Hello, Guest! Please sign in or sign up:
And speaking of my coverage of 4G networks, if you are trying to decide which network to go with, you may find my aforementioned article helpful in choosing which sort of 4G is right for you.
Lance Whitney reports:
Looking at the overall search engine market from May 2010 to May 2011, Compete found that Google has lost close to 16 percent of its share, dropping to 63.6 percent from 73.9 percent. At the same time, Microsoft grew its share by 75 percent, jumping to 17 percent from 9.7 percent.
The other three search engines tracked—Yahoo, Ask, and AOL—grew only slighty over the past year, showing that most of Bing's gain has been at the expense of Google.
Not surprising. After Google unceremoniously (and for reasons Google refused to confirm or verify) terminated OFB's advertising account and walked off with unpaid ad revenues they owed us, I decided to switch to Bing. Much to my surprise, it turns out Bing has some nifty bells and whistles I've come to really like.
What is really notable, though, is that Google is the only major search engine to lose market share year over year. Inexplicably, also-rans Ask.com and AOL made small gains. Something is afoot.
The thing that makes Apple different is the sort of details Apple pays attention to. Amidst the headlining features Cupertino unveiled this week, they added an option in the iTunes sharing preference tab to keep play counts updated between devices synchronized by iTunes Home Sharing. Finally — this is something I've wanted to see for years.
I've been testing Accordance's iPhone and iPad app since it first appeared at the end of 2010. With the advent of synchronization with the desktop version of the software, anyone looking for serious Bible software for iOS devices really should download a free copy.
Having Calvin's commentaries, Keil and Delitzsch, NIBC, Word Biblical Commentary and (for quick reference) the ESV Study Bible all available on a device the size of the iPad is pretty amazing. As much as I still love real, paper books, Accordance for iPad really makes it easy to use these resources all the more, since they are now always with me.
There is a lot of chatter today about “Mac Defender,” a trojan horse pretending to be anti-malware software for the Mac. Gruber summarizes the situation well:
Trojans aren't a new problem on Mac OS X — trick a user into installing an app with admin privileges and the game's over. Mac Defender isn't an indication that Mac users need anti-malware software — in fact, the reason it appears to be succeeding is that it preys on uninformed users' belief that they might need anti-malware software.
The software does not appear to be making use of any exploits, but rather works by convincing people that they need the program and then getting them to give it legitimate access to the computer. Ultimately, even the most impenetrable security system will fail if the users of that system can be convinced to open the front door and allow something malicious in. Remember the original Trojan Horse?
Moral of the story: beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Don't take installing software that requires giving your administrative password lightly. This is a matter of social engineering (much like Facebook phishing scams) and not a symptom of any flaw in Mac OS X. If you feel uncomfortable making that sort of judgment about security yourself, let Apple do the work for you by using the Mac App Store to download software.
Over on Engadget, Vlad Savov writes:
Dump the X10s and 2Xs from the portfolio of real Android devices — and Google can do that by denying them access to its non-open source products like Gmail, Maps, and the all-important Android Market — and give us some respite from having to worry if the next Android will be a rampant robot or a dithering dud. Custom skins can still live on, but it's high time Google lived up to its responsibility of ensuring they're up to scratch before associating its mobile brand with their final product. Such a move may dent the company's valuable reputation as a do-gooder, but if it helps the even more valuable Android OS keep its course toward world domination, surely it'd qualify to be called a good thing in and of itself?
I think Savov's only mistake is that such a move would necessarily dent Google's reputation. Early on, Google basically promised just such a tact: for phones to receive the full “Google Experience” of Maps, Market, etc., they had to meet certain standards. That was reasonable: the base OS was truly Free Software, but Google did not need to worry about tarnishing its name with “Google phones” that were garbage. Somewhere along the line, however, Google lost its resolve and we ended up with such unfortunate choices as otherwise excellent Galaxy S phones held back by buggy Bing apps in lieu of Google's suite.
Refusing to provide the proprietary bits of Android for substandard phones strikes me as a much better solution than Google's new choice of holding back the core, allegedly Open Source system from everyone. Google now looks like it is playing a bait-and-switch game; if it went back to its original policy, it could instead relate its actions to similar, generally accepted tactics of restrictions on trademarks and binaries used by Free Software giants such as Red Hat and Mozilla.
Microsoft ran browser benchmarks with a very interesting idea: testing the impact on battery life:
Browsers play a significant and important role in overall power consumption. The more efficiently a browser uses power the longer the battery will last in a mobile device, the lower the electricity costs, and the smaller the environment impact.
No doubt the fact that IE does so well is unsurprising given that Microsoft ran the tests, but the post is still worth taking note of for its insights into the other major browsers and for introducing the concept itself, which seems like a reasonable test in an increasingly mobile computing world.
Somehow the Firefox 4 launch feels less significant than the Firefox 3 one. Not only have fewer people downloaded it so far (by about half — four million so far), but WebKit browsers have managed to wrest away much of Firefox's mindshare. If I want an innovative browser today, I look to the latest Safari and Chrome, not to Firefox.
Nevertheless, while Safari is my browser of choice, Firefox remains my personal recommendation for a browser for Windows users. I have not yet been sold on Safari for Windows and I think Chrome's user interface is still less than ideal. What I like about Firefox 4 is that it gives me something to recommend to my clients that keeps that familiar, friendly user interface without compromise.
That's a good thing.
Andrew Robinson on the “plus sides” of AT&T U-verse:
On the plus side, I watch a lot less TV, spend less time on the phone and am forced to take breaks from my various online duties from time to time, so it's not all bad I suppose. Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, maybe it's not that AT&T U-verse is the entertainment equivalent of swine flu; maybe it's that AT&T wants to make sure its customers have time for their other hobbies like reading or enjoying a real sunset instead of watching one on Sunrise Earth on Discovery HD.
I missed this review when it was published last year and it has a few technical errors in it, but it gets to my long time thesis: cable is not worse than the alternatives. Cable just has worse PR.
Verizon has loaned me a Motorola Xoom to review. So far, Honeycomb is a massive improvement over Samsung's tweaked Android 2.x that is used on the Galaxy Tab. As I work through testing, the big question will be this: does the Xoom offer anything compelling that is not offered on the iPad?
The jury is still out.
