed: Challenge yourself to go a week without using your data plan. Pretend you're on vacation overseas and can't afford the rate. Turn off Push and Fetch and all the other emphatic verbs that bring inane Facebook updates and new e-mails to your attention like a cat proudly dropping an especially fresh rodent at your feet. Stick to phone calls and texting and check everything else exclusively from a computer.
You'll see passersby, not pixels, when you're riding in a car; squirrels, not a screen, when you're waiting outside to meet a friend. And you'll make the liberating (albeit depressing) discovery that when you fire up your e-mail again, the world has continued to swivel without your immediate viewage of e-coupons from Suave and that cat video from Uncle Bob.
Those are best dealt with when you're at your desk and supposedly working anyway./iframe>
Monday, August 23, 2010
European Science Satellite hit by Glitch
PARIS (AFP) – A satellite designed to map Earth's gravitational field has been hit by a software glitch and is unable to send its science data back home, the European Space Agency (ESA) said on Monday.
The problem began to affect the spacecraft GOCE in late July, Mark Drinkwater, head of mission science at ESA's technical division, the European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), told AFP.
"The satellite's not transmitting its scientific data because of this anomaly," Drinkwater said from Noordwijk, the Netherlands.
Technicians were working on a patch and hope to install it by radio link next month, he said.
"All the other onboard systems are otherwise fine. We are not constrained by fuel or by time, and we have got excellent data in the bank already," Drinkwater said.
The satellite has already completed two-thirds of its mission and many science objectives have already been met, he said.
GOCE -- for Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer -- was launched on March 17, 2009.
Its aim is to monitor tiny variations in Earth's gravity caused by ocean trenches, mountains and differences in density in the planet's interior.
Understanding these variations will have benefits in oceanography, especially in modelling complex ocean currents and predicting how sea will rise in response to global warming, ESA says.
The agency describes GOCE as "the Formula 1" of satellites because of its avant-garde design.
Whereas most satellites are essentially boxes, the five-metre (16.25-feet) craft is arrow-like and has stabilising fins because it orbits Earth at an altitude of just 250 kilometres (156 miles) where there is still a lingering atmosphere.
GOCE ran into a first problem in February this year when a chip failed in its primary computer. Ground engineers switched the satellite over to its backup computer.
The new problem is different from the first, being a software glitch in a module that deals with telemetry processing.
One approach is to stitch together the two computers' working parts so that the mission can recover, said Drinkwater.
GOCE is on ESA's roster of "Earth Explorer" projects to further fundamental understanding about the Earth.
Investigations into ice cover, soil moisture, ocean salinity, cloud cover, vertical winds and the planet's magnetic field are either planned or in operation.
The problem began to affect the spacecraft GOCE in late July, Mark Drinkwater, head of mission science at ESA's technical division, the European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), told AFP.
"The satellite's not transmitting its scientific data because of this anomaly," Drinkwater said from Noordwijk, the Netherlands.
Technicians were working on a patch and hope to install it by radio link next month, he said.
"All the other onboard systems are otherwise fine. We are not constrained by fuel or by time, and we have got excellent data in the bank already," Drinkwater said.
The satellite has already completed two-thirds of its mission and many science objectives have already been met, he said.
GOCE -- for Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer -- was launched on March 17, 2009.
Its aim is to monitor tiny variations in Earth's gravity caused by ocean trenches, mountains and differences in density in the planet's interior.
Understanding these variations will have benefits in oceanography, especially in modelling complex ocean currents and predicting how sea will rise in response to global warming, ESA says.
The agency describes GOCE as "the Formula 1" of satellites because of its avant-garde design.
Whereas most satellites are essentially boxes, the five-metre (16.25-feet) craft is arrow-like and has stabilising fins because it orbits Earth at an altitude of just 250 kilometres (156 miles) where there is still a lingering atmosphere.
GOCE ran into a first problem in February this year when a chip failed in its primary computer. Ground engineers switched the satellite over to its backup computer.
The new problem is different from the first, being a software glitch in a module that deals with telemetry processing.
One approach is to stitch together the two computers' working parts so that the mission can recover, said Drinkwater.
GOCE is on ESA's roster of "Earth Explorer" projects to further fundamental understanding about the Earth.
Investigations into ice cover, soil moisture, ocean salinity, cloud cover, vertical winds and the planet's magnetic field are either planned or in operation.
What could Apple's unknowm hardware be?
A new beta of Apple’s iOS mobile software reportedly boasts references to a fourth-generation iPod Touch and maybe even a new iPad — not much of a surprise there. It’s the mention of some "unknown hardware" in the iOS beta code that’s raising eyebrows. Are we talking a new Apple TV, perhaps, or something new we haven’t seen yet?
The references to new Apple devices come from the latest beta of iOS 4.1, which is due for release in the "coming weeks," according to AppleInsider and its anonymous tipsters.
The USB configuration files of the new beta supposedly include a line of code with the text "iPod 4,1," which probably refers to a revamped, fourth-generation iPod Touch, says AppleInsider — not merely a revision of the third-generation Touch, which was earlier identified in the iOS firmware as "iPod 3,2."
In other words, we might be in for a true revamp of the Touch next month, especially given that Apple usually holds its music-focused events in September. The smart money has Apple adding such features as a front- and rear-facing cameras, FaceTime video chat, its speedy A4 processor, and the iPhone 4’s "Retina Display" to the Touch, which — in its current form, anyway — still lacks a camera of any sort.
Also found in the new iOS USB configuration files, according to AppleInsider: a mention of "iProd 2,1," with "all indications" being that it’s a reference to a "material update" to the iPad — which had, after all, previously been referred to as "iProd 1,1" in the iOS code. Again, not a huge surprise, since Apple is surely far along in the development of a second-generation iPad (perhaps with a camera, this time).
Most intriguingly, though, is a third mysterious product reference in the latest iOS beta: "unknownHardware." Hmmm ... what’s this?
Well, given all the speculation that Apple might be poised to unveil a new, pared-down $99 Apple TV that runs on its own version of iOS, we could well be looking at a reference to an updated Apple TV — or "iTV," as Engadget claims it’ll end up being called.
But that’s "purely speculation," as AppleInsider prudently notes. Perhaps Apple has something else up its sleeves instead, like a smaller, 7-inch iPad, or even a tiny touchscreen iPod Nano. (Then again, could you imagine dealing with apps on a 1.7-inch screen? Ugh.)
Anyway, "unknown hardware" aside, it’s looking more and more likely that we’ll get a full-on revamp of the iPod Touch in the coming weeks — excellent news for anyone enticed by the new features on the iPhone 4 but spooked by all the "Antennagate" drama (or unwilling to sign up for two years with AT&T). Meanwhile, a cheaper, app-friendly Apple TV — or iTV — could be just the thing to jump-start Apple's stalled living-room "hobby."
So, what do you think Apple’s "unknown hardware" is?
AppleInsider: Apple testing iOS 4.1 alongside next-gen iPod touch, iPad and 'unknown' product
— Ben Patterson is a technology writer for Yahoo! News.
The references to new Apple devices come from the latest beta of iOS 4.1, which is due for release in the "coming weeks," according to AppleInsider and its anonymous tipsters.
The USB configuration files of the new beta supposedly include a line of code with the text "iPod 4,1," which probably refers to a revamped, fourth-generation iPod Touch, says AppleInsider — not merely a revision of the third-generation Touch, which was earlier identified in the iOS firmware as "iPod 3,2."
In other words, we might be in for a true revamp of the Touch next month, especially given that Apple usually holds its music-focused events in September. The smart money has Apple adding such features as a front- and rear-facing cameras, FaceTime video chat, its speedy A4 processor, and the iPhone 4’s "Retina Display" to the Touch, which — in its current form, anyway — still lacks a camera of any sort.
Also found in the new iOS USB configuration files, according to AppleInsider: a mention of "iProd 2,1," with "all indications" being that it’s a reference to a "material update" to the iPad — which had, after all, previously been referred to as "iProd 1,1" in the iOS code. Again, not a huge surprise, since Apple is surely far along in the development of a second-generation iPad (perhaps with a camera, this time).
Most intriguingly, though, is a third mysterious product reference in the latest iOS beta: "unknownHardware." Hmmm ... what’s this?
Well, given all the speculation that Apple might be poised to unveil a new, pared-down $99 Apple TV that runs on its own version of iOS, we could well be looking at a reference to an updated Apple TV — or "iTV," as Engadget claims it’ll end up being called.
But that’s "purely speculation," as AppleInsider prudently notes. Perhaps Apple has something else up its sleeves instead, like a smaller, 7-inch iPad, or even a tiny touchscreen iPod Nano. (Then again, could you imagine dealing with apps on a 1.7-inch screen? Ugh.)
Anyway, "unknown hardware" aside, it’s looking more and more likely that we’ll get a full-on revamp of the iPod Touch in the coming weeks — excellent news for anyone enticed by the new features on the iPhone 4 but spooked by all the "Antennagate" drama (or unwilling to sign up for two years with AT&T). Meanwhile, a cheaper, app-friendly Apple TV — or iTV — could be just the thing to jump-start Apple's stalled living-room "hobby."
So, what do you think Apple’s "unknown hardware" is?
AppleInsider: Apple testing iOS 4.1 alongside next-gen iPod touch, iPad and 'unknown' product
— Ben Patterson is a technology writer for Yahoo! News.
Smartphones will make up over half of Asian mobile phone sales by 2015
SINGAPORE (AFP) – Smartphones will make up over half of Asian mobile phone sales by 2015, with 477 million units likely to be sold, an industry report said Monday.
Consultancy Frost and Sullivan said smartphones would account for 54 percent of the Asia-Pacific mobile market in five years, up sharply from five percent in 2009.
The sharp take-up rate for smartphones will be a huge revenue boost for telecom operators as it means a surge in demand for data services, the consultancy said.
The consultancy said data usage from smartphones would generate over 38 billion US dollars for the region's telecom operators by 2015, from slightly over 1.3 billion dollars last year.
Smartphones are high-end mobile devices providing faster access to data connections such as e-mail and Internet browsing than so-called feature phones, which have less computing ability.
Subscribers usually pay more for mobile data services, translating into higher average revenue per user (ARPU) for operators keen to make up for flat or declining earnings growth from feature phones.
"Smartphones are critical to every operator?s mobile broadband business case, as a smartphone user?s ARPU typically increased by 25 to 100 percent after adoption depending on the market," said Marc Einstein, the consultancy's industry manager.
"The Asia-Pacific market is particularly interesting for smartphones as there has been significant uptake in emerging markets like China, India and Indonesia, even among prepaid users," he said in the report.
Apple's phenomenally popular iPhone and Research in Motion's BlackBerry, a favourite with corporate users, are largely credited with sparking consumer interest in smartphones in the last few years.
Despite the upbeat assessment, telecom operators still need to overcome a few hurdles, Frost and Sullivan said.
"Eighty percent of Asian mobile users use prepaid cards, and in fact in many markets are as high as 97 percent, making smartphone subsidies impossible for most users," said Einstein.
"Furthermore, there is a lack of public Wi-Fi, particularly in emerging markets, which has been a smartphone saviour in the US and other developed markets."
Consultancy Frost and Sullivan said smartphones would account for 54 percent of the Asia-Pacific mobile market in five years, up sharply from five percent in 2009.
The sharp take-up rate for smartphones will be a huge revenue boost for telecom operators as it means a surge in demand for data services, the consultancy said.
The consultancy said data usage from smartphones would generate over 38 billion US dollars for the region's telecom operators by 2015, from slightly over 1.3 billion dollars last year.
Smartphones are high-end mobile devices providing faster access to data connections such as e-mail and Internet browsing than so-called feature phones, which have less computing ability.
Subscribers usually pay more for mobile data services, translating into higher average revenue per user (ARPU) for operators keen to make up for flat or declining earnings growth from feature phones.
"Smartphones are critical to every operator?s mobile broadband business case, as a smartphone user?s ARPU typically increased by 25 to 100 percent after adoption depending on the market," said Marc Einstein, the consultancy's industry manager.
"The Asia-Pacific market is particularly interesting for smartphones as there has been significant uptake in emerging markets like China, India and Indonesia, even among prepaid users," he said in the report.
Apple's phenomenally popular iPhone and Research in Motion's BlackBerry, a favourite with corporate users, are largely credited with sparking consumer interest in smartphones in the last few years.
Despite the upbeat assessment, telecom operators still need to overcome a few hurdles, Frost and Sullivan said.
"Eighty percent of Asian mobile users use prepaid cards, and in fact in many markets are as high as 97 percent, making smartphone subsidies impossible for most users," said Einstein.
"Furthermore, there is a lack of public Wi-Fi, particularly in emerging markets, which has been a smartphone saviour in the US and other developed markets."
A flop with consumers, sold out Nexus One with developers
A flop with consumers, sold-out Nexus One scores with developers
Google tried — and ultimately failed — to turn the U.S. wireless market upside-down by selling its supercharged Nexus One Android phone online, with minimal help from the big carriers. But now, months after shuttering its online storefront for the phone, the Nexus One is a sudden, improbable hit.
Who’s buying the Nexus One, you ask? Android developers, that’s who — and apparently, they’re so eager to get their mitts on the eight-month-old handset that Google supply of Nexus One phones for developers is completely sold out.
So says a post on Google’s Android developers blog (via TechCrunch), with Google’s Tim Bray writing that Google "blew through the (substantial) initial inventory in almost no time," adding that Nexus One manufacturer HTC is busy trying to crank out more of the suddenly gotta-have handsets.
Google launched the Nexus One — described in hushed tones as the "Google Phone" in the days and weeks before its official unveiling — way back in January, and the search behemoth caused quite a stir by offering the Android 2.1-powered handset only on the Web, through Google’s own Nexus One online storefront.
Why all the fuss? Because usually it’s the big carriers (think AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless) who do the heavy lifting in terms of marketing and selling cell phones, both online and (mainly) in brick-and-mortar stores. While it got a little help from T-Mobile, which subsidized the Nexus One for use on its network, Google’s decision to go it virtually alone with the Nexus One — with practically no marketing help from a carrier—was seen as a potentially game-changing move.
Unfortunately, it turned out to be anything but. Sales of the Nexus One never took off, and an unprepared Google — which, before the Nexus One launch, had little need for a bank of customer-service reps — found itself quickly overwhelmed by customers complaining about iffy 3G reception (which ultimately led to a patch) and other assorted glitches.
Consumers were also underwhelmed by the less-than-revolutionary $179 two-year contract price and $529 price tag for an unlocked Nexus One, while existing T-Mobile users were turned off by the $379 upgrade price for the phone (which was eventually cut by $100). Last May, Google finally waved the white flag, announcing that it would close down its online Nexus One store.
So yes, Google learned the hard way that nothing beats a "full-court press by a big national carrier" (as I wrote back in May) when it comes to selling a smartphone. But here’s the thing: The well-reviewed Nexus One itself wasn’t a bad phone — indeed, it was (and still is) a pretty good one, complete with a 3.7-inch AMOLED screen, a 1GHz "Snapdragon" processor, 512MB of RAM, and a 5-megapixel camera with a flash.
The Nexus One also happened to be among the first handsets to get an update to Android 2.2 — a fact that clearly wasn’t lost on enthusiastic Android developers, who’ve been able to buy the unlocked Nexus One — in droves, apparently — direct from Google for a few weeks now.
In any case, Google is now in the strange but surely satisfying position of "working hard on re-stocking" (as Google’s TIm Bray puts it) a smartphone that looked all but dead just a few months ago. Strange, but true.
Google’s Android developers blog: A Little Too Popular (via TechCrunch)
— Ben Patterson is a technology writer for Yahoo! News.
Google tried — and ultimately failed — to turn the U.S. wireless market upside-down by selling its supercharged Nexus One Android phone online, with minimal help from the big carriers. But now, months after shuttering its online storefront for the phone, the Nexus One is a sudden, improbable hit.
Who’s buying the Nexus One, you ask? Android developers, that’s who — and apparently, they’re so eager to get their mitts on the eight-month-old handset that Google supply of Nexus One phones for developers is completely sold out.
So says a post on Google’s Android developers blog (via TechCrunch), with Google’s Tim Bray writing that Google "blew through the (substantial) initial inventory in almost no time," adding that Nexus One manufacturer HTC is busy trying to crank out more of the suddenly gotta-have handsets.
Google launched the Nexus One — described in hushed tones as the "Google Phone" in the days and weeks before its official unveiling — way back in January, and the search behemoth caused quite a stir by offering the Android 2.1-powered handset only on the Web, through Google’s own Nexus One online storefront.
Why all the fuss? Because usually it’s the big carriers (think AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless) who do the heavy lifting in terms of marketing and selling cell phones, both online and (mainly) in brick-and-mortar stores. While it got a little help from T-Mobile, which subsidized the Nexus One for use on its network, Google’s decision to go it virtually alone with the Nexus One — with practically no marketing help from a carrier—was seen as a potentially game-changing move.
Unfortunately, it turned out to be anything but. Sales of the Nexus One never took off, and an unprepared Google — which, before the Nexus One launch, had little need for a bank of customer-service reps — found itself quickly overwhelmed by customers complaining about iffy 3G reception (which ultimately led to a patch) and other assorted glitches.
Consumers were also underwhelmed by the less-than-revolutionary $179 two-year contract price and $529 price tag for an unlocked Nexus One, while existing T-Mobile users were turned off by the $379 upgrade price for the phone (which was eventually cut by $100). Last May, Google finally waved the white flag, announcing that it would close down its online Nexus One store.
So yes, Google learned the hard way that nothing beats a "full-court press by a big national carrier" (as I wrote back in May) when it comes to selling a smartphone. But here’s the thing: The well-reviewed Nexus One itself wasn’t a bad phone — indeed, it was (and still is) a pretty good one, complete with a 3.7-inch AMOLED screen, a 1GHz "Snapdragon" processor, 512MB of RAM, and a 5-megapixel camera with a flash.
The Nexus One also happened to be among the first handsets to get an update to Android 2.2 — a fact that clearly wasn’t lost on enthusiastic Android developers, who’ve been able to buy the unlocked Nexus One — in droves, apparently — direct from Google for a few weeks now.
In any case, Google is now in the strange but surely satisfying position of "working hard on re-stocking" (as Google’s TIm Bray puts it) a smartphone that looked all but dead just a few months ago. Strange, but true.
Google’s Android developers blog: A Little Too Popular (via TechCrunch)
— Ben Patterson is a technology writer for Yahoo! News.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Meet The YouTube Stars Making $100,000 Per Year
Posted Aug 19, 2010 11:04pm EDT by William Wei in Internet.
Provided by the Business Insider, August 19, 2010:
There are 10 independent YouTube stars who made over $100,000 in the past year, according to a study done by analytics and advertising company TubeMogul.
From July 2009 to July 2010, TubeMogul used their viewership data to estimate the annual income for independent YouTube partners, which they define as anyone who is not part of a media company or brand.
Here's how they got their estimates:
* Revenue only comes from banner ads served near content (we ignored pre-roll or overlay since we can't easily isolate by publisher).
* Since YouTube banner ads have a two-second load delay, we estimate 2.59% of viewers click away before an ad loads based on separate research.
* Ads were served near all videos that loaded (since there are partners, this is generally true).
* CPM for the banner ads was $1.50 (Google auctions a lot of this inventory off; we rounded this 2009 estimate down to be conservative).
* YouTube is splitting ad revenue with partners 50-50.
Basically, take their views from the past year, assume a few don't stick around long enough for an ad to load, divide that number by 1,000, multiply by $1.50 and divide that number in half.
Conservative estimates? Sure. But with that math, you get a pretty decent estimate of how much these YouTube celebrities are making from just the banner ads on their channel. So, without further ado, here are the highest earning YouTube stars!
1. Shane Dawson – $315,000
Shane Dawson is so popular that he is three different YouTube channels. His most popular channel consists of his comedy skits and music video parodies. Dawson created a second channel as a vlog and for a separate series called "Ask Shane," and his third channel only has videos taken from his iPhone.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 431,787,450
2. The Annoying Orange – $288,000
The Annoying Orange is a comedy web series that takes place in a kitchen and is about talking fruit. Dane Boedigheimer is the mastermind behind the series and is also the voice of Orange.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 349,753,047
3. Philip DeFranco – $181,000
Philip DeFranco uploads a new video onto YouTube every Monday to Thursday for his show – The Philip DeFranco Show. His video blogging topics range from politics to pop culture.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 248,735,032
4. Ryan Higa – $151,000
Ryan Higa makes comedy skits and is a video blogger who turned into a viral star with his "How to be Gangster" and "How to be Ninja" videos. Even though he doesn't upload as many videos as his fellow YouTube celebrities, Higa is still the top dog at YouTube with over 2.6 million subscribers.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 206,979,909
5. Fred – $146,000
Lucas Cruikshank plays "a lonely six year old named Fred" who uses his mom's video camera and posts videos on a YouTube channel. As the second most subscribed to YouTube channel, Lucas Cruikshank's immensely popular Fred character even has a movie coming out backed by Nickelodeon.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 200,656,150
6. Shay Carl – $140,000
As a radio DJ, Shay Carl started making comedy skits and put them on YouTube for the world to see. He claims to have held 20 different jobs before settling down with his DJ and YouTube gigs.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 192,309,247
7. Mediocre Films – $116,000
Greg Benson created Mediocre Films initially for a sketchy comedy TV series called "Skip TV." The show lasted for one season, and now Benson makes low budget comedy videos for the web.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 159,030,703
8. Smosh – $113,000
Smosh is the comedy duo of Ian Hecox and Anthony Padilla, and with over 1.7 million subscribers, they make up the 5th most popular channel on YouTube. They first shot to viral fame with their "Pokemon Theme Music Video" which became YouTube's most viewed video in Spring 2006. However, due to copyright reasons, the original video was removed from YouTube.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 154,936,876
9. The Young Turks – $112,000
The Young Turks is a political talk show that also airs on Sirius Satellite Radio. Founded and hosted by Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks talk show and their vast viewership has proven that the Internet can be a viable broadcast platform.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 153,807,362
10. Natalie Tran– $101,000
Under the user name of communitychannel, Natalie Tran is the most subscribed to YouTube user in Australia. Like most others on this list, she is a video blogger and occasionally uploads comedy skits.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 138,871,829
Provided by the Business Insider, August 19, 2010:
There are 10 independent YouTube stars who made over $100,000 in the past year, according to a study done by analytics and advertising company TubeMogul.
From July 2009 to July 2010, TubeMogul used their viewership data to estimate the annual income for independent YouTube partners, which they define as anyone who is not part of a media company or brand.
Here's how they got their estimates:
* Revenue only comes from banner ads served near content (we ignored pre-roll or overlay since we can't easily isolate by publisher).
* Since YouTube banner ads have a two-second load delay, we estimate 2.59% of viewers click away before an ad loads based on separate research.
* Ads were served near all videos that loaded (since there are partners, this is generally true).
* CPM for the banner ads was $1.50 (Google auctions a lot of this inventory off; we rounded this 2009 estimate down to be conservative).
* YouTube is splitting ad revenue with partners 50-50.
Basically, take their views from the past year, assume a few don't stick around long enough for an ad to load, divide that number by 1,000, multiply by $1.50 and divide that number in half.
Conservative estimates? Sure. But with that math, you get a pretty decent estimate of how much these YouTube celebrities are making from just the banner ads on their channel. So, without further ado, here are the highest earning YouTube stars!
1. Shane Dawson – $315,000
Shane Dawson is so popular that he is three different YouTube channels. His most popular channel consists of his comedy skits and music video parodies. Dawson created a second channel as a vlog and for a separate series called "Ask Shane," and his third channel only has videos taken from his iPhone.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 431,787,450
2. The Annoying Orange – $288,000
The Annoying Orange is a comedy web series that takes place in a kitchen and is about talking fruit. Dane Boedigheimer is the mastermind behind the series and is also the voice of Orange.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 349,753,047
3. Philip DeFranco – $181,000
Philip DeFranco uploads a new video onto YouTube every Monday to Thursday for his show – The Philip DeFranco Show. His video blogging topics range from politics to pop culture.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 248,735,032
4. Ryan Higa – $151,000
Ryan Higa makes comedy skits and is a video blogger who turned into a viral star with his "How to be Gangster" and "How to be Ninja" videos. Even though he doesn't upload as many videos as his fellow YouTube celebrities, Higa is still the top dog at YouTube with over 2.6 million subscribers.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 206,979,909
5. Fred – $146,000
Lucas Cruikshank plays "a lonely six year old named Fred" who uses his mom's video camera and posts videos on a YouTube channel. As the second most subscribed to YouTube channel, Lucas Cruikshank's immensely popular Fred character even has a movie coming out backed by Nickelodeon.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 200,656,150
6. Shay Carl – $140,000
As a radio DJ, Shay Carl started making comedy skits and put them on YouTube for the world to see. He claims to have held 20 different jobs before settling down with his DJ and YouTube gigs.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 192,309,247
7. Mediocre Films – $116,000
Greg Benson created Mediocre Films initially for a sketchy comedy TV series called "Skip TV." The show lasted for one season, and now Benson makes low budget comedy videos for the web.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 159,030,703
8. Smosh – $113,000
Smosh is the comedy duo of Ian Hecox and Anthony Padilla, and with over 1.7 million subscribers, they make up the 5th most popular channel on YouTube. They first shot to viral fame with their "Pokemon Theme Music Video" which became YouTube's most viewed video in Spring 2006. However, due to copyright reasons, the original video was removed from YouTube.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 154,936,876
9. The Young Turks – $112,000
The Young Turks is a political talk show that also airs on Sirius Satellite Radio. Founded and hosted by Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks talk show and their vast viewership has proven that the Internet can be a viable broadcast platform.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 153,807,362
10. Natalie Tran– $101,000
Under the user name of communitychannel, Natalie Tran is the most subscribed to YouTube user in Australia. Like most others on this list, she is a video blogger and occasionally uploads comedy skits.
July 2009 - 2010 Views: 138,871,829
Thursday, August 19, 2010
When phones are too big for pockets..........
-- Something weird is happening to mobile phones: After shrinking from enormous Zack Morris proportions in the '80s and '90s, they're getting bigger again.
So big, in fact, that some won't fit in jeans pockets anymore.
The Dell Streak, which is set to be released in the U.S. later this summer, is the biggest of the big-daddy phones so far, with a 5-inch screen. The screen of the iPhone 4, by comparison, measures only 3.5 inches diagonally.
When held up to a person's ear, the Dell phone looks like a book.
The Streak's mondo screen has become the focus of much debate on the internet, with tech bloggers arguing about what kinds of pants you'd have to wear to carry it around in your pocket; how big your hands have to be to hold it; whether or not people will stare at you when you're using it; and, perhaps most significantly, what exactly constitutes a phone these days.
Is a phone just any device that can make calls? Or does it have to be portable enough to carry with you, regardless of how baggy your pants are?
As mobile phone technology improved, "there definitely was a trend for smaller and there definitely was a trend for thinner," said Ramon Llamas, a senior research analyst who covers mobile technology for IDC. "But I think we're seeing the pendulum swinging back in favor of larger phones."
Mobile phone makers are trying to "push the boundaries of what is acceptable in a pocket," said Ross Rubin, executive director of industry analysis for consumer technology at the NPD Group.
Several Android phones -- which run on an operating system developed by Google, as opposed to those by Microsoft or Apple -- have come out with screens that are larger than 4 inches diagonally.
The HTC Evo and the Motoroloa Droid X, for example, both have 4.3-inch screens. Sony Ericsson is rumored, according to the blog Engadget, to be working on another 5-inch smartphone, the same size as the Dell Streak. (As a side note, the HTC Evo is so big that it comes with a kickstand).
In video reviews of these ever-larger phones, it seems almost to be a requirement these days for tech pundits to try to shove the things in their pockets as a way to determine whether the devices are truly portable.
In one such video, Veronica Belmont, co-host of a video show called Tekzilla, puts the Dell Streak in the front pocket of her pants only to find that about a third of the phone is still sticking out.
One YouTube video, titled "Dell Streak vs. Jeans," starts with a shot of a man's waist line, shown only from the thighs to mid-belly.
"The reason you're staring at my hips is that I'm going to show you what the Dell Streak is like, fitting in a jeans pocket," the host says. "Now, these jeans have got quite a deep pocket and, even still, it pokes out a little bit over the top. You can tuck it right in and there's still a corner coming out at the top there."
The man then proceeds to stuff the Streak into his back pocket, which he decides isn't such a good idea, either.
It sticks out, which could make it easily accessible to pickpockets, he says. "And you're certainly not going to want to sit on it."
The other potential issue with large phones is that it can be difficult to hold them up to your face, depending how big your hands are and if your arms are strong.
When Chris Hall tested the Dell Streak for the British website Pocket-lint, he said his hand literally became tired and stretched-out from holding the phone.
He said he also got some stares from strangers.
"People are going to look at you in a funny way" when you're holding such a large gadget up to your face, he said.
Hall still gave the phone -- which is sometimes referred to as a small "tablet" computer rather than a large phone -- a good rating: 8 of 10 stars.
In a video review for the blog Engadget, Richard Lai takes a bit of a contrarian view, saying the Dell Streak is still small enough to carry comfortably in a standard pant pocket.
"Obviously you see a bit of bulge here," he says after putting the phone in his jeans pocket, "but you get that with any phones these days, really, you know? Sliding it in and out is no problem, you see?"
Lai does note, however, that, if you want to walk up a flight of stairs with the 5-inch phone in your pocket, you should "shift your phone as far to the side [of your pocket] as possible" in order to maintain a normal range of movement.
"But other than that we've had no real issues with it," he says.
Despite some fuss about the bulk of these 4- and 5-inch phones, there are some clear advantages to screens with more real estate.
As phones increasingly become internet portals, e-book readers and video players, having bigger screens makes them more useful, Llamas said.
Those functions are butting up against some long-held ideas about what a mobile phone is -- namely that it's a gadget that you can easily carry in a pocket and hold to your ear to make a call.
So maybe we need a new cell phone definition:
One that can fit in your cargo shorts
So big, in fact, that some won't fit in jeans pockets anymore.
The Dell Streak, which is set to be released in the U.S. later this summer, is the biggest of the big-daddy phones so far, with a 5-inch screen. The screen of the iPhone 4, by comparison, measures only 3.5 inches diagonally.
When held up to a person's ear, the Dell phone looks like a book.
The Streak's mondo screen has become the focus of much debate on the internet, with tech bloggers arguing about what kinds of pants you'd have to wear to carry it around in your pocket; how big your hands have to be to hold it; whether or not people will stare at you when you're using it; and, perhaps most significantly, what exactly constitutes a phone these days.
Is a phone just any device that can make calls? Or does it have to be portable enough to carry with you, regardless of how baggy your pants are?
As mobile phone technology improved, "there definitely was a trend for smaller and there definitely was a trend for thinner," said Ramon Llamas, a senior research analyst who covers mobile technology for IDC. "But I think we're seeing the pendulum swinging back in favor of larger phones."
Mobile phone makers are trying to "push the boundaries of what is acceptable in a pocket," said Ross Rubin, executive director of industry analysis for consumer technology at the NPD Group.
Several Android phones -- which run on an operating system developed by Google, as opposed to those by Microsoft or Apple -- have come out with screens that are larger than 4 inches diagonally.
The HTC Evo and the Motoroloa Droid X, for example, both have 4.3-inch screens. Sony Ericsson is rumored, according to the blog Engadget, to be working on another 5-inch smartphone, the same size as the Dell Streak. (As a side note, the HTC Evo is so big that it comes with a kickstand).
In video reviews of these ever-larger phones, it seems almost to be a requirement these days for tech pundits to try to shove the things in their pockets as a way to determine whether the devices are truly portable.
In one such video, Veronica Belmont, co-host of a video show called Tekzilla, puts the Dell Streak in the front pocket of her pants only to find that about a third of the phone is still sticking out.
One YouTube video, titled "Dell Streak vs. Jeans," starts with a shot of a man's waist line, shown only from the thighs to mid-belly.
"The reason you're staring at my hips is that I'm going to show you what the Dell Streak is like, fitting in a jeans pocket," the host says. "Now, these jeans have got quite a deep pocket and, even still, it pokes out a little bit over the top. You can tuck it right in and there's still a corner coming out at the top there."
The man then proceeds to stuff the Streak into his back pocket, which he decides isn't such a good idea, either.
It sticks out, which could make it easily accessible to pickpockets, he says. "And you're certainly not going to want to sit on it."
The other potential issue with large phones is that it can be difficult to hold them up to your face, depending how big your hands are and if your arms are strong.
When Chris Hall tested the Dell Streak for the British website Pocket-lint, he said his hand literally became tired and stretched-out from holding the phone.
He said he also got some stares from strangers.
"People are going to look at you in a funny way" when you're holding such a large gadget up to your face, he said.
Hall still gave the phone -- which is sometimes referred to as a small "tablet" computer rather than a large phone -- a good rating: 8 of 10 stars.
In a video review for the blog Engadget, Richard Lai takes a bit of a contrarian view, saying the Dell Streak is still small enough to carry comfortably in a standard pant pocket.
"Obviously you see a bit of bulge here," he says after putting the phone in his jeans pocket, "but you get that with any phones these days, really, you know? Sliding it in and out is no problem, you see?"
Lai does note, however, that, if you want to walk up a flight of stairs with the 5-inch phone in your pocket, you should "shift your phone as far to the side [of your pocket] as possible" in order to maintain a normal range of movement.
"But other than that we've had no real issues with it," he says.
Despite some fuss about the bulk of these 4- and 5-inch phones, there are some clear advantages to screens with more real estate.
As phones increasingly become internet portals, e-book readers and video players, having bigger screens makes them more useful, Llamas said.
Those functions are butting up against some long-held ideas about what a mobile phone is -- namely that it's a gadget that you can easily carry in a pocket and hold to your ear to make a call.
So maybe we need a new cell phone definition:
One that can fit in your cargo shorts
Smartphone Data----is it safe?
What happens to your smartphone data -- and is it safe?
* The BlackBerry controversy has highlighted how smartphone privacy works
* Many plans encrypt data, meaning it can't be deciphered if it's intercepted
* BlackBerry data is stored on a private server; others stored by mobile service provider
-- This week, news out of the Middle East saw BlackBerry, the handheld communication device of choice in the corporate world, assailed on multiple fronts over a security problem.
The problem? It's too secure.
Governments in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates said they plan to ban BlackBerry use, at least in part, unless they're able to view messages for security reasons. India and Indonesia are reportedly considering similar measures.
The controversy has raised questions about what happens to data from smartphones and whether users should be concerned about how secure that data is.
The answers can sometimes be tricky, and differ from country to country and phone to phone. So, we've rounded up some answers to help make sense of it all.
What do governments not like about BlackBerry's security?
BlackBerry maker Research In Motion (RIM) touts security as one of the phone's major selling points to its largely professional customer base.
That's mainly done in two ways -- ways that haven't made countries like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates happy.
The first line of defense is encryption -- a system that, in very basic terms, scrambles the text of messages, then unscrambles them when they reach their destination.
Systems like BlackBerry's, and those of other smartphone vendors aiming at corporate and government clients, will theoretically show up as gobbledygook if someone grabs them between Point A and Point B.
Research In Motion, the owner of the BlackBerry, says that each individual user has a key that scrambles and unscrambles their data and that no one, even RIM itself, can access that data from the outside. (Some tech analysts doubt this is 100 percent true, but that's based more on speculation than hard fact).
Second, the BlackBerry stores data from the phones on secure servers that the company itself owns. The UAE complained that since those servers are not in-country, presumably living in RIM's home country of Canada, they can't peek in when they want to.
The countries want RIM to build and use servers in their own countries, making it easier for them to enter a "backdoor" to those servers when they're investigating what they consider a national security concern.
How is data from other phones stored?
Unlike BlackBerry, smartphone makers like Apple and HTC, among others, leave it up to wireless providers or clients to manage data.
Often, that means the data gets stored "in the cloud" -- a network of data centers that quietly secure and process information from all over the world.
That doesn't mean that data isn't safe.
On its website, Apple also promotes the "strong encryption" for data sent on its phones and lists a host of other security features -- from the ability to remotely wipe data from the phone if it falls into the wrong hands to its ability to work with companies' private networks.
Google's open-source Android platform, for phones like the HTC Evo and Droid Incredible, leaves some room for chicanery. But apps like DroidSecurity, with over 2.5 million users, specialize in cloud-based protection.
So, this means governments can't get to my data?
Afraid it doesn't.
With most phones, a government would seek data from the mobile service provider, not the phone company itself. So if you have an iPhone 4 or an old-school phone the size of a brick, a government could theoretically get access.
In the United States, that requires a court order. But laws in other countries, of course, vary.
For the record, some familiar with U.S. intelligence efforts say they have access to BlackBerry data, although the company says it never makes deals with governments to share.
Reading between the lines, this might just mean that U.S. intelligence agencies are more adept at cracking code than those in other countries.
Who else can intercept my info?
Security experts never say never. But with encryption and secure data banks, they say it's unlikely that a random bad actor could steal your transmissions in any usable way.
"If you are not a government and you are not holding the wires of the network of one of the companies like RIM or Google or Alltel, you can't really access the date the user is using or sending," said Dror Shalev, chief technical officer for DroidSecurity.
They say smartphone users are far more at risk from more mundane attacks -- from having their phones (and the data inside them) stolen to using the phone's web browser to click bad links.
"With mobile devices, a lot of the privacy and security risks are really similar to what we've seen with desktops and laptops," said Doris Yang, mobile security product manager for digital security company Symantec.
"A lot of it really does hinge on common sense. Whether we're talking about information stored on your device or in some storage facility, the same rule applies -- you shouldn't be sending out personal information.
* The BlackBerry controversy has highlighted how smartphone privacy works
* Many plans encrypt data, meaning it can't be deciphered if it's intercepted
* BlackBerry data is stored on a private server; others stored by mobile service provider
-- This week, news out of the Middle East saw BlackBerry, the handheld communication device of choice in the corporate world, assailed on multiple fronts over a security problem.
The problem? It's too secure.
Governments in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates said they plan to ban BlackBerry use, at least in part, unless they're able to view messages for security reasons. India and Indonesia are reportedly considering similar measures.
The controversy has raised questions about what happens to data from smartphones and whether users should be concerned about how secure that data is.
The answers can sometimes be tricky, and differ from country to country and phone to phone. So, we've rounded up some answers to help make sense of it all.
What do governments not like about BlackBerry's security?
BlackBerry maker Research In Motion (RIM) touts security as one of the phone's major selling points to its largely professional customer base.
That's mainly done in two ways -- ways that haven't made countries like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates happy.
The first line of defense is encryption -- a system that, in very basic terms, scrambles the text of messages, then unscrambles them when they reach their destination.
Systems like BlackBerry's, and those of other smartphone vendors aiming at corporate and government clients, will theoretically show up as gobbledygook if someone grabs them between Point A and Point B.
Research In Motion, the owner of the BlackBerry, says that each individual user has a key that scrambles and unscrambles their data and that no one, even RIM itself, can access that data from the outside. (Some tech analysts doubt this is 100 percent true, but that's based more on speculation than hard fact).
Second, the BlackBerry stores data from the phones on secure servers that the company itself owns. The UAE complained that since those servers are not in-country, presumably living in RIM's home country of Canada, they can't peek in when they want to.
The countries want RIM to build and use servers in their own countries, making it easier for them to enter a "backdoor" to those servers when they're investigating what they consider a national security concern.
How is data from other phones stored?
Unlike BlackBerry, smartphone makers like Apple and HTC, among others, leave it up to wireless providers or clients to manage data.
Often, that means the data gets stored "in the cloud" -- a network of data centers that quietly secure and process information from all over the world.
That doesn't mean that data isn't safe.
On its website, Apple also promotes the "strong encryption" for data sent on its phones and lists a host of other security features -- from the ability to remotely wipe data from the phone if it falls into the wrong hands to its ability to work with companies' private networks.
Google's open-source Android platform, for phones like the HTC Evo and Droid Incredible, leaves some room for chicanery. But apps like DroidSecurity, with over 2.5 million users, specialize in cloud-based protection.
So, this means governments can't get to my data?
Afraid it doesn't.
With most phones, a government would seek data from the mobile service provider, not the phone company itself. So if you have an iPhone 4 or an old-school phone the size of a brick, a government could theoretically get access.
In the United States, that requires a court order. But laws in other countries, of course, vary.
For the record, some familiar with U.S. intelligence efforts say they have access to BlackBerry data, although the company says it never makes deals with governments to share.
Reading between the lines, this might just mean that U.S. intelligence agencies are more adept at cracking code than those in other countries.
Who else can intercept my info?
Security experts never say never. But with encryption and secure data banks, they say it's unlikely that a random bad actor could steal your transmissions in any usable way.
"If you are not a government and you are not holding the wires of the network of one of the companies like RIM or Google or Alltel, you can't really access the date the user is using or sending," said Dror Shalev, chief technical officer for DroidSecurity.
They say smartphone users are far more at risk from more mundane attacks -- from having their phones (and the data inside them) stolen to using the phone's web browser to click bad links.
"With mobile devices, a lot of the privacy and security risks are really similar to what we've seen with desktops and laptops," said Doris Yang, mobile security product manager for digital security company Symantec.
"A lot of it really does hinge on common sense. Whether we're talking about information stored on your device or in some storage facility, the same rule applies -- you shouldn't be sending out personal information.
RIM testing newBlackberry, Tablet
Report: RIM testing new BlackBerry, tablet
RIM is reportedly building a new touchscreen Blackberry, similar to the Storm 2, above, only with a slideout keyboard.
* RIM has new touchscreen version of BlackBerry smartphone with a slide-out keyboard, newspaper reports
* BlackBerry OS 6 is operating system running on the test device
* RIM previously said it is working on a tablet device that will be a companion to the new BlackBerry
* RIM leads smartphone market, shipping 35 percent of the devices in the U.S
RELATED TOPICS
* BlackBerry Mobile Devices
* Cellular Phones
* Tablet Computers
* Consumer Electronics
While Apple and Google have been getting the lion's share of attention in the smartphone world of late, Research In Motion isn't going quietly, according to a report.
The Wall Street Journal reports that RIM has a new touchscreen version of its BlackBerry smartphone up its sleeve, this time with a slide-out keyboard. The operating system running on the test device is also new: BlackBerry OS 6, which the company previewed earlier this year. It has some of the same features as Apple's iOS, which allows swiping and pinching motions on screen, as well as a new browser.
And has already been reported, RIM is working on a tablet device that will be a companion to the new BlackBerry. It will be able to connect to the Internet via the BlackBerry but won't be a standalone device like the Apple iPad. The WSJ's sources repeat the earlier report that the device will be available by the end of the year.
RIM has already said that BlackBerry OS 6 will ship by the end of the third quarter, or by September 30. That likely means the new phone won't be ready until then or later.
RIM is still the leader in the smartphone market, shipping 35 percent of the devices in the U.S. in the first quarter of 2010, according to data recently released by Nielsen. Apple is behind RIM with 28 percent of U.S. smartphones, followed by Windows Mobile phones with 19 percent, and Android smartphones with 9 percent.
But Apple and Android-based phones have much of the momentum. And now that Palm and its WebOS operating system have been purchased by tech industry heavyweight Hewlett-Packard, it means RIM needs to show that it's not only keeping up with competition, but pushing the category that it has long defined forward.
RIM is reportedly building a new touchscreen Blackberry, similar to the Storm 2, above, only with a slideout keyboard.
* RIM has new touchscreen version of BlackBerry smartphone with a slide-out keyboard, newspaper reports
* BlackBerry OS 6 is operating system running on the test device
* RIM previously said it is working on a tablet device that will be a companion to the new BlackBerry
* RIM leads smartphone market, shipping 35 percent of the devices in the U.S
RELATED TOPICS
* BlackBerry Mobile Devices
* Cellular Phones
* Tablet Computers
* Consumer Electronics
While Apple and Google have been getting the lion's share of attention in the smartphone world of late, Research In Motion isn't going quietly, according to a report.
The Wall Street Journal reports that RIM has a new touchscreen version of its BlackBerry smartphone up its sleeve, this time with a slide-out keyboard. The operating system running on the test device is also new: BlackBerry OS 6, which the company previewed earlier this year. It has some of the same features as Apple's iOS, which allows swiping and pinching motions on screen, as well as a new browser.
And has already been reported, RIM is working on a tablet device that will be a companion to the new BlackBerry. It will be able to connect to the Internet via the BlackBerry but won't be a standalone device like the Apple iPad. The WSJ's sources repeat the earlier report that the device will be available by the end of the year.
RIM has already said that BlackBerry OS 6 will ship by the end of the third quarter, or by September 30. That likely means the new phone won't be ready until then or later.
RIM is still the leader in the smartphone market, shipping 35 percent of the devices in the U.S. in the first quarter of 2010, according to data recently released by Nielsen. Apple is behind RIM with 28 percent of U.S. smartphones, followed by Windows Mobile phones with 19 percent, and Android smartphones with 9 percent.
But Apple and Android-based phones have much of the momentum. And now that Palm and its WebOS operating system have been purchased by tech industry heavyweight Hewlett-Packard, it means RIM needs to show that it's not only keeping up with competition, but pushing the category that it has long defined forward.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)