Something I can’t remember hearing much complaint about, surprisingly, is the absence of handwriting recognition on the iPhone. There have been various studies comparing the on-screen QWERTY keyboard with T9 and hardware thumb-board options, but seemingly little demand for the ability to write directly onto the cellphone’s screen. Well, anybody who has missed such an option can now install iPhone Graffiti; as the name suggests, it’s a version of the Graffiti handwriting recognition, as seen on Palm OS devices.
Supporting Latin and Chinese characters, as well as full punctuation and symbols, letters are drawn on the input grid in the lower half of the screen and converted as you write. Since the iPhone doesn’t use a stylus, you might find you need to train your finger to make the shapes clearly. Alternatively there are a couple of compatible styli available, such as from Pogo.
iPhone Graffiti is still in early beta form, so the advice is to back up your handset before installing it. Some users are experiencing an issue with uninstalling the app, too, so if you’re overly cautious then maybe wait for a version further down the line. Still interested? Add iphonecake.com/src/all as a source to Installer and go from there.
[via ModMyiFone]
Written by Chris Davies on April 16th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Software and iPhone and iPhone archive and palm.
Many iPhone-addicts have been saying it for a long time already, but analyst Charlie Wolf from researchers Needham & Co. has issued a strongly-worded note to his clients suggesting that both RIM and Palm will continue to feel pressure from Apple’s cellphone, particularly as the consumer smartphone market develops, with results visible in the place it hurts most: their bank balance. In two separate pieces, Wolf described a maturing user base viewing smartphone functionality as relevant to home, rather than business, life; however, different priorities are being expressed, with push email (a RIM strength) seen as less important compared to, say, media functionality (which the iPhone has in spades).
RIM - which has recently revealed healthy 2007 performance figures - has been successful primarily due to the “simply inept” offerings of rivals, primarily using the Windows Mobile OS. Wolf suggests Microsoft’s smartphone software is unnecessarily difficult and off-putting to home users. Palm, meanwhile, is hampered by the absence of a strong OS or of a well-performing device, with Wolf describing the Centro - one million of which have been sold - as a “cushion” to soften the blow until Palm’s new range emerges, a range the company has already admitted will be delayed until the Summer.
And the argument for the iPhone will only get stronger once Firmware 2.0 is released in June; then, Wolf highlights, the enterprise functionality and security RIM has so-far led with will be available on the far more appealing Apple handset, at which point not only the whims of home users will affect the BlackBerry bottom line.
[via Electronista]
Written by Chris Davies on April 9th, 2008 with no comments.
Read more articles on Analyst and Apple iPhone Competitors and BlackBerry and Windows Mobile and iPhone and iPhone archive and palm.
I was stunned today when I saw the press release from Access Company saying that they're giving away a beta version of the Garnet emulator for Nokia's N-series Linux tablets (
link).
The Garnet emulator lets you to run most Palm OS applications. So in layman's terms, Access is giving away Palm OS for use on any N-series tablet.
I hadn't previously heard any hints from Access about offering Garnet for other platforms. I thought it was only supposed to be available with Access Linux.
I got excited by the announcement, figuring maybe Access had realized that the real innovation is going to come in the applications layer, not the core OS plumbing. I imagined all sorts of scenarios for what they might be planning:
--How about porting Garnet to some other Linux implementations. Hmm, what comes to mind? Maybe Google's Android? Access would need cooperation from Google in order for the emulator to talk directly to Linux. Would Google help with that?
--There is a need in the market for a mobile application environment that's truly "write once, run anywhere." Might Access intend to use Garnet to compete with Java? That would involve porting Garnet to operating systems other than Linux. How about Windows Mobile and Symbian? How about the iPhone?
--There are several ways Access could make money from this:
- Give away the emulator in beta but charge for the final version.
- Give away the emulator on N-series but charge for it on other platforms.
- Give away the emulator everywhere and make money by selling support software and bundling a software store and taking a cut of the purchase fees for apps (a derivative of the iMode and Acrobat models).
Intrigued by the possibilities, I talked to folks at Access. They shot down most of my speculation. As it was explained to me, this is a tactical move. By porting Garnet to the Nokia tablets they can get some testing for the emulator, and also give a "more interesting ongoing proposition for current developers." (It says something about the momentum for your OS when you feel the installed base of Nokia Linux tablets is an attractive developer target, but I guess you take what you can get.)
Access might try to put the emulator on other standard Linux implementations, but they're very busy working on software for licensees they can't talk about yet, and don't have time to port to anything else, including Android.
That's a shame. In my opinion, there's more of a market for Garnet on other platforms than there is for a Linux phone OS now that Google is giving one away.
But Access believes Google's nonstandard approach to Java and Linux is not going to go down well with the mobile development community. They said Android faces big challenges and a likely backlash.
Okay. I guess only time will tell whether that's justified self-confidence or denial of reality.
Meanwhile, I'll go play with Garnet on my Nokia tablet and wonder about what might have been.
Written by Prathik on November 14th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on Developers and Symbian and Windows Mobile and android and palm.
Suppose you own a Dell computer, and you decide to replace it with a Sony. You don’t have to get the permission of your Internet service provider to do so, or even tell the provider about it. You can just pack up the old machine and set up the new one.
Now, suppose your new computer came with a particular Web browser or online music service, but you’d prefer a different one. You can just download and install the new software, and uninstall the old one. You can sign up for a new music service and cancel the old one. And, once again, you don’t need to even notify your Internet provider, let alone seek its permission.
Oh, and the developers of such computers, software and services can offer you their products directly, without going through the Internet provider, without getting the provider’s approval, and without giving the provider a penny. The Internet provider gets paid simply for its contribution to the mix: providing your Internet connection. But, for all practical purposes, it doesn’t control what is connected to the network, or carried over the network.
This is the way digital capitalism should work, and, in the case of the mass-market personal-computer industry, and the modern Internet, it has created one of the greatest technological revolutions in human history, as well as one of the greatest spurts of wealth creation and of consumer empowerment.
So, it’s intolerable that the same country that produced all this has trapped its citizens in a backward, stifling system when it comes to the next great technology platform, the cellphone.
A shortsighted and often just plain stupid federal government has allowed itself to be bullied and fooled by a handful of big wireless phone operators for decades now. And the result has been a mobile phone system that is the direct opposite of the PC model. It severely limits consumer choice, stifles innovation, crushes entrepreneurship, and has made the U.S. the laughingstock of the mobile-technology world, just as the cellphone is morphing into a powerful hand-held computer.
Whether you are a consumer, a hardware maker, a software developer or a provider of cool new services, it’s hard to make a move in the American cellphone world without the permission of the companies that own the pipes. While power in other technology sectors flows to consumers and nimble entrepreneurs, in the cellphone arena it remains squarely in the hands of the giant carriers.
The Soviet Ministry Model
That’s why I refer to the big cellphone carriers as the “Soviet ministries.” Like the old bureaucracies of communism, they sit athwart the market, breaking the link between the producers of goods and services and the people who use them.
To some extent, they try to replace the market system, and, like the real Soviet ministries, they are a lousy substitute. They decide what phones can be used on their networks and what software and services can be offered on those phones. They require the hardware and software makers to tailor their products to meet the carriers’ specifications, not just so they work properly on the network, but so they promote the carriers’ brands and their various add-on services.
Let me be clear: Any company that spends billions to build and maintain a wireless network deserves to be paid for its use, and deserves to make a profit and a return for its shareholders. Not only that, but companies like Verizon Wireless or AT&T Inc. should be free to build or sell phones or software or services.
What Is Needed
But, in my view, they shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose what phones run on their networks, and what software and services run on those phones. We need a wireless mobile device ecosystem that mirrors the PC/Internet ecosystem, one where the consumers’ purchase of network capacity is separate from their purchase of the hardware and software they use on that network. It will take government action, or some disruptive technology or business innovation, to get us there.
To my knowledge, only one phone maker, Apple Inc., has been permitted to introduce a cellphone with the cooperation of a U.S. carrier without that carrier having any say in the hardware and software design of the product. And that one example, the iPhone, was a special case, because Apple is currently the hottest digital brand on earth, with its own multibillion-dollar online and physical retail network.
Even so, Apple had to make a deal with the devil to gain the freedom to offer an unimpaired product directly to users. It gave AT&T exclusive rights to be the iPhone’s U.S. network for an undisclosed period of years. It has locked and relocked the phone to make sure consumers can’t override that restriction. This arrangement reportedly brings Apple regular fees from AT&T, but penalizes people who live in areas with poor AT&T coverage.
Apple has also, so far, barred users from installing third-party programs on the iPhone, though the company announced last week it will open the phone to such programs early next year. (Web-based iPhone programs–those that run inside the Web browser–have been available from day one.)
These restrictions have rubbed some of the luster off the best-designed handheld computer ever made.
A few other “smart phones” sold primarily to businesses have been freer of carrier restrictions on third-party software and services than typical cellphones. But even these handsets, such as Palm Treos, Windows Mobile devices, and BlackBerrys, have been partly crippled by carriers in some cases.
As a technology reviewer, I have met with multiple small companies that had trouble getting their programs onto consumers’ phones without the permission of the carriers; getting that permission often requires paying the carriers. Sure, there are some clumsy workarounds that can evade the carrier barrier, but it’s nothing like the ability small software companies have had for decades to offer their products for installation on Windows or Macintosh computers.
We also need much greater portability of phone hardware. Because the federal government failed to set a standard for wireless phone technology years ago, we have two major, incompatible cellphone technologies in the U.S. Verizon Communications Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp. use something called CDMA. AT&T and Deutsche Telekom AG’s T-Mobile use something called GSM. Except for a couple of oddball models, phones built for one of these technologies can’t work on the other. So that limits consumer choice and consumer power. If you want to switch from AT&T to Verizon, you have to swallow the cost of a new phone.
But the problem is even worse. The government didn’t require the CDMA companies to include a removable account-information chip, called a SIM card, in their phones. So, unlike people with GSM phones, Sprint and Verizon customers can’t keep their phones if they switch between the two carriers, even though they use the same basic technology. And, the government allows the GSM carriers to “lock” their phones, so a SIM card from a rival carrier won’t work in them, at least for a period of time. Techies can sometimes figure out how to get around this, but average folks can’t.
The carriers defend these restrictions partly by pointing out that they subsidize the cost of the phones in order to get you to use their networks. That’s also, they say, why they require contracts and charge early-termination fees. Without the subsidies, they say, that $99 phone might be $299, so it’s only fair to keep you from fleeing their networks, at least too quickly.
But this whole cellphone subsidy game is an archaic remnant of the days when mobile phones were costly novelties. Today, subsidies are a trap for consumers. If subsidies were removed, along with the restrictions that flow from them, the market would quickly produce cheap phones, just as it has produced cheap, unsubsidized versions of every other digital product, from $399 computers to $79 iPods.
The Federal Communications Commission is selling some new wireless spectrum that will supposedly lead to fewer restrictions for technology companies and consumers, but it’s far from certain that the carriers, with their legions of lobbyists and lawyers, will allow such a new day to dawn. Google Inc. is making noises about trying to bust open the cellphone prison, with new software and services, but that’s no sure bet either.
Remember Landlines?
We’ve been through this before in the U.S., though many younger readers may not recall it.
Up until the 1970s, when the federal government intervened, you weren’t allowed to buy your own landline phone, and companies weren’t able to innovate, on price or features, in making and selling phones to the public. All Americans were forced to rent clumsy phones made by a subsidiary of the monopoly phone company, AT&T, which claimed that, unless it controlled what was connected to its network, the network might suffer.
Well, the government pried that market open, and the wired phone network not only didn’t collapse, it became more useful and versatile, allowing, among other things, cheap connections to online data services.
I suspect that if the government, or some disruptive innovation, breaks the crippling power that the wireless carriers exert today, the free market will deliver a similar happy ending.
Over the years, it has been smart business strategy in the computer and consumer electronics industries to specialize in either hardware or software. But that’s changing.
Microsoft created one of the greatest business successes in history by fiercely sticking to software, dabbling only in minor hardware products, such as mice and keyboards, which were designed to propel its core software business. I have even been told by very senior Microsoft officials, in private, that hardware was a sucker’s business, a combination of low margins and big headaches.
Sony was perhaps the opposite case, turning out world-class, head-turning hardware, but paying little or no attention to software–and no, I don’t count “Spider-Man 3,” by the company’s Hollywood studio, as software, at least not in this context.
The only company that seemed to combine both skills was Apple, but it was widely regarded as a niche player that was slowly fading from the scene, partly because it didn’t fit very well into either world. By the late 1990s, it seemed clear that Apple couldn’t build hardware it could sell in large enough quantities, or license its operating system widely enough, to thrive, or even survive.
My, how times have changed. Now, with computers, the Web and consumer electronics all merging and blurring, Apple is looking more like a role model than an object of pity. The iPod has been a huge combined hardware/software success and Macintosh sales are surging, partly due to a great operating system and built-in software that Apple writes in-house and refuses to license.
Without announcing any big change in strategy, both Microsoft and Sony, as well as other companies, are racing to become combined hardware/software powers.
And everyone is also trying to add a third leg: tightly linked companion Web services–another thing that Apple has been skillful at doing, with its booming iTunes store and its smart, but badly underdeveloped, “.Mac” online service for Macintosh owners.
Microsoft has essentially set up a small Apple, called the Entertainment & Devices Division, run by savvy, strategic company veteran Robbie Bach, who was running Excel when I first met him many years ago. The division not only designs both the hardware and core software for the Xbox game consoles and Zune music players, but also operates online marketplaces and communities for both. And the company is considering other such end-to-end products, which would include Microsoft-designed hardware.
Sony, meanwhile, also taking lessons from both Apple and its own PlayStation game console business, has set up a software development group in California, run by a former Apple executive. Its mission is to develop distinctive Sony software that can run on most of the company’s products. And Sony is also trying to compete online, to match Microsoft’s great success with Xbox Live and Apple’s iTunes.
Other hardware companies are making similar efforts. Hewlett-Packard is designing some of its own programs for its consumer computers and engaging interfaces for its televisions. Nokia is trying to ramp up its software efforts for its nontraditional offerings, like the N800 Internet tablet, partly by tapping the open-source software community. Palm, which sold its operating system some years back, is getting back into that game.
This is good for consumers. Third-party software, hardware and Web sites are still vital. But nicely matched hardware and software platforms make things easier on average users than unwieldy efforts to combine different platforms, such as Microsoft’s failed PlaysForSure portable music system. Some of these combo products may flop (like the first Zune, or the Apple Cube). But the trend is a welcome one.
Share
Written by Walt Mossberg on April 30th, 2007 with no comments.
Read more articles on H-P and Hewlett-Packard and Mac OS X and Macintosh and Microsoft and Mossberg and Mossblog and PlaysForSure and Windows and Zune and hp and iPhone card and mac and n800 and nokia and palm and playstation and sony and xbox.
