Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘iphone’

Article from GigaOm.

Whatever the final tally is, one thing is for sure — Amazon’s Kindle Fire is a legitimate platform and will be driving app downloads for the tablet based on a modified version of Android OS. Today, Read It Later (a service that is like TiVo for web content that I recently profiled) came out and said their downloads are getting Fire-d up.

A lot of happy people unwrapped new gadgets this holiday: Device registrations for Read It Later jumped 148 percent from November to December—a bounce for all the devices and platforms we support, including the iPhone and iPadAndroidKindle Fire and Firefox extension.

This holiday it was the Kindle Fire—12.5% of all devices registered on Christmas day and an impressive 17% of new users on the day after Christmas were from the new Amazon device. As you can see below, the Kindle Fire is still quite a bit smaller than our Android and iPhone/iPad audiences (it’s also the only platform with no free version yet).

While some have claimed that Android users aren’t interested in paid or premium apps, 45% of Read It Later’s Pro users during the holidays came from Android, and 19% came from the Kindle Fire.

Those are some substantial gains for a new tablet that came to market just a few months ago. Nate Weiner, CEO and founder of Read It Later, tells me that “the Fire had a huge presence in our holiday numbers (almost on par with the iPad).” His findings are in keeping with early results from other developers, as my colleague Ryan Kim reported earlier.

It is clear that Kindle Fire will be a presence in the tablet landscape. Only yesterday I was saying that app developers with limited resources need to support two flavors of Android – Samsung’s version and Amazon’s version. The early data from Read It Later only reinforces that.

Read orginial post here.

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOm.

Mobility has changed the chip industry already, but the rise of the iPhone and devices such as e-readers are only the beginning. If we’re going to create an Internet of things that connects back to a cloud powered by millions of servers, the chip world will have to change drastically to reduce power consumption, shrink in size and embrace new architectures. Fortunately these things are already happening, and here are three startups that showcase the big upcoming shifts.

SuVolta

SuVolta doesn’t want to design chips, it wants to make the process that fabrication plants will use to build the devices. Its technology cuts the energy used in chips in half, and requires a fairly simple tweak of the chemicals layered onto the chip during the manufacturing process. The resulting chips made using SuVolta’s process are just as fast but consume about half the power.

This power reduction is cool, but it’s not the main reason why SuVolta’s on this list. SuVolta tweaks both the manufacturing process and the circuit design. But the process works best for systems on a chip, as opposed to stand alone processors. A System on a chip (SoC) is when multiple types of processors are placed on a single chip as an integrated package.

SoCs are common in the mobile world because they are a way to cram more functionality into a smaller package and they consume less power. SuVolta’s President and CEO Bruce McWilliams, believes SoCs will be the way of the future for how most chips are built.

Ambiq Micro

Ambiq is commercializing technology out of the University of Michigan to build a real-time clock designed for sensors. The clock consumes less power, but also takes over functions that currently involve other chips in order to reduce the power usage of the sensor even further (yup, it’s like an SoC microcontroller). Scott Hanson, the CEO and co-founder of Ambiq explains that today’s sensors usually contain a microcontroller, a clock that puts the chip to sleep and wakes it as necessary, a power supply, a sensor of some sort (typically a MEMs device) and a radio.

But Ambiq combines the clock and the microcontroller so the chip requires less power and takes up less space. Some proposed uses of the chip include implanting it inside the human body, or a chip that can run on tiny solar cells the size of a penny (see image).

As we put more sensors on devices and inside our infrastructure, Hansen believes we’re about to open up a new frontier for chip design firms who can build chips for the sensor web. Ambiq is his bet on this, but he expects many more. With an investment from ARM, he’s not the only one betting on a new generation of chips that will need specialized microcontroller and a smaller size, the British licensing company clearly sees an opportunity as well.

Adapteva

The demand for power in mobile devices and in the servers that power large web sites such as Facebook or Google has led to a boost for ARM, which licenses a chip architecture that trades performance speed for power efficiency. For phones this is fine, but for tablets and even servers, it may be time to think up an entirely new architecture. That’s where Adapteva comes in. The company has rethought a RISC-based architecture for chips and built massively multicore chips that are built to run in parallel or independently.

Much like an older startup called Tilera, which is also building massively multicore chips for data centers, Adapteva thinks that x86 doesn’t offer the energy efficiency needed, while ARM doesn’t offer the performance that next generation mobile devices such as tablets and servers will need. So it’s borrowing the concept of massively multicore chips from the high performance computing world and dialing it down for tomorrow’s mobile applications and up for the next generation of HPC. In the coming years, we’ll see more massively parallel chips, but we’ll also see a willingness to jettison the tried and true architectures as we embrace more specialty computing.

Read original post here.

Read Full Post »

By Ben Kunz

A bold, new Apple TV set would replace today’s cable systems, game consoles, and 3D goggles—and launch a war with cable providers.

Get ready, America, because by Christmas 2012 you will have an Apple TV in your living room. I don’t mean the cute little box now called “Apple TV” that plugs into your set to stream Netflix (NFLX), but the real deal—a flat-panel Apple (AAPL) television set tied to the company’s online ecosystem and designed as only Apple can do it.

There’s a $14 billion rationale for this prediction but first, let’s explore the rumors. This summer Piper Jaffray (PJC) analyst Gene Munster dug through component suppliers and found evidence that Apple is gearing up to produce a real TV set by late 2012. Venture capitalist Stewart Alsop, a former board member at TiVo (TIVO), has published rumors that Apple has a television coming. And Steve Jobs himself hinted last year that Apple might build a real television unit.

“The television industry … pretty much undermines innovation in the sector,” Jobs said at the All Things Digital Conference in July 2010. “The only way this is going to change is if you start from scratch, tear up the box, redesign, and get it to the consumer in a way that they want to buy it.”
Jobs’s quote is good advice for his successor as chief executive officer, Tim Cook, who needs a hit. The TV industry is changing more than at any time in the past 50 years, and billions of dollars are going into play for the winners. As Apple crests in the phone and tablet markets, its investors will want a new frontier.

TV is the future because it remains king of all media. While handsets get hyped, the typical U.S. consumer watches 5 hours and 9 minutes of TV a day, according to Nielsen (NLSN), and even younger adults 18 to 24 years old—the supposed digital generation—view 3 hours and 30 minutes on televisions daily, vs. only 49 minutes on the Web and 20 minutes on mobile. We all love to lean back. With so much of the consumer’s time, TV has become bloated with waste. The average U.S. home receives 130 cable channels but “tunes to”—or punches in the exact channel number on the remote—just 18 channels a year. Channel surfing has died. A whopping 86% of available channels are never used by an individual viewer.
Lots of Disenchanted TV Subscribers

Consumers pay a lot for all this video waste and they don’t like it. The average cable bill is $75 per month, which means that each year 83 million households pay $74 billion to the top eight TV-subscription services. This is why so-called “cord cutting,” by which consumers drop cable to watch videos on Roku, Hulu, or the Xbox 360 from Microsoft is (MSFT) accelerating; Comcast (CMCSA), the leading U.S. cable system, lost 238,000 subscribers in the second quarter. If Apple were to offer a better service, people might pay up for it.

A second lure for Apple is TV advertising. Unlike U.S. mobile-ad spending, which EMarketer says will barely break $1 billion in 2010 despite years of hype, the TV ad spend in the U.S. totaled $70 billion in 2010 and is forecast by Forrester Research (FORR) to reach $84 billion by 2015. If Apple could gain just 10% of the $74 billion in current video subscription fees and $70 billion in television ad media, it would take in more than $14 billion in additional annual, recurring revenue.

Apple faces plenty of hurdles. For one thing, TV sets are an infrequent purchase. Apple likes to sell products with built-in obsolescence that you “need” to replace every 18 months—iPhone 5, anyone?—and a flashy TV set doesn’t call for an aluminum upgrade next year. Apple also has struggled to get content providers to embrace its current Apple TV box. In August, Apple stopped renting TV shows for 99¢ on the gadget, claiming that consumers overwhelmingly prefer to buy TV shows. But it could be that Apple’s media partners considered 99¢ far too cheap. With billions of dollars at stake, media producers and cable giants will fiercely defend their video-distribution modes.

Apple noted this risk in its 2010 annual report, in which it said it “relies on third party digital content, which may not be available to the Company on commercially reasonable terms or at all.” Bear in mind that the record labels were losing to digital pirates when Apple’s iTunes came along to save them; the video giants have no similar motive to play along now.

TV as Bold as the IPhone

That’s not an insurmountable obstacle. Apple has some $76 billion in cash and a history of entering unexpected partnerships. AT&T (T) and Verizon helping to sell iPhones? Who’d have thought? The biggest fight may be with new video competitors that are emerging everywhere. Netflix has embedded itself in scores of hardware devices, including TV sets and the Wii from Sony (SNE). Google (GOOG) also has a TV service and its acquisition of Motorola shows that it also wants to own related hardware devices. To win the living room, Apple will need an innovation comparable to that of its iPhone—something that changes TV sets in a fundamental way.

What about 3D? In 2010, Apple won a patent for a revolutionary new 3D screen system that would not require glasses and could be viewed by multiple people at the same time. The patent went so far as to slam current 3D systems, noting that most people dislike goggles and dismissing current non-glasses systems as “essentially unworkable for projecting a 3D image … to an entire audience.”

What solution did Apple propose? An “unobstructed 3D viewing device” that would give each viewer a different line of sight for both left and right eye, perfecting a stereoscopic image for a group of viewers watching one giant screen. The Apple patent even had a cool name for the result: a hologram. Could Apple put holograms in every home, break the stranglehold of cable companies, and unlock a $14 billion TV revenue stream? It’s an audacious and perhaps crazy idea.

Tim Cook, I like the way you think.”

Ben Kunz is director of strategic planning at Mediassociates, a media planning and Internet strategy firm. He is author of the advertising strategy blog ThoughtGadgets.com.

 

Read Full Post »

Article from SFGate.

Steve Jobs, Apple’s iconic co-founder and the visionary behind many of its best-selling products, resigned as CEO on Wednesday, saying he could no longer fulfill his duties.

Jobs, who underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2004 and had a liver transplant in 2009, has been on medical leave from Apple since January. His resignation raised new fears that his health may have worsened.

“I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know,” Jobs, 56, wrote in a letter to Apple’s board. “Unfortunately, that day has come.”

After Jobs submitted his resignation, Apple’s directors elected him to the board and made him chairman. Tim Cook, the company’s chief operating officer and its interim leader since January, was named CEO.

As evidence of Jobs’ perceived value to the company, Apple stock dropped 5 percent in after-hours trading, to $357.10.

Founded in 1976 in Cupertino by Jobs and Steve Wozniak, Apple helped spur the rise of personal computing with its Apple II and Macintosh computers. After being ousted from the company in 1985, Jobs returned to a near-bankrupt Apple in 1997 and spearheaded the creation of blockbuster devices like the iPod, iPhone and iPad.

Pop culture figure

Along the way, Jobs became a figure in popular culture, sought after for his insights into consumer desires and a marketing savvy that made him an unofficial evangelist of the digital age. A noted perfectionist, he is credited with having an impeccable sense of design, leading to products that have inspired devotion among users and generated hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue for the company.

As a result, Apple has become the rare company to successfully reinvent itself multiple times. Roughly two-thirds of the company’s profits now come from devices that didn’t exist five years ago. This summer, for the first time, Apple briefly surpassed Exxon Mobil to become the world’s most valuable company. It is currently No. 2.

“Steve Jobs is the greatest leader our industry has ever known,” said Salesforce.com founder Marc Benioff, who worked under Jobs at Apple, in an e-mail. “It’s the end of an era.”

Analysts said that few changes in Apple’s business will be evident right away.

“The actual product road map that Steve has already approved goes through 2015,” said Tim Bajarin, president of research firm Creative Strategies, who has followed Apple for 30 years. “In the short term, it should mean nothing. Even though Steve is critical for a lot of the vision, let’s keep in mind that he’s still alive and still chairman. He can still influence vision.”

During his most recent medical leave, Jobs has continued to make appearances at Apple events. In March he took the stage at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts to unveil the iPad 2, and in June he appeared at Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference at Moscone Center to announce the coming iCloud service.

“In his new role as chairman of the board, Steve will continue to serve Apple with his unique insights, creativity and inspiration,” said Apple board member Art Levinson, chairman of Genentech, in a statement.

Long-term prospects

Still, questions linger about Apple’s long-term success. Sachin Agarwal, who worked at Apple as a developer for video-editing software Final Cut Pro from 2002 to 2008, said one of Jobs’ greatest assets was his willingness to say no – to delay or even abandon products that failed to meet his exacting standards.

Agarwal, who has since created the blogging and publishing platform Posterous, said friends at Apple have expressed concerns about the company’s future.

“I just don’t think anyone else in the company has shown, at least outwardly, that level of pushback and that quality standard,” he said, referring to Jobs. “I’m chatting with my Apple friends and there’s a lot of thought about it right now: ‘What do we do with our stock? What’s the company going to look like?’ ”

The attention now shifts to Cook, 50, who joined Apple in 1998. The Alabama native, who had previously worked at Compaq, quickly gained a reputation for being an operational genius – ensuring that the company made only as many products as it could sell, which made its supply chain the envy of the industry.

“The board has complete confidence that Tim is the right person to be our next CEO,” Levinson said. “Tim’s 13 years of service to Apple have been marked by outstanding performance, and he has demonstrated remarkable talent and sound judgment in everything he does.”

Jobs also struck an optimistic note.

“I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it,” he wrote in his letter to the board. “And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role.”

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Article from GigaOM.

Android has been outselling the iPhone recently but Apple’s iPhone was still the most desired smartphone in the U.S., according to the Nielsen Co. Not anymore. Nielsen said 31.1 percent of respondents in March said they want their next smartphone to be an Android device, while 30 percent said they wanted an iPhone. Nielsen said consumers planning on buying an Android in the next year increased from 25.5 percent in July to September while people planning on buying an iPhone slipped from 32.7 percent during the same period. That’s not terribly surprising considering the growing momentum behind Android. But it shows that Android’s appeal is continuing to grow even despite the broader availability of the iPhone on Verizon .

Before, Android’s rise could have been chalked up to the fact that iPhone was limited to just one carrier. But it’s increasingly showing that it is attractive by itself, not just as a more accessible alternative to the iPhone. The iPhone is still limited in distribution and opening up availability to Sprint and T-Mobile could shift things somewhat. But at this point, it seems like Android appeal is rock solid while the iPhone is cooling off somewhat with consumers. The smartphone race looks more and more like a two-horse competition, according to Nielsen. Only 10.5 percent of consumers said they planned on buying a BlackBerry device, down from 12.6 percent in July through September. Interest in Windows devices also slipped from 6.8 percent last year to 6.4 percent this year, even with the launch of Windows Phone 7 in November. Android continues to rule the smartphone marketshare battle with 37 percent, compared to 27 percent for the iPhone and 22 percent for BlackBerry.

Recent statistics show how much momentum is behind Android. Fifty percent of people who purchased a smartphone in the past six months said they had chosen an Android device while 25 percent said they had bought an iPhone and 15 percent said they got a BlackBerry device. Now Apple is still sucking down the biggest profits, and has become the largest phone vendor by revenue. And it still has a lead when you consider all iOS devices compared to Android. But Android’s momentum, especially in smartphones, is just getting stronger. If it can replicate that success in tablets, it won’t be long before it has a greater overall ecosystem reach soon.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »