Blogs

Ars Technica just did a review of one of the latest Android OS mobile phones, Motorola's Droid. However, in their haste to praise the phone as not just an improvement over previous Android phones, like the HTC G1, they highlighted a performance comparison to Apple's iPhone 3GS-- and declared the Droid the winner.

The problem?

The data says otherwise. They assigned the phones average times for loading a series of pages, on which the iPhone averaged 8.0 seconds and the Droid averaged 9.3. Then they drew a graph, noted "longer bars are better" and claimed the Droid's score of 9.3 was better than the iPhone's 8.0.

Even in the article it says that the Droid is only faster on some mobile-optimized pages, but you have to jump through some hoops to see that result, too:

The article states:

The results are pretty obvious, and match the results of the synthetic benchmarks. The Droid is slower than the 3GS in Javascript-heavy pages, but is as fast if not faster on the mobile-optimized pages.

The problem is that this is unsupported by the data unless you are only considering the m.digg.com page "mobile-optimized".

 Click here for the complete text.

What a difference a week makes.

With MC-UML the only matchup that wasn't a tie, everybody manages to pick up points except Merrimack, dropping the team into 8th place.

Ouch.

Good news?

Games in hand against BC, BU (3) Maine, NU, and UNH (2) as well as UVM (1). The only team with fewer league games played to date in Hockey East is about the only team that is hands-down in a worse position than MC right now: Providence, with five games played and only one point to show for it.

While being near the bottom of the hole looking up might feel more familiar to fans, let's hope it lights a fire under the team. They've been perfect at home and also perfect on the road-- just in opposite ways. They've yet to lose at home and have yet to win on the road, and next up are the surprisingly first-placed UNH Wildcats-- tied for first with BC with 10 points each, but holding a game in hand over the Eagles.

 Click here for the complete text.

Okay, I know this isn't normally a sports blog, but...

And pretty soon I hope I can stop prefacing every statement with, "it's still early, BUT..."

So far the statistics on Merrimack's performance and the performance of their opponents in games against Merrimack have been a pretty good predictor of what happens. In tonight's win over BU, the ones that weren't actually turned out in Merrimack's favor.

Merrimack so far had been outshot and BU was outshooting its opponents (but not scoring).

In this game, BU outshot MC in the first but after that Merrimack had the edge. Shots for the game ended up even, despite BU having 12 powerplay opportunities compared to Merrimack's 7-- including several 5x3 opportunities.

Merrimack's power play continues to be more efficient, going 2/7 to BU's 3/12. Same goes for the kill.

 Click here for the complete text.

iFud

The sheer amount of disinformation being bandied about by posters on this story about the iPhone's launch in China is absolutely staggering.

Here are some of the more amazing bits:

"Wow, china unicom failed at their pricing."

The iPhone is a high end phone with a high margin, like most Apple products. While the Chinese market is large, and a large portion of it does not participate equally in the country's economic development, that does not mean there are no potential purchasers with money to spend. The iPhone has been an underground success in many poor countries with hacktivated phones selling for high margins. An official iPhone, even without wifi, only needs to be marginally cheaper than those in order to be successful. If Apple were to significantly reduce the prices of Chinese iPhones without tying then even more strongly to the local networks (which they have so far been unable to do) then all they would achieve would be to help those exporting iPhones unofficially into unsupported markets, which does not help Apple any more than selling locally, helps them less than selling on the local market for a higher price, even if they sell more units, and does nothing to help their local partners, the Chinese operator.

 Click here for the complete text.

The news is all over the web (Ars Technica, MacWorldCNet): AT&T, which had previously had a policy which allowed VOIP apps on its flagship smartphone, Apple's iPhone, to make calls only over WiFi rather than over its 3G network, has relented. This allows fring, Vonage, Skype, and other apps to connect to VOIP services to terminate calls using AT&T's mobile data service, depriving AT&T of per-minute charges for voice calls, and intensifying the shift on AT&T's mobile network from carrying circuit-switched voice channels to being a "dumb pipe" for data.

There are a lot of comments about how great this is, how hypocritical it is of Apple to still not approve the Google Voice app for the App Store, but very little analysis of why AT&T might have done this. There are a number of possible reasons, and the real motivations are probably some combination of these.

In no particular order:

 Click here for the complete text.

In my RSS feeds this morning-- practically next to each other-- are these two stories.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/09/21/att_3g_microcell_to_cost_1...

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/22/atandt-weighs-in-against-net-neutral...

Combined, these stories are great evidence of a company so large that its right hand does not know what its left is doing.

To connect the dots for those who don't obsessively follow innovations (or rather commercializations) in telecommunications technology, the first story is about the AT&T "microcell" (also sometimes called a femtocell or a picobasestation or any of any other similar terms).

The headline suggests that "no monthly fee" is some kind of great deal. Of course the story also doesn't really tell you what the device does, at least not completely. The point of this thing is ti improve your cellular reception, especially in areas where your 3G data connection is slow because of weak signal. It hooks up to your own Internet connection and allows phones to connect to AT&T through that.

Backwhat?

In the industry, the connection between a cellular base station and the core of a telecom operator's network is called "backhaul". It is something that costs a lot of money. The distances between base stations and other portions of a company's network can range from a few hundred meters to several hundred kilometers. The rollout of 3G with its higher data speeds in the USA was delayed specifically because of insufficient backhaul capacity on mobile operators' base stations; many such stations were provisioned with a single T1/E1 line, which was enough for voice calls and slower data services, but not nearly enough to serve data-hungry devices like the iPhone-- devices that are actually convenient enough to use for Internet applications that people actually use them, which is rare even among large screen devices that call themselves smart phones.

Of course, one might ask, devices like those usually have WiFi, and if you're in a place, like your home or your office, that has fast Internet, you probably have WiFi-- so why not just use that and to heck with buying a $150 gadget that, thankfully, AT&T is not charging you to operate?

The reason is because certain features of phones, like the normal cellular voice calls and SMS text messages, don't natively work on WiFi connections. Of course, you can install chat and text messaging programs that work over WiFi that duplicate the functionality of SMS, if not the actual implementation. Some may even offer gateways to SMS messaging. You can also install VOIP applications that talk to VOIP providers like Vonage over SIP, and use that over WiFi. Of course, AT&T really doesn't want you to do that, since that means you can make voice calls without paying them anything. The only thing they get out of you then is your monthly subscription fee. You can start to see why AT&T sells devices like the iPhone locked to their networks and with long contract terms. They know that the iPhone is such a popular and capable device that there is a real danger in the near future of it reducing usage of their network resources and thus reducing their income.

AT&T knows you can just hook up a WiFi router while at the home or office and use your phone that way. This device is a buttress against that. Install this device instead, and then you can use fast Internet and AT&T's phone service instead of WiFi-- and hey, we won't charge you for that!

What a deal!

Of course, Sprint subscribers are not so lucky. They do pay a monthly fee for a similar device-- $5 a month to use it, plus an activation fee, and $10 a month if you want unlimited calls on it. (Presumably you're already paying for a certain number of calls on your phone, so essentially they are double-dipping here. They are charging you an extra fee to allow you to make unlimited calls that are going out to AT&T over your own Internet line that you are paying for. It almost certainly costs AT&T less to connect these calls than calls made in a traditional coverage area through a traditional, macro base station, but you're still going to be providing them another flat monthly fee to get a service you're already paying for (voice calls) over a transmission line you've already paid for (your Internet line).

Net Neutrality

Now, all of this would just be Business As Usual in the telecoms industry if it weren't for the second article, wherein AT&T comes out against Net Neutrality rules (which the FCC is currently drafting) applying to mobile operators.

Nevermind that even the most persistent of traditional Bellheads can see the entire market switching from fixed to mobile, and from voice-centric to data-centric. Nevermind that AT&T's most popular phone, the iPhone, is built from the ground up as a data-centric device and is the most smartphone that consumes the most Internet traffic worldwide, thus making AT&T more a fixed and wireless ISP than a traditional, voice-centric telecom. Nevermind all that.

The thing that is side-splittingly hilarious about these two items in combination is that Net Neutrality is specifically designed to prevent an ISP from doing exactly what many of them would probably consider trying to do the minute they see a device like one of these femtocells pop up on their clients' networks: throttle it.

In a world where cable companies who used to do just television are adding data and then voice, and telephone companies are adding data and then TV, and ISPs are adding both, a device like that, that uses the channels of one ISP to deliver voice and SMS traffic for another operator, is a potential threat. Net Neutrality rules would state that it doesn't matter that you're using your Verizon connection to hook up an AT&T femtocell, thus putting traffic you're purchasing from the one to the benefit to the other. Verizon cannot block or slow or charge extra for carrying that traffic to AT&T. Of course, if Verizon could do such a thing, it'd likely kill the nascent market for devices like this. Expanding your coverage area and getting faster Internet on your phone by using your flat-rate high-speed Internet connection sounds like a great idea, until you find it doesn't work that well because your ISP doesn't like you using it, or until they start to charge you extra for it.

So these Net Neutrality rules would be really good for AT&T in this case. It means that Verizon, or any other competitor who might be offering Internet service to its mobile subscribers, cannot interfere.

Except AT&T doesn't want these rules to apply to them.
The reason? Because wireless is already plenty competitive without these rules.

Hilarious.

P.S. This Gearlog Article does a lot more justice to the subject than the Apple Insider story because it emphasizes the cost-savings these devices provide to operators.

First I'll say this: I liked District 9.

However, I never really thought Neill Blomkamp was really the best choice to do the Halo film, and reading this quote in his interview with Rotten Tomatoes only confirmed it for me:

But the flip side is that the reason I wanted to do Halo in the first place, and the reason I was so energised to do Halo, is that creatively I love it. I totally love the universe of Halo on every level. Not only is it this epic space saga but Master Chief is such an awesome character. This guy - whether he knows it or not - is a victim of this military-industrial complex. It's a totally compelling world to be involved in.

I can easily see where Blomkamp gets that interpretation.

At the same time, that's not Halo. That's not the story we saw in the Halo games, and it's not the story we saw in the novels.

 Click here for the complete text.

Warning: Spoilers!

JJ Abrams has very, very boldly gone where many, many others have already gone before him. So much so that I'm not sure I'm as interested in where he's gone, or where he might go, as with just how damn boldly he's gone there.

To get some housekeeping out of the way, there are some positive things to note about the latest Star Trek film. It has obviously expensive visuals. An excellent job has been done to make these almost too-familiar characters resemble their origins from the 1966 series. The film is a competently and professionally-assembled action/science-fiction flick.

That said it also suffers from flaws that seem to have more to do with how films are made these days than with what is has done with the franchise. First Pike, and then Kirk, seem to be captaining the USS Lens Flare rather than the Enterprise; either that or Starfleet is now sponsored by Adobe and running Vista with all the Aero goodies on full. A moment with nothing exploding, being shot at, being hit, punching, running, flying seems to be a moment wasted in the filmmaker's opinion, so the film doesn't have many of those at all.

 Click here for the complete text.

So I'm watching the Bruins-Canadiens playoff series and I'm much gratified to see the latest incarnation of the Big, Bad Bruins having their way with (so far) the Bleu-Blanc-Rouge, even up in Montreal. Pushing Montreal to a game 7 last year was a great effort but there's been tremendous progress this year, with the two teams reversing their positions; Boston now first in the East and favored to win over the eighth-seeded Habs.

A lot of columnists have, of course, dug out the history books to talk about this storied rivalry; how the two teams have met more in the NHL playoffs than any two other franchises (32 times including this year) and how in the 31 series to date, Montreal holds a commanding lead (24 to 7 all-time) and how Montreal won the last three in a row (2002, 2004 and 2008) even though last year's was by the skin of their teeth in a series that nobody expected to go to seven games against a Boston team that was not quite as deep or as talented as this year's club.

However, what few writers seem to have pointed out is exactly how much of those stastics are ancient history, from a time when none of today's players or coaches were even alive, when the equipment, the players, the buildings, and the game were all substantially different. Compare videos of today's game to footage from Boston's last two Cups in the early 70s and you'll see what I mean; it's the same game only in name and in the grossest possible sense.

So let's look at those historical results courtesy of Wikipedia.

Boston won the first series back in 1928-29 but Montreal won 20 of the next 21, 14 in a row, to compile a 20-2 record from then up until 1987. Of those meetings, seven of those were before divisional realignment and were actually Stanley Cup Final games. So while Montreal certainly had an edge in those days, there is little to be ashamed about in being the second best team. It may not be enough, it may not be something to brag about, but certainly the gap between winner and runner-up is not the same thing as the gap between winner and DNQ.

However, this is all ancient history. 1987 was 22 years ago. For a fair comparison of the two franchises in the playoffs, let's just look at the last 20 years, in which the teams met ten times (including this year) of which Boston has won five series (1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1994) while Montreal won four (1989, 2002, 2004, and 2008's 7-game squeaker).

If the B's go on to win one game in the next four chances, they'll take a 6-4 edge in the series' last ten meetings.

What ghosts?

I'm not sure how dead you can say something is when it was never really alive and is most likely just fraud, but let's give it a try.

This is the claim for OnLive's technology that is supposed to let you play AAA game titles without an expensive computer as long as you have a fast Internet connection:

Latency through the algorithm is just 1-ms instead of the 0.5- to 0.75-second lag inherent in conventional compression algorithms used in corporate video conferencing solutions, for example.

Now, let's ignore the overlap between people with expensive computers and people with very fast Internet connections. Obviously this business only has an audience if those two don't overlap too much, as ideally you want people with very fast Internet (5Mbps or so) but either don't have PCs capable of playing new games or simply don't want to invest in upgrading CPUs and GPUs as needed to keep up with new game releases.

So, for that to be an attractive proposal, the subscription fee would have to be less than what those upgrades would cost over a similar time frame. If you don't want to be cutting edge, but want to stay current, you could easily do so buying one new video card a year and paying about $200 for it. So that amount, plus the cost of however many games you'd be playing, has to be more than a year's subscription. So that proposition largely comes down to how many games will be available on the service, compared to how many games people plan on buying (or, rather, people's perceptions of how many games they are willing to buy, compared to how many they are prepared to give up-- presumably the service will offer a subset of all available games).

So the more games you'd be willing to buy in a year at $60 a pop-- three, four, or more-- it starts to look a bit better. Except you don't own those games; like subscription-based music and movie services, once you stop paying the fee, you lose everything and you've nothing to show for what you've spent so far except your memories.

 Click here for the complete text.