MobileMe gets new leadership, Jobs admits Apple made a big mistake

Apple's MobileMe service has proven to be a horror It's been a curious thing to watch: Apple makes mistakes all the time, but they are usually small mistakes, easily swept aside in the tide of their own user's enthusiasm. But MobileMe wasn't just a cool service with some flaws: it ripped itself out of Apple's usually fertile loins like some Belial-esque monstrosity and immediately went for the throat of those who had expected to love it most.

The good news is that Steve Jobs is pissed. In an internal email to Apple employees yesterday evening, Jobs admitted that MobileMe was "not up to Apple's standards" and should have been rolled out in small chunks rather than as a "monolithic service."

"It was a mistake to launch MobileMe at the same time as iPhone 3G, iPhone 2.0 software and the App Store," Jobs said. "We all had more than enough to do, and MobileMe could have been delayed without consequence." No kidding.

The bad news: Apple still doesn't think MobileMe is up to snuff. Jobs says that Apple will "press on to make it a service we are all proud of by the end of this year." Pessimistically, that means beleaguered MobileMe users could have four months of teeth gritting ahead of them.

It also looks like the MobileMe team has been reorganized. The group will now report to iTunes honcho Eddy Cue, who also heads up the Apple Store. Cue will report directly to Jobs. There's no word on what happened to MobileMe's previous department head: fired out of a cannon into an industrial shredder is my bet.

Steve Jobs: MobileMe "not up to Apple standards" [Ars Technica]

Cablevision Remote DVR Doesn't Infringe; Decision Shows How New Tech Twists Copyright

Article from Techdirt by Mike Masnick.

As TiVo and other DVRs became increasingly popular, various cable companies realized it probably made sense to offer similar features themselves. While some started selling home DVRs, a few realized that perhaps they could short-circuit around this by offering a remote, centrally-managed DVR instead. Time Warner was one of the first to announce such a project -- but almost immediately, the other half of Time Warner (the content guys) freaked out, and Time Warner's eventual offering was neutered of any really useful feature.

Basically, the various broadcasters are still freaked out about the idea of time shifting and commercial skipping -- even though both are perfectly legal. However, that won't stop them from doing whatever possible to stop such innovations from coming to market. So, two years ago, when Cablevision also decided to create its own remote DVR solution, various TV networks sued to stop it. Even though the actual offering was almost entirely identical to a perfectly legal TiVo, a district court ruled that Cablevision's remote DVR system infringed copyrights. This, by the way, highlighted how the entertainment industry lied when it insisted it would never use copyright law to stop a new consumer electronics offering from coming to market.

The good news, today, however, is that an appeals court has reversed the decision and sent it back to the lower court -- effectively pointing out that if using a DVR at home is legal, it's difficult to see how using a DVR that is based at your cable provider is any less legal. However, if you read the full ruling, you'll get a sense of just how ridiculous copyright law has become today, and how it is not at all equipped to handle modern technology:

As you read through that decision, you'll certainly see the points that Rasmus Fleischer highlighted earlier this year, when he pointed out how silly it was to distinguish between where something is stored, and whether it's accessed locally or remotely. However, copyright law is simply not set up at all to handle this simple fact, and tries to make silly distinctions between where copies are made, how stuff is transmitted and what counts as a performance and what doesn't. That leads to all sorts of twisted logic, which resulted in the initial ruling -- and the order overturning it and sending it back to the lower court (while the right decision) is equally twisted in spots. Basically, if there's anything to get out of this ruling, it's that copyright law is simply not equipped to handle the internet.

Stealth Destroyer Largely Defenseless, Admiral Says

Article courtesy of Wired's Danger Room blog.


Two weeks ago, the Navy canceled plans to build the rest of its hulking stealth destroyers. At first, it looked like the DDG-1000s' $5-billion-a-copy price tag to blame. Now, it appears the real reason has slipped out: The Navy's most advanced warship is all but defenseless against one of its most common threats.

We already knew that the older, cheaper, Burke-class destroyers (pictured) are better able to fight off anti-ship missiles -- widely considered the most deadly (and most obvious) hazard to the American fleet. Specifically, the old Burkes can shoot down those missiles using special SM-3 interceptors; the new DDG-1000 cannot.

But now, a leading figure in the Navy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (and Vice Admiral) Barry McCullough, is saying that the DDG-1000 "cannot perform area air defense" at all. Never mind the SM-3; the ship isn't designed to fire any kind of long-range air-defense missile, whatsoever. It's presumably limited to the same last-ditch "point defense" systems (Phalanx guns and short-range missiles) that cargo ships, aircraft carriers and even Coast Guard cutters carry in case a missile slips past their screening Burkes. Those point defenses can't intercept ballistic missiles at all -- and when they destroy sea-skimming missiles, the debris can still strike and severely damage the ship.

In other words, the world's most expensive surface warship can't properly defend itself or other ships from an extremely widespread threat. That, needless to say, is a problem. Not only is the DDG-1000 vulnerable to the ballistic anti-ship missiles that countries such as China are developing, it wouldn't even be particularly effective against common weapons in the arsenals of everyone from Russia to Iran. And it's not like this was some kind of new threat; these missiles have been around, in one form or another, since World War II.

If that wasn't bad enough, the Navy has been saying all along that the DDG-1000 can fire at least some of Raytheon's missile-killing Standard Missiles. In other words, according to the inestimable Galrahn over at Information Dissemination, "the Navy has been delivering a lunchbag of bullshit to Congress regarding surface combatants for three years."

In a 2005 presentation, for instance, the Navy claimed the ship would have a "3X survivability rate" against anti-ship missiles and other threats. The service asserted that the destroyer's new SPY-3 radar would give it a "15X greater detection capability against sea-skimming targets," a "10X increase in maximum track capacity," and a "20% greater firm track range against all anti-ship cruise missiles (improves survivability)." Of course, the fanciest radar in the world doesn't do much good, if there's no way to respond to the threat.

A Navy source tells Defense News that the new destroyers "could carry and launch Standard missiles, but the DDG 1000 combat system cant guide those missiles onward to a target."

And that's not the only flim-flam going on here. For years, the Navy insisted that the DDG-1000 was absolutely crucial, because it could whack targets on land, from far-off at sea. It always seemed like an odd argument; could planes hit those targets just as effectively? But the Navy stuck to it -- repeatedly. Now: Never mind. "With the accelerated advancement of precision munitions and targeting, excess fires capacity already exists from tactical aviation," Adm. McCullough says. Tell us something we didn't already know.

Arsenal_72_2There may be additional threats, as well. Defense News is reporting that the Navy has announced that there's a new "classified threat" against which older Burke-class destroyers are better defended.

One source familiar with the classified briefing said that while anti-ship cruise missiles and other threats were known to exist,those aren't the worst.The new threat, which­ didn't exist a couple years ago,is a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile. Other sources confirmed that a new, classified missile threat is being briefed at very high levels. One admiral, said another source, was told his ships should simply ­stay away. There are no options. Information on the new threat remains closely held.

In light of this, Galrahn says, the DDG-1000 is little more than a renamed, gold-plated version of a shipbuilding scheme that seemingly died more than a decade ago. That would be the 1990s "Arsenal Ship" concept (pictured), which would have put hundreds of land-attack missiles in a simple, cheap, mostly defenseless hull -- perhaps based on a cargo ship. The Arsenal Ship idea eventually was replaced by the Navy's four new SSGN submarines that each carry more than 100 cruise missiles and don't need anti-air missiles, since they can submerge.

"The Navy has not only kept the Arsenal Ship concept alive and well, but they evolved the program from 6 small dependent combatants into a class of 7 independent stealth battleships, then had the program funded and pushed through Congress in plain sight under the pretext of a more capable program," Galrahn writes.

That's insider-speak for a simple truth: The Navy screwed up its premiere ship-building project, big time.

-- David Axe and Noah Shachtman

Intel discusse Larrabee, a possible ATI and Nvidia killer, launching as early as 2009

While Intel's Larrabee might not be a household name for consumers just yet, it's certainly at the table where Nvidia and AMD/ATI eat. The many-core (8 to 48, at least, according to that Intel graphic) x86 chip runs all your existing apps while tossing in support for OpenGL and DirectX thus eliminating the need for a discrete graphics chip. At least that's the plan. While the exact number of cores remains a secret as does the performance of each core compared to current GPUs, given the importance Intel places on Larrabee, it's reasonable to assume that an 8-core chip will launch in 2009 or 2010 with comparable performance to GPUs on the market at that time. Intel does say that Larrabee cores will scale "almost linearly" (read: within 10%) in games; that means that a 16-core chip will offer nearly twice the performance of an 8-core chip, 32-cores twice that of 16, and so on. Apparently this has already been proven in-house with Intel name-dropping Larrabee-coded titles such as Gears of War, FEAR, and Half-Life 2, Episode 2. It's no coincidence then to hear that Intel's first Larrabee product will target PC gamers. Click through if you're just dying to read about Larrabee's 1024 bits-wide bi-directional ring network and other bits of technical wonderment sure to create at least the hint of a silicon malaise.

News via CNET and Washington Post

Rob Enderle does not know the meaning of surrender. Or disclosure.

It’s no secret that I'm not a big fan of “analyst” Rob Enderle, but to me, this takes the cake. In his latest “column” on TechNewsWorld, among discussions of Steve Jobs’s health, Enderle also talks up Dell’s plans to launch a digital music player and download service, which we discussed last week—and, as you might remember, a project that Enderle himself is a consultant on.

Here are a couple of excerpts from Enderle’s piece:

The Wall Street Journal got wind of a secret project at Dell to possibly take the music lead away from Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL), but not necessarily the device lead, making it kind of interesting.

[…]

What Dell (Nasdaq: DELL) believes, and I agree, is that folks don’t want to spend lots of time managing music — they just want to listen to it. The fact that few refresh the music on their iPods is a clear indicator that there is untapped potential here, even with iPod owners.

[…]

It has to provide more choices among better services — while containing complexity and creating a great user experience — to be successful. It can be done; we’ll know in a few months whether Dell can do it. I’m not sure I’d bet against Michael Dell.


Yet, nowhere in the article does Enderle mention that he has been hired by Dell to consult on the project. Classy. Or—to put it another way—of questionable ethics.

Is Enderle bound by journalistic ethics? Technically, he’s an analyst, not a journalist, but given that he’s writing a column on a site where it will be disseminated alongside news content, it seems at the very least awkward that he not mention his involvement in this project.

Just another tickmark in the questions column for: why the heck would anybody hire this guy?

FCC Says BitTorrent Throttling Illegal, EFF Releases Tool for You To Test Your ISP For It

Reposted from Read Write Web.

The Federal Communications Commission ruled this morning by a 3 to 2 vote that Comcast's arbitrary throttling of customers' use of BitTorrent was illegal. Hours before the ruling, the Electronic Frontier Foundation released software that anyone can use to see if their Internet Service Provider (ISP) is engaging in the same or similar behavior.

BitTorrent accounts for a substantial percentage of traffic on the internet and some people believe it causes unfair slowdowns for web users doing anything else online. Many other people argue that ISPs have an obligation to treat all internet traffic equally regardless of content. This is a key battle in the Network Neutrality debate.
Enforcement Against Comcast
Comcast voluntarily stopped throttling in March, but today's FCC decision is important FCC Chair Kevin Martin says so that "consumers deserve to know that the commitment is backed up by legal enforcement." Martin, a Republican, is believed by some to be taking an out-of-charecter populist stance on the matter because he's preparing to run for a position in the US House of Representatives.
EFF Releases "Switzerland"
The Electronic Frontier Foundation today released software called "Switzerland" (as in, the neutral country) that can be used by consumers to test our networks for ISP interference.

The EFF explains:

"Switzerland is an open source, command-line software tool designed to detect the modification or injection of packets of data by ISPs. Switzerland detects changes made by software tools believed to be in use by ISPs such as Sandvine and AudibleMagic, advertising systems like FairEagle, and various censorship systems. Although currently intended for use by technically sophisticated Internet users, development plans aim to make the tool increasingly easy to use."

We'll keep our eyes peeled for a version of the tool that doesn't require using the command line, though every network in the land can now assume that it has users tech-savvy enough to be monitoring its behavior.

This quote from the EFF release puts things into context:

"The sad truth is that the FCC is ill-equipped to detect ISPs interfering with your Internet connection," said Fred von Lohmann, EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney. "It's up to concerned Internet users to investigate possible network neutrality violations, and EFF's Switzerland software is designed to help with that effort. Comcast isn't the first, and certainly won't be the last, ISP to meddle surreptitiously with its subscribers' Internet communications for its own benefit."

What Do You Think?
The FCC's ruling was narrowly decided, through a 3 to 2 vote. Do you think ISPs have a legitimate interest in favoring some web traffic over others? On one hand, a future where big players get preferential treatment could cause a major slowdown in innovation. Startups and unknown application providers could be prevented from leveraging maximum bandwidth to offer new types of services to consumers. The most common example given is that YouTube may have struggled to make online video so common if they were discriminated against in their earliest days.

On the other hand, people downloading long lists of huge media files over common networks could be seen as an onerous drain on the "bandwidth commons." Slowing down an entire neighborhood's web use because you want to get the entire archives of some TV show is arguably pretty anti-social behavior.

We'd love to get our readers' thoughts on these questions - and for those of you able to put Switzerland to use, let us know if your ISP appears to be doing the same kinds of shady things that Comcast was slapped for today. These are going to be very big issues for the near-term future of the web.

Reposted from Read Write Web.

Update: Loopt Responds To Privacy Concerns (Kinda)

Yesterday I made a post about how the new iPhone application, Loopt, was causing a lot of angst amongst some top bloggers, and people I admire, about their completely idiotic way in which they handle user invites. The main issue dealt with privacy concerns stemming people getting invites from people they didn't know - people who they hadn't given their phone number out to. The invites were sent, unsolicited, via SMS (a big no-no). Loopt has responded on their company blog, first making a small post that seemed to brush off the concerns without addressing the actual question. Later, when the uproar of complaints grew louder & more numerous, they attempted to quell the anger in more depth. iJustine's intitial post about the problem has now made Techmeme, which should accelerate awareness. This seems to be working already as InfoWeek has just written an article chronicaling the details of the problem.

Loopt SMS Invite Violate User Privacy

As many of you may or may not not no, Loopt the social networking "service" stalks your location wherever you go, and broadcasts it to your friends, but beware of the "invite friends" screen. Apparently a "bug" (yeah right) causes you to invite everyone through SMS spam, and there's no way to unsubscribe either.

Notable bloggers such as iJustine, Merlin Mann, & Veronica Belmont have been affected.

This is what Merlin posted on his tumblr:



The Loopt SMS Mess


[previously, on Kung Fu Grippe]

I have a post underway for 43 Folders on this Loopt.com SMS invite mess. I’m letting the post season for a day or three while I do some necessary fact-checking and try to verify the details of what sounds like a very confusing piece of GUI in the Loopt iPhone app which apparently makes it trivially — even accidentally — easy to send SMS invitation spam to multiples of people whose mobile numbers live in your Address Book. At the recipient’s expense. And without prior permission. And, apparently, without user confirmation. [This is Bad.]

I’m still trying to make sure I understand precisely how this works, but if Loopt is doing anything that involves sending SMSs without the recipients’ prior opt-in — and then refuses to do anything about stopping it — this will deservedly escalate into a pop-the-popcorn, old-school, privacy shitstorm. (And, no, I will not be signing up for Loopt myself because — well — I don’t want to accidentally spam everyone I know. I’m like that.)

Here’s one anecdote for you. Justine Ezarik — who’s had the bad fortune to have to change her phone number numerous times owing to creeps — is just one of the folks who unknowingly sent her phone number and exact location to “a large portion of [her] contact list”.

I’ll give you a minute for that to sink in, because if you’re a connected person, you may want to ponder the consequences of unintentionally sending creepy bullshit to colleagues and business contacts who are too busy to care what you’re “geo-tagging” at a given time. I know, because I’m one of them. Hi.

Justine said:

If there’s one thing that I hate more than anything, it’s sending out invites to a service. Especially one I’ve never tried and haven’t been actively using for more than 15 seconds.

Never once did I see a confirmation message that my friends would be getting an invite. The worst part about it is that my phone number was sent along with every invite as a text message to my friends. I just recently got a new phone number and I haven’t been as free with this as I have been in the past.

Very interesting comment in Justine’s post from Martin May, who is one of the founders of ostensible Loopt competitor, Brightkite. I will quote this in its entirety, because, if this is all accurate, it seems to cement my hunch that the Loopt folks have swallowed a fat, dewy booger with this one. Martin’s comment:

Disclaimer: I am one of the founders of Brightkite.

Thought I’d throw in my 2 cents. First of all, I’d like to say that loopt has done a pretty good job with their app, and you can tell that they’ve put a ton of work into it. Naturally, I think that ours will be better, but I’ll let you be the judge of that when we release it later this month

Concerning SMS spam: I was really surprised to see loopt violate quite a few of the MMA guidelines (http://www.mmaglobal.com/bestpractices.pdf) for SMS programs. The highlights:

1) Through the invite feature, the loopt app sends unsolicited messages to your contacts from their shortcode. According to the MMA guidelines, that’s a big no-no.

2) As some have pointed out, the loopt shortcode (56678) does not respond appropriately to HELP and STOP commands, as required by the MMA guidelines. Those commands are essential, and to be honest I am unsure how loopt got carrier approval without implementing them.

3) I couldn’t find information on loopt’s website detailing how to opt-out, another requirement in the MMA guidelines.

From what I understand, those “guidelines” are actually more than just guidelines, they’re requirements to get carrier approval. When we applied for our shortcode, we spent a lot of time making sure that we get these things right.

All that being said, I am sure that loopt will address those problems very soon. I know first-hand that it can be tough to get things 100% right at launch, especially in this new space, so let’s cut them some slack and give them a few weeks to fix things.

I haven’t yet seen a reason to share Martin’s very civil optimism — Loopt’s responses to people’s very real concerns about this stuff have so far consisted of friendly, beige, and very politely-worded blow-offs. So, the ball’s in Loopt’s court now as far as I’m concerned. I’m standing by, ready to be persuaded that this company has not leveraged my private data to build their userbase. At my expense.

For what it’s worth, deep in the bowels of their “Privacy Notice,” Loopt says (my emphasis in the last sentence):

”INVITE-A-FRIEND INFORMATION”: If you choose to use our invite-a-friend feature, then Loopt will ask you for your friend’s mobile phone number or email address. If you provide a friend’s mobile phone number, then Loopt will automatically send to that friend a one-time text message inviting your friend to join the Loopt Service and to add you as their friend. If your friend’s phone number is on a wireless provider and/or mobile device that is not supported by Loopt, then your friend will not receive this text message until their wireless provider and/or mobile device supports the Loopt Services. If you provide a friend’s email address, then Loopt will automatically send that friend a one-time email inviting your friend to register on the Loopt website. Your friend may contact Loopt at privacy@loopt.com to request that Loopt remove this information from our systems.

Well, that’s nice. You can email them. I sure did.

Friends, my patience with organizations that feel you should have to email them in order to not have your private information abused has passed the breaking point. If Loopt chooses not to see this nonsense as an invasive and potentially costly breach of many peoples’ privacy, then I pity the actual Loopt users who agreed to let these people publicly announce where they are all the time. Suddenly this goes from “potentially kinda creepy” to “Holy mackerel, what the fuck were you thinking?”

Loopt needs to step up, acknowledge this confusion, unconfuse-ify it, and then fix the goddamn hole. Turn it off. Like: quick. Wait for “weeks,” Martin counsels? That would be a real shame. Unless you’re feeling enthused by the prospect of unintentionally sharing your precise location with your exes, your old boss, that weird cat sitter you fired, or the sketchy halitosis dude you met at JavaOne in fucking 1997.

Maybe today I’m simply as old as I feel, but this kind of shit is just bone-chilling to me. And whenever companies shrug and try to make it seem like it’s somehow my responsibility to clean up the shit their half-assed “viral” business model left at my door? Man, that’s just galling to me. Galling.

Listen: if Loopt has something substantial to say about all this (beyond the solicitous spin mode they’re polo-shirting around in right now), I will happily link to it from this modest space. A lot of people I respect seem to love these guys and their app, so I hope the Loopt folks will do the right thing and own up to a seriously bone-headed move. That’s on them.

As I leave for tonight, though, I will once more point you to my thread about this at Get Satisfaction, where a number of people have jumped in to express their own similar frustration with this issue. If you have relevant information to share that would help illuminate what’s going on — especially if, like me, you’ve received an SMS via Loopt from someone you don’t know — I hope you’ll consider adding your thoughts to that thread.

More soon — and thanks for hearing me out.


read more | digg story