Apple's iPhone paves the way for Android

As a telecoms commentator, I always find it's important to get things wrong occasionally. After all, if you were always right it probably just means you've been sitting on the fence or that you write a boring, predictable column. So I'm happy to report that I'm changing my position on both Apple's iPhone and Google's Android mobile platform.

Let me recap. Just before Apple unleashed its iPhone on a suspecting world, I made a bold statement that it would fail, at least in its first incarnation. Perhaps I should have just said I won't be buying one, because I don't like its closed nature and because it lacks 3G. But thanks to the hackers, we now know that there are hundreds of thousands of people around Asia that are willing to snap up an iPhone and, more importantly, they're loving it.

One grey vendor friend of mine that sells unlocked iPhones in both Bangkok and Singapore can't get enough of them to satisfy demand. The other day he managed to get a shipment, told a few friends via email and they were snapped up within the hour. Another friend who had managed to buy one earlier was an instant fan -- and not just because it made him the centre of attention everywhere he dragged it out. It was also because, finally, someone had made the mobile Internet usable. That alone -- making web sites easily viewable on a mobile screen -- should be enough to cement Apple's place in mobile history.

Another interesting stat I came across: Google is apparently getting 50 times more search requests from iPhones than any other mobile handset. That stat, according to the Financial Times, was so extraordinary that Google first thought it had made an error with its data. It hadn't and it just shows how much more people will use the mobile Internet if you make it easier for them.

Which is where Google steps in. There's no doubt that one of the keys to the search giant's success is the way it makes its services easy to use. Presumably, it will bring that talent to its mobile phone efforts. But more importantly, it can harness the immense power and developer base of the open source movement. Already that's happening, with many local software promotion boards across Asia getting behind it and Google offering significant prizes for developers through competitions.

To date, the two dominant smartphone operating systems -- Windows Mobile and Symbian/System 60 -- have not exactly attracted a fanatical user base. Get the open source community behind a mobile OS, however, and that's exactly what you'll have: a growing and fanatical base of users and developers. And as we have seen with Apple, fanaticism can go a long way.

In a recent research note by Saugatuck Technology, they pointed out that Google's Android and other Linux-based mobile initiatives, notably LiMo, are potentially disruptive influences on the mobile space. The main reasons cited were scalability and portability, affordability and maturity. Another significant point was the ability to work with other open software that can be delivered as a service, either from telecom providers or from pure-play SaaS vendors.

In short, Android (and LiMo) have "the ability (and promise) of becoming game-changing influences – and within a very short time," the research house stated.

If the introduction of the iPhone is any guide, users of mobile devices and services are looking for ease of use and better offerings than they have had in the past. Which is why I (now) think that Google's Android also has a great chance of following the iPhone and succeeding. -- Geoff Long

The iPhone comes to Thailand

There’s nothing quite like being an “early adopter”, and I guess getting one’s hands on an iPhone in Thailand qualifies for the title. I’ve even got the phone working on my telecom operator’s network, without the need to head down to the geek section of Maboonkrong (MBK) centre to unlock it or looking online for a hack to open it up. That’s because my iPhone is actually of the Linksys variety, the CIT400 Skype phone.

The “iPhone” might be forever associated with Apple now, but it’s Linksys and its parent company Cisco that originally owned (and still do) the registered name. If you cast your mind back to when the Apple iPhone first came out, you might remember there was a bit of public sparring over who had rights to the name. They resolved that dispute in February 2007, with the result that both companies are free to use the “iPhone” trademark on their products throughout the world, although other details of the agreement were undisclosed.

And the Linksys iPhone is every bit as innovative and stylish as its Apple namesake: It’s a dual-mode cordless (DECT) phone that makes Skype Internet calls over a broadband connection or regular calls through the phone network. And it will even make the Skype calls without the computer being turned on .

Setting it up is a breeze, at least it is once you get your home network prepared. The unit comes with a wireless “base station” that connects to your broadband connection via Ethernet. In my case, the ADSL modem used the only available Ethernet port on my computer, so I had to get an Ethernet hub. My hub came from a neighbour, who retrieved one from his electronics “spares” box. It didn’t come with a cable, so I rustled one up out of my own junk gear collection, which is how I came to find out that not all “Cat 5” cables are the same. Turns out that cables that connect two computers together look exactly like those that connect a hub to a computer – only they won’t work. So finally the neighbour also supplied a spare Ethernet cable and I plugged the hub in and it “just worked.”

As an aside though, this is one issue with anything to do with home networking – there’s a dog’s breakfast of standards and formats out there. Even just getting a power board that will accept the different electrical plugs can be a challenge, so as we move into the era of home networking there needs to be a lot more work on getting standard equipment. At a recent Cisco press event in Singapore, Nick Fielibert, the chief technical officer of Scientific Atlanta (now a Cisco company), summed the situation up like this. “The best you can say is that devices in the home don’t connect well. Everyone talks about [the connected home] but I don’t think anyone’s seen it yet. It’s a bit like the Lochness Monster or the Holy Grail.”

Needless to say, Cisco and just about every other networking vendor on the planet will be working to rectify this, with Fielibert suggesting that there should be some progress in the next 18 months or so.

So assuming you have an Ethernet port to plug into, you simply plug the base station into it (cable supplied). Then there’s a cradle for the phone that plugs into the mains power outlet. The phone itself is powered by two AAA batteries, which are again supplied. Turn the phone on and it will automatically open to the Skype sign-in page. If you’ve already got a Skype account, you enter your user name and password and you’re ready to go – all of your regular contacts will show up on the phone.

Skype has had some bad press of late, particularly when it informed some users that they would have to change their Skype In numbers. However, it’s still by far the easiest VoIP service to set up – the problem with open SIP standards, as my geek neighbour pointed out, is that they’re still not easy to set up for the average person, or even for technically-capable users for that matter.

A recent study by German traffic management vendor ipoque, which analysed three petabytes of anonymous data representing around 1 million users, concluded that Skype represents 95 percent of all VoIP traffic. The reason? Because it’s easy to use and gets around restrictive network environments such as corporate firewalls and NAT boxes. “While standards-based VoIP systems using SIP, H.323 and IAX require manual configuration to get around the resulting limitations, Skype has many built-in mechanisms to automatically deal with such network conditions and to offer an as seamless as possible operation in most environments,” the report noted.

That ease of use is clearly evident when using the Linksys iPhone. As I said, I simply plugged it in and it worked. The phone itself resembles a slightly-larger than usual mobile phone. It comes with a colour screen and the menu functions are all well-thought out. Click the “Contact” menu in the lower left and it will bring up all your regular Skype contacts. You can also set your status the same as you do on the computer, so if you want to show that you’re unavailable, you just select that option from the menu.

To make a call, you select the relevant contact and press the green call button on the phone. Everything sounds and acts like a regular call, including a dial-tone. I’ve tested it both internationally and locally, to other Skype connections and to regular phones, and the call quality has been mostly fantastic – better than my mobile connection a lot of the time. And as mentioned, it can also work as a regular phone through the fixed network, which is useful if there are other people in the household or business that are not on Skype.

Another thing to mention is that it’s actually a DECT phone rather than a Wi-Fi phone. DECT, as I’ve come to appreciate, provides better call quality than through Wi-Fi and also better coverage. I was shocked to see the wife using the phone from about 35 metres away through two walls and a ceiling, but reception was fine.

The other thing I really like about it is that it untethers you from the computer when using Skype. I’ve been a Skype user for years but haven’t really made use of it because I just like to pick up a phone and make a call. With this unit, I can do that. It has also encouraged me to get all of my regular contacts on Skype – not just signed up but actively logged in.

In fact, everybody that I’ve shown this device to wants one. That’s great for me, because it means more of the people I regularly call will also be logged into Skype and more accessible. For those that are not, I can use Skype Out or just go through the regular phone service.

Linksys is not the only one with this type of device. There are apparently similar phones from the likes of Philips, Siemens, Netgear and GE. That said, a friend bought one from one of the aforementioned vendors and still hasn’t got it working. Could be the gear, could also be the friend. What I do know is that Linksys has a good reputation for gear that’s easy to set up and use.

So if you’re after a neat gadget for someone this Christmas/New Year, look out for the Linksys CIT400 iPhone. – Geoff Long

Greenpeace disses the iPhone

Of all the hundreds of thousands of articles on the iPhone, here's one that managed to standout courtesy of Silicon Alley Insider. Apparently Greenpeace did some scientific tests that found the iphone has some hazardous substances that other phone makers have managed to eliminate. And this despite the claims by Steve Jobs that Apple would be ahead of its phone competitors on green issues. Here's what they said:

International — Scientific tests, arranged by Greenpeace, reveal that Apple's iPhone contains hazardous chemicals. The tests uncovered two types of hazardous substances, some of which have already been eliminated by other mobile phone makers.

In May, due to our successful Green my Apple campaign Steve Jobs, the boss of Apple, claimed: "Apple is ahead of, or will soon be ahead of, most of its competitors" on environmental issues.

We watched closely when the iPhone was launched in June for any mention of the green features of the phone from Apple. There was none.

So we bought a new iPhone in June and sent it our Research Laboratories in the UK. Analysis revealed that the iPhone contains toxic brominated compounds (indicating the prescence of brominated flame retardants (BFRs)) and hazardous PVC. The findings are detailed in the report, "Missed call: the iPhone's hazardous chemicals"

There have been thousands of media articles about the iPhone. Few of them have discussed the phone's environmental credentials.

Made in Taiwan, censored for China

One of the few legitimate perks in my "day" media job is access to the news wires, which is a good way of keeping up with what is happening and how things are being reported in other parts of the world. On a recent search the other day, I stumbled across a great story on The New York Times news wire about how most of Apple's iPhone was made in Taiwan.

Here's the gist of it: "With little fanfare, Taiwan companies are playing a big role not only in the production of Apple's latest device but in a wide array of other communications equipment, including the broadband modems in homes across the United States and the next generation of high-speed wireless gear."

Great stuff, but as I kept reading it I noticed that there was something odd about the story, with some quite unusual grammar from such a high-calibre paper. Like they'd say manufactured "on Taiwan", where for every other country they mentioned it was made "in" the United States or Japan or wherever. Then they'd write things like "As in many Asian areas . . .", when what they clearly meant was "as in many Asian countries." The fact that they were trying as hard as they could not to refer to Taiwan as a country, or even to allude to it as a country, was just so obvious that it made you hyper-aware of what they were doing.

For what reason? Is The New York Times so afraid that it will be filtered from mainland China that it's willing to follow the PRC line unquestioningly? After all, to the average reader, lumping Taiwan with a bunch of other "countries" would seem quite natural. I can understand governments being a bit sensitive about the diplomatic consequences of their language, but why should The New York Times follow the same wishy-washy, self-censoring, ambiguous path?

It's bad enough that many high-tech companies are prostituting some of their principles in the name of doing business, but lets hope the media doesn't follow suit. Besides which, at least Taiwan lets its citizens vote, not to mention that - as the original article stated - high-tech companies are incredibly reliant on Taiwan when it comes to making most of their gear.

Speaking of companies that suck up to China, Google has just announced a couple of major changes. One is that it will be announcing a paid option for extra storage on Gmail, Picasa and other online services.

Meanwhile, if you've bought any videos from the Google Video store in the past, you might find that they expired on 15 Aug. That's because the Google Video service is closing down, according to a letter sent out by the company and reprinted on Boing Boing.

According to the letter, any videos purchased in the past will no longer be able to be viewed. To compensate, Google is giving purchasers credit at its Google Checkout stores that must be spent within 60 days. As Cory Doctorow commented in the post, "this is a giant, flaming middle finger, sent by Google and the studios to the customers."

It's odd how even when you legitimately buy something, the Big Media players are determined to make it difficult for you to use their content. Yet when it suits them, they're not averse to utilising some of the non-legitimate services for their own ends. According to TorrentFreak, more and more forthcoming television shows are turning up on Bittorrent sites, with many of the leaks appearing to come from the studios themselves.

In fact, that's exactly what's been happening. One Warners Brothers TV executive admitted getting his neighbour's kid to upload episodes of Pushing Daisies, an upcoming TV show, noting that such strategies can help build some buzz and a potential audience when it does go to air. The article pointed to other studios doing similar things.

In other words, if you're big enough - like China, Google and the recording industry - it seems you can do what you like.

The iPhone's early legacy

One thing that Apple has managed to do with the iPhone, apart from giving marketing departments the world over an inferiority complex, is to focus attention on the closed nature of wireless networks. One of the biggest complaints is that the iPhone is locked to the AT&T network in the US and can’t be used on other mobile networks, while at the same time the phone has to be activated by AT&T to use many of its features. It also doesn’t allow you to download and use third-party applications.

In other words, it’s a classic “walled garden”. And the idea of locking the phone itself to the network is nothing new either, although it seems to be more prevalent over in the US than it is in Asia now. It used to be more prevalent in parts of Asia too. For example, Thailand used to be notorious for using IMEI locks, giving the boys down at one well-known retail outlet a regular source of revenue by unlocking the codes so that they could be used on any network.

Thankfully, that seems to be a thing of the past now and in Asia you can generally buy any phone (iPhones excepted) from any shop and use it on any network. As it should be. In fact, it looked for a while there that wireless operators were moving away from the closed network trend, with carriers like Hutchison earlier this year announcing that it was “tearing down the walled garden”. That followed its “X-series” of services that includes mobile Skype and other popular Internet services for its 3 mobile brand around the world, including in Hong Kong and Australia.

The US is well behind the rest of the world in this regard, however, with most consumers buying subsidised handsets that lock them into an exclusive contract. Now the iPhone seems to have taken the “open” cause back a few steps further, although I doubt the trend will take off in this part of the world.

One influential voice pushing for open networks is Bob Frankston, who is probably best known for co-developing the first spreadsheet, VisiCalc. Now among other things he is a popular commentator and advocate for the user’s right to access any service they want, with the network limited to providing the channel to get to such services.

As he writes in a post on his web site (www.frankston.com/public/?name=OurInternet) , the current telecom model gives control to the carrier at the expense of our own communications need (ie, the ability to use the applications and services of our own choosing). “We must not tolerate being forced to buy services from providers that have a stranglehold on our wires – whether they are physical wires or radios. Today our ability to communicate is limited by the unenlightened business needs of the carriers. This is intolerable and inexcusable,” he writes.

According to Frankston, the biggest impetus for change will come from investors who realise they have far more to gain if the carriers were not in the position to limit opportunity. The other argument is that applications like Skype that run on top of the service provider’s network are fine, but who pays for the investment in future infrastructure? It was brought up in an interview I had last week with Keith White, Alcatel-Lucent APAC security services director, who suggested that such services were threatening the business model of the carriers, which then wouldn’t be able to fund network expansion.

It’s probably the most pressing argument in the telecom world today and runs into the whole network neutrality debate (whether carriers should be able to favour certain applications or services over others). And of course there are no easy answers. Telecom providers are seeing their revenues eroded by new services such as VoIP, but many are adapting and there are no shortages of new entrants willing to give the user what they want. New business models will appear and some players may well go out of business.

In the end, it all boils down to competition. Apple has plenty of competition among device vendors, which is why I don’t think it will be able to keep it’s closed model of doing business with the iPhone, particularly when it comes to Asia. It would be great if we had the same level of competition among networks, particularly if the newcomers decided to embrace an open model. Perhaps then we’d have no need of net neutrality legislation.