One of the big issues with Flash is that it introduces all sorts of security vulnerabilities, especially if you don’t have the latest security patches and updates. Google has chosen to embrace Flash both in its Chrome browser and Android OS (as opposed to that other company which won’t let Flash anywhere near its iPhones and iPads). But it wants to minimize the security risks posed by Flash. Today, it is releasing a new version of the Chrome browser for Windows in its beta channel which sandboxes Flash and other extensions. (New versions of chrome are released simultaneously in three channels: developer, beta, and stable). Sandboxing will come to the Mac and Linux versions soon.

Google previewed these changes during its big Chrome event about a week ago, and it’s been talking about sandboxing Flash at least since March.

Sandboxing isolates websites and applications so that malware doesn’t spread beyond that tab to other parts of your computer. Plug-ins are a huge security hole, which Chrome is attempting to contain. Chrome will also now automatically update Flash for all security patches. With 120 million Chrome users worldwide, this will go far towards making Flash safer. Now if only they could keep Flash from crashing Chrome altogether, that would be something.

In addition to the sandboxing feature, the beta version for Windows will also start loading frequently visited websites when you start tying the URL into the address bar. The page will load before you even finish typing the URL or hit enter. It is like Google Instant for browsing.

Chrome Browser Sandboxes Flash To Protect Against Malware

A month ago, in my initial piece about Windows Phone 7, I was cautiously optimistic about the platform but had some questions about Microsoft’s ultimate intentions. Namely: “will they use their power to try and bend the carriers to their will? Or will they take the Google approach and let them walk all over the place dictating features and bloatware?“

I’m happy to report that at least initially, it looks like it will be the former.

“If Microsoft releases an update for your phone, you get it. Period,” Ed Bott writes today for ZDNet.

In other words, Microsoft is taking more of an Apple approach instead of the Google one. That is, it looks like they’ll be the ones in charge of dishing out software updates to customers rather than allowing the carriers to get involved.

While Google has been quick to iterate Android, the carriers have been slow to roll those updates out to many customers. They have various reasons for this. They’re all pretty much bullshit.

“Microsoft will push Windows Phone 7 software updates to end users and all Windows Phone 7 devices will be eligible for updates,” the company tells Bott. Their very direct phrasing almost makes it sound as if they’re very aware of fragmentation issue on Android and what a headache it is for consumers. In fact, I’m sure they are.

Before Microsoft hit reset on their mobile strategy and came out with Windows Phone 7, their original mobile OS, Windows Mobile, was in largely the same boat as Android is now in. The carriers had the power when it came to updates. And customers got screwed.

So at least in that way, the failure of Windows Mobile may have helped Microsoft. They learned, and can now make a better product as a result.

Google had never done a mobile operating system before Android, so perhaps they didn’t know what they were getting into with the carriers (though you have to believe Android chief Andy Rubin should have). And Apple didn’t fall into the trap simply because they’re control-freaks.

Speaking of Rubin, he believes that the carriers are learning from customers and will eventually get with the program when it comes to dishing out updates. “I think over time they’ll learn what is good business and what is bad business,” he said back in October. Two decades of history suggests the opposite, but whatever.

Microsoft has made the right call here. To use Rubin’s words, the world may not need another platform, but it sure is nice to have another one not controlled by the carriers.

Microsoft Flashes A Nice Big Middle Finger At Android’s Fragmentation

Editor’s note: Guest author Jon Evans is a novelist, journalist, and software engineer.

Oh, Research In Motion. You never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

RIM was born in my home town, at my alma mater, so it’s depressing watching their empire rot and crumble before the Android / iPhone onslaught. I had high hopes for their new tablet, a potential game-changer—but alas, they’ve hamstrung it before it’s even been released. Here’s what they should have done with it:

1) Embrace Android (phones)

RIM proudly announced that while their PlayBook can’t connect to cell networks, it can tether to a compatible BlackBerry via Bluetooth. They might as well have installed a ”For BlackBerry Owners Only” startup screen. Way to pre-alienate most of the market, guys.

Instead they should have stressed that they can also connect via Wi-Fi to Android 2.2 phones, and announced an Android app that syncs data between Androids and PlayBooks. They can’t support the iPhone, Apple would never allow it, but Android’s wide open.

“But Android is the competition!” No, Android tablets are. Tablets and phones are entirely different entities. RIM’s tech people understand that: it’s why the PlayBook runs a brand-new OS built by QNX, a company they bought earlier this year, rather than a new iteration of the archaic BlackBerry OS. Which is no bad thing—QNX is well-regarded, and time-tested. (I fondly remember being reprimanded for hacking into my high school’s QNX system many years ago.)

Until RIM drops that millstone called the BlackBerry OS, or replaces it with a QNX-based version, Android and Apple will eat their phones for lunch. Meanwhile, they need to accept that the PlayBook should complement rather than compete with Android phones.

2) WebWorks or AIR: Pick One.

I’m an app developer. Pity me. I have to know Java, Eclipse, Objective-C, XCode, and both the Android and iOS SDKs. I could use a cross-compiler like PhoneGap, but they’re clunky and slow to implement new features. If Windows Phone 7 takes off, I need to master another language, environment, and platform—and while BlackBerry apps are written in Java, it’s an older version than Android’s, and the SDK is completely different.

I liked Palm, but I was delighted to see it die, and Nokia’s decay into irrelevance is a relief. Nothing against them; I just don’t want the hassle. App developers don’t want choice, we want consistency.

So what does RIM give us? Choice. First they offer free PlayBooks to developers who build PlayBook apps with Adobe’s AIR. Then they say you can build both PlayBook and BlackBerry 6 apps with BlackBerry WebWorks. Rather than split their development and support resources between two different platforms, they should have chosen one and ran with it. These “choices” will only confuse and irritate the app makers who will determine their fate.

3) Change the name. And the target market.

PlayBook? Really? You’re Research In Motion. You’re business, baby. Your tech level may be a little antiquated, but you’re secure, you get stuff done, and the new tablet brings you back up to speed. You should be targeting corporate videoconferencing and hospital patient data and business travelers. That’s why you’ve got BlackBerry tethering, right?

Instead you called it the PlayBook and can’t stop talking about how it runs Flash, both of which will make CIOs everywhere raise skeptical eyebrows. You’re trying to be all things to all users, including consumers—but Android tablets run Flash too, and they’ll be available for Christmas; the iPad boasts a bigger screen, superior apps, and the Apple halo; and worst of all, the PlayBook will probably launch right in the teeth of the iPad 2 hype machine. RIM should conquer the business-tablet space first. Instead, they already look like also-rans before they even have their running shoes on.

It’s a shame. I wish RIM well, and their new tablet looks like a potentially superb device. But they’re squandering that potential before it even has a chance to succeed.

How RIM’s PlayBook Could Have Succeeded

During the “Back to the Mac” event two weeks ago, Steve Jobs made a particularly witty remark as he unveiled the MacBook Air, one that made the audience chuckle in laughter:

“We asked ourselves, what would happen if a MacBook and an iPad hooked up? Well, this is the result, we think it’s the future of notebooks.”

There is always a strategic intent with the things that Apple says at product launches, especially when they come from Steve Jobs. This is because Apple cares deeply about the perception of its products. By intimating that the Air is the future, and that it blends the best of the MacBook Pro and iPad, Apple is signaling a lot. There is no doubt that this first phase in “hooking up” between the MacBook and iPad foretells a deeply converged future on many levels.

iOS and OS X Aren’t Hooking Up

Often when people visualize the convergence of the iPad and MacBook lines, they wonder whether a unified operating system will take over, which somehow blends the best of both the touch and “mouse” metaphors.

This is unrealistic and silly. Though iOS is OS X’s little cousin—both use different APIs and layers, but reside on top of UNIX—merging them makes little sense from an end-user perspective. iOS and OS X serve different use-cases, applications, and markets, and the touch metaphor on a MacBook simply wouldn’t serve a user well in the majority of cases. And running multiple browser tabs and multitasking between 8 open applications requires a much more immersive experience than iOS may ever provide.

But despite the fundamental difference in how we interact with a MacBook and iPad, Jobs made sure to deeply blend how we view the two products at the marketing level, by touting attributes like the Air’s ability to turn on instantly, and last 30 days without a charge.

Why the Hardware is Rapidly Intersecting

One reason why Steve Jobs wants us to think about the MacBook Air as an extension of the iPad, is because there is a hardware convergence happening under the hood. The MacBook Air benchmarks were the most telling sign that this is occurring. Apple was able to double the system performance of the MacBook Air, despite using the same 3 year-old CPU technology from Intel—Intel Core 2 Duo processors running at pokey speeds.

Though profound this isn’t surprising—the Air uses flash instead of spinning disks, and SSD technology dramatically cuts data transfer bottlenecks for applications that are I/O (Input/Output) constrained. And guess what? Most simple computing tasks are memory and IO-constrained. This fact helps the flash-based Air operate on par with Apple’s high end MacBook Pro line, except under taxing CPU-intensive scenarios such as video rendering.

So let’s get this straight: Apple is using several year old technology, and the Air’s system performance screams. This is nothing short of incredible proof that after a certain threshold, CPU advancements are only adding incremental benefit to 90% of what the user cares about today.

Instead, performance is more dependent on graphics processing than ever. This is why Apple designed the Lion OS to heavily focus on OpenCL, which leverages parallel constructs within the GPU to extend its utility to non-graphics tasks. And a big reason why Apple didn’t go with Intel’s newer CPU line is they lack support for OpenCL, and Apple is probably designing new applications like iLife 11 to take advantage of OpenCL’s power.

The fact that Apple’s sexiest new Notebook didn’t go with Intel’s latest technology is damning for Intel and is the best signal yet of how innovation in PCs is getting blown away by what’s happening in the mobile ecosystem. Right now, benchmarks show that the fastest ARM-based smartphone CPUs are only about 25% as fast as the Core 2 Duo that Apple is using in the MacBook Air. But this delta will compress fast.

In about 2-3 years we will be seeing integrated chipsets make their way up the food chain, and potentially fit in notebook-class form factors. Multicore ARM solutions, based on ARM-15, will make this a reality in about 2 cycles of Moore’s Law.

Skeptics will say “no way — never, not with the need for Flash”. I agree that Flash is probably here to stay on desktops. But all the pressure on Adobe to make Flash better is, ever so slowly, improving how rendering and compositing are done in hardware. And even in the midst of their darkest public battle last Spring, Apple and Adobe were cooperating in getting Flash acceleration to work on desktop Macs. In the future, it’s conceivable that Flash could be the only remaining bottleneck that prevents Apple from using an embedded SoC in a MacBook Air. But hardware acceleration for Flash is approaching which can solve this dilemma.

All of this rapid advancement in what’s under the hood has huge ramifications for the future of the MacBook Air and iPad. Anyone want a MacBook Air that is several pounds, Runs OS X, lasts for 30 hours, has a detachable keyboard, and then converts to an iPad running iOS once the screen is removed?

I am not saying that Apple is going to make this device, nor that it’s even in their best interest to pursue one-size-fits-all form factors. But there is no denying that the hardware is converging, and the “Back to the Mac” theme of Apple’s latest event deeply intimated this.

The Mac Store’s Incredible Network Effect

The remaining puzzle piece in the intersection of the MacBook and iPad is all about the applications—both end-user discovery & distribution and developer support. The iOS storefront was the genius behind the iPhone becoming a low friction distribution warehouse for content.

In much the same way, the Mac Store is Apple’s umbrella strategy to encourage developers of long-tail content to have an easy landing pad on the Mac, developers who are already building apps on top of iOS.

Interestingly, the Mac Store allows Apple to do the reverse of what Microsoft is doing with Windows Mobile 7: whereas Microsoft can leverage .NET familiarity to encourage the desktop dev community to write apps for WM7, Apple will use its iOS franchise to kick-start a vibrant ecosystem of Mac developers.

But there’s also something more magical that this network-effect provides for Apple: by specifying that developers use Apple’s tools, namely Xcode and LLVM, Apple gains a layer of control in how this hardware convergence plays out.

How so? Apple can have developers simply flip a recompile switch and upload universal versions of apps to the Mac App Store, which work on both ARM and x86. In this way, Apple is setting up a distribution mechanism to host and install code which will allow them to transition hardware seamlessly.

This is the ultimate in streamlined distribution, since a developer can focus on one unified environment based around Cocoa Touch and Objective-C, along with a set of UI / UX constraints. Apple then abstracts all this from the user, independent of the hardware.

Apple Hates Control and Loves Optionality

If it’s not completely clear yet, Apple is setting the stage to be processor and component agnostic. This not only allows them the above-mentioned architecture-neutrality, but also affords them incredible pricing power, and ensures they can tap into consistent component supply, which will be a critical challenge as they lock up an even bigger slice of the supply chain.

Apple can build an A4-variant themselves, or they can partner up with one of many vendors. If Intel starts innovating again, that’s an easy choice for Apple. If nVidia, with its graphics pedigree, emerges as a winner in combining GPUs with ARM-based CPUs, Apple can partner more deeply or buy the company. Or Apple might decide to stick with x86, but use GPU/CPU technology from AMD.

It’s all about optionality. And Apple is building that into its long-term strategy, by combining its rapidly expanding footprint in mobile hardware / software with its iOS developer mind-share to rev its Mac franchise into much higher gear.

Wow Hooking Up Feels Amazing – When’s Our Next Date?

I believe it’s pretty clear: Apple wants to use OS X, running on an incredibly battery efficient MacBook Air-like form factor, as a bottoms-up strategy to attract loyal iOS fans over to the Mac franchise. After all, there are around 150M users of iOS worldwide. Apple knows that iOS is a secret weapon to bring both consumers and corporate users to higher end Mac products. And the marketing around the Back to the Mac event is just a precursor for Apple’s underlying strategy in mixing these two worlds.

Behind-the-scenes, Steve Jobs is setting up all the pieces for Apple to converge these product lines. But it’s all about optionality for Apple. When and how they choose to get there is up to them. And my guess is Steve Jobs is going to do so in a way that continues to make the Apple experience a superior one for you, its loyal customer.

The Sexy Details of How the iPad and MacBook Will Hook Up

HP reveled most of its tablet strategy yesterday at the Fortune’s Brainstorm conference. The Windows 7 HP Slate is headed to the enterprise sector this fall while the webOS-power Palmpad will go head-to-head against the iPad later. The plan itself really isn’t that surprising as I saw this coming shortly after Palmpad was trademarked. But what I didn’t expect was the outcry from consumers who actually want a Windows 7 Slate. It’s clear HP should take a long look a limited consumer market release for the Win7 Slate.

I’ve said it over and over and over. Windows 7 is horrible via a touch interface. It’s simply not meant to be used with your fingers. However, the HP Slate is said to come with a stylus and if said stylus is an active digitizer like Wacom tablets, it could be awesome and what’s been missing from Windows tablets for so long. I still believe webOS has a better chance to catch on as Windows tablets have been around longer than Apple has been making the iPod and have yet to sell well, but why not have both options available and let the market decide? At least our readers want it.

HP, Read Our Comments, Consumers Want The Windows 7 Slate, Too

]]> http://www.invisionskins.net/hp-read-our-comments-consumers-want-the-windows-7-slate-too/feed/ 0 http://www.invisionskins.net/sobees-adds-chat-image-uploading-and-more-to-new-interactive-facebook-ipad-app/ http://www.invisionskins.net/sobees-adds-chat-image-uploading-and-more-to-new-interactive-facebook-ipad-app/#comments Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:57:55 +0000 admin http://invisionskins.net/sobees-adds-chat-image-uploading-and-more-to-new-interactive-facebook-ipad-app/

Social media app developer Sobees, offers a number of impressive clients on the market, including a native Windows client, a web-based client and a Twitter app for Android phones. Recently, Sobees ventured into the iPad space with an $0.99 native Facebook app, that allowed for basic functionality on the social network from the device. Today, Sobees is launching a new, paid Facebook iPad app that offers a much more interactive experience for users. The app, called My Friends, costs $3.99 on the App Store.

While the older app allows you to update your status, comment and like a status, My Friends allows for additional interaction on the social network. With the new app you can view and upload pictures, communicate with your friends on Facebook Chat, access your Facebook events, and receive Facebook notifications. Plus you can update your status, comment, like and more.

In addition, My Friends gives you a choice of homepage for Facebook, letting you choose between the Sobees magazine view or traditional stream view. Sobees CEO Francois Bochatay says that the company is planning on adding the ability to filter and more to the app soon.

Sobees’ first Facebook app saw 65,000 downloads, so it should be interesting to see if this pricer app gains traction. Of course, Facebook has yet to release a native iPad app but the expectation is that when the social network does release an app for the device, it will be as popular as its iPhone app.

CrunchBase Information

sobees

Information provided by CrunchBase

Sobees Adds Chat, Image Uploading, And More To New Interactive Facebook iPad App

]]> http://www.invisionskins.net/sobees-adds-chat-image-uploading-and-more-to-new-interactive-facebook-ipad-app/feed/ 0 http://www.invisionskins.net/matts-blog-the-iphone-4-debacle/ http://www.invisionskins.net/matts-blog-the-iphone-4-debacle/#comments Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:03:35 +0000 admin http://invisionskins.net/matts-blog-the-iphone-4-debacle/

Oh go on then. I’ll join in.

By now, I’m sure you’re aware of the iPhone 4 drama which started with a small percentage of customers reporting dropped calls or reduced signal strength when touching the metal band that runs around the phone and culminated in free ‘bumpers’ being offered for all affected handsets.

Before I continue, I’ll nail my colours to the mast.

I use a 24″ iMac for my daily work. I’ve used and owned Macs all the way back to the days of the SE30. For the most part, I enjoy using Apple’s products and I’ve watched the company grow from a niche market on the verge of bankruptcy to the hip and cool tech giant that it is now. The first iMac changed the company overnight and the iPod did the same a few years later. I own an iPhone 2G and a Blackberry 9700 Bold. Whilst I enjoy Apple’s products, I do not consider myself a “fan boy”. I’ve never stayed up all night to watch a keynote speech live and I’ve never queued up on release day for the latest shiny kit.

Throughout these revolutionary years, Apple’s PR and marketing has been as slick as its products. Apple makes form as important as function and has prided itself on making desirable products that “just work”. The industry laughed when Apple entered the MP3 market with iTunes and the iPod and it laughed again when it entered the smart phone market. The combination of ease of use and slickness of these products generated sales and quickly made them serious contenders in the market.

For the first time, Apple find themselves in the middle of a PR nightmare with the iPhone 4. This new revision to their successful iPhone products boasts many refinements including a front-facing camera and an improved display along with a brand new design. What should have been another air punching, crowd pleasing launch has descended into a media frenzy that puts Apple squarely in the eye of the storm.

While people were still queueing around the block for their iPhone 4s, others were reporting issues with dropped calls and low signal strength when touching the metal band that is the phone’s antenna. Steve Jobs reportedly fired off a terse “Don’t hold it that way” reply from his personal email account which launched a new internet meme overnight.

The key issue here is signal attenuation. Gripping any phone by its aerial will reduce the signal strength as it comes into contact with your skin. This is why most phone developers hide the radio packs and aerials within the plastic body. However, as some have demonstrated, tightly gripping almost any phone in a particular place will reduce the signal strength.

I own an iPhone 2G (and I have an iPhone 4 on order) and I can drop off a few bars by gripping it tightly for 30 seconds or so. I can make my Blackberry Bold 9700 drop its WiFi signal by gripping it tightly for 30 seconds or so. This of course isn’t a problem in normal use and I do wonder if people are now only noticing this issue for the first time now that it’s been brought to attention. Certainly, most of us are used to signal bars going up and down as we use our phones and my Blackberry flicks between a 3G, Edge and GPRS signal most of the day as I travel. Is this normal variation or down to how we’re holding these phones?

Certainly, some have a much worse issue. Some iPhone 4 users are able to completely drop their signal and therefore calls just by touching a specific place on the band which is easily reproduced in normal use. But this is only a small percentage of the entire iPhone 4 user base, so it does make one wonder if some handsets are manufactured differently or perhaps an early batch were shipped with the fault acknowledged.

Ultimately, though, this recent debacle just polarises people further. Those that hate Apple are frothing at the mouth with vitriol and hug their HTCs tighter. Those that love Apple will just grab the free case and continue using the phone they love. I certainly doubt that many will make use of Apple’s refund offer based solely on the signal issue.

The biggest surprise is really how Apple have fallen. For a company that rarely puts a foot wrong and always markets themselves so well, this is a real turn around.

Apple recently overtook Microsoft to become the largest technology company by stock value. One wonders if they are just a larger target. Microsoft continue to fail at getting a mobile platform off the ground and even if Windows is getting better, Microsoft are fighting a battle that Apple aren’t interest in.

As the saying goes: it must be tough at the top. Now you’ll have to excuse me as I refresh my Apple order page to see if my phone has been shipped yet.

• Tweet This!
• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Reddit
• Post on Google Buzz
• Share this on del.icio.us
• Share this on Technorati
• Digg this!
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon

Source

Matt’s Blog – The iPhone 4 Debacle

]]> http://www.invisionskins.net/matts-blog-the-iphone-4-debacle/feed/ 0