Cell Phone News

Samsung grabbed the crown of number-one phone maker in the world, but Nokia's Windows Phones may help the company get back in the game.

The South Korean electronics giant shipped more than 90 million handsets from January through March, dethroning Nokia, which had topped cell phone shipments dating back to 1998.

Samsung rose to the top in part due to Nokia's absences in the market, which helped the company gain over the past year. The Finnish phone company struggled to rebrand itself as a smartphone maker with its first Windows Phone handset, closing the window on opportunity in the transition.

In the meantime, Samsung's Galaxy smartphones raised the company to a new level in the mobile market, but Nokia has big plans for the rest of the year that may help it reclaim its title.

Nokia now has a presence at T-Mobile and AT&T in the U.S. with its Lumia phones and is planning to bring a device to Verizon by the end of the year. As Nokia becomes more established in the smartphone arena, it will become a much more formidable opponent for Samsung.

Nokia works to build its smartphone cache and broaden distribution for its handsets, but it faces tough competition that may stunt its growth significantly. Apple remains the world's top smartphone shipper, and it will be difficult for Nokia's Windows devices to gain a foothold against an established handset like the iPhone.

In addition, Samsung achieved its strong first quarter numbers without the help of the Galaxy S3, which many experts believe will be the company's best-selling device. Even if Nokia does gain momentum, competing with behemoths like the Galaxy S3 and the iPhone may hurt its chance to bounce back.

Samsung's top rank is not etched in stone, as Nokia can attest. And, if Nokia's Windows Phones don't find a sweet spot with consumers, it will have a hard time keeping up, much less climbing back to the top spot.

Samsung on Top, But Nokia Aims for Comeback originally appeared at Mobiledia on Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:27 pm.

Regulators are debating the merits of a nationwide ban on distracted driving, sparking debate over whether a block across the U.S. goes too far, or if state and industry efforts can counter the rising problem.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood wants a federal ban on using cell phones on the road, calling for increased ticketing with a proposed nationwide law. Legislators are pushing for stricter law enforcement in a number of states, but LaHood's nationwide ban would give the country a unified, blanket law.

LaHood, comparing the distracted driving epidemic to drunk driving, announced his intentions at a distracted-driving summit amid victims of accidents caused by reckless in-car cell phone use, but his proposal will not go through without opposition from powerful lobbying interests, who say significant efforts are already underway at the state and industry level.

Aren't States Doing Enough?

Gary Biller, president of the National Motorists Association (NMA) opposes federal legislation, pointing out state-specific laws will have the same effect.

New York, California and a number of other states have outlawed phone use on the road, but this ban would extend to all 50 states.

California's campaign, for example, included ramped up ticketing and highway signs comparing distracted drivers to zombies, and accident rates have dropped.

However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration called for beefed up federal guidelines for automakers to discourage cars built with features that encourage cell phone use, giving LaHood's proposition a boost on the national level.

Auto Makers and Other Industry Efforts to Combat Distracted Driving

The auto industry is unlikely to embrace LaHood's proposal, since it runs counter to automakers' intentions to incorporate the technology into their vehicles.

The auto industry, while supportive of lawmakers' efforts to make the roads safer, is already making inroads using smartphone technology to alleviate traffic and develop smarter cars. A number of apps guiding motorists through congested areas have hit the market, and the trend towards cars integrating smartphone technology is unlikely to cease.

A ban on using cell phones in vehicles may produce tension between automakers who want to keep pace with innovative mobile technology and legislators who want to safeguard against the effects of technology and public safety.

Carriers, for their part, helping to discourage distracted driving with motion-sensitive apps available to re-route calls to users in transit, including offerings from AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile.

Is It Enough?

No one argues distracted driving is a serious issue, but the scale of LaHood's proposed ban may be startling for industry and lawmakers to mull over.

LaHood's proposed ban may negate the potential benefits arising from incorporating technology into cars and driving, and prove problematic for automakers trying to make their cars stand out from the crowd with smartphone-integrated accessories. However, distracted driving persists despite increased penalties and crackdowns, with no existing solution able to curb an increasingly serious problem.

Do We Need a Nationwide Ban on Distracted Driving? originally appeared at Mobiledia on Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:08 pm.

Go ahead and use your cell phone: it won't cause cancer, says the U.K.'s top health experts, diminshing worries that people endanger their lives by staying connected.

Scientists with the country's Health Protection Agency have concluded that everyone in the U.K. gets exposed to "universal and continuous" low-level radio frequencies from cell phones, Wi-Fi, televisions and radios.

Despite the constant exposure, the scientists said, they did not find any definite links between the frequencies and cancer or other problems with brain function or infertility.

There are many studies on the safety of mobile phones, according to the BBC, but the HPA's study is by far the most expansive.

It also contradicts a World Health Organization project that determined cell phones cause certain types of brain cancer. Early last year, 31 scientists from 14 countries urged the WHO to re-examine its guidelines for safe mobile phone use.

However, while the U.K. scientists said there's no conclusive evidence cell phone radiation is dangerous, the scientists recommended research continues on cell phones' long-term effects. In addition, the HPA suggested that "excessive use of mobile phones by children should be discouraged," striking a slightly cautionary note.

The debate about the dangers of cell phones has been going on almost ever since the advents of mobile devices. For example, in 2004, Swedish scientists said that people who use cell phones for 10 or more years could end up having tumors, and in 2007, scientists said 10 minutes of cell phone use can cause changes in a person's brain.

But as more people started using cell phones without ill effects, new studies debunked the earlier ones. Last year, Danish researchers found no evidence of a link between cell phone use and cancer. They concluded, after following 350,000 adults 30 years of age and older for more than a decade, there was no difference in cancer rates between people who used a cell phone and those who did not, including no risk of developing a brain tumor at the site where a cell phone is held close to the head.

Since there are so many differences of opinion -- including in the U.K. scientists' report itself -- researchers will likely be divided for years to come about whether cell phones cause brain cancer or other diseases.

In addition, as cell phone use grows as people give up their landlines and switch to mobile devices, scientific studies about phones' dangers will likely shift, and researchers may change their opinion as researchers are able to study more users.

Finally, "recall bias" limits some studies, as cancer sufferers can have a tendency to over-report behaviors such as cell-phone use as they search for the reasons behind their condition, a factor that can skew survey data.

When it comes to cell phone use and cancer, there is still no certainty about which side of the debate the evidence may ultimately land heaviest on -- and until there's a definitive answer, it may be prudent for people to remember that too much of anything usually isn't a good thing.

Cell Phones Don't Cause Cancer, U.K. Researchers Say originally appeared at Mobiledia on Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:57 pm.

Nintendo posted a loss in its latest fiscal year for the first time since 1981, leading industry analysts to wonder if the stumble is a blip on the radar or the start of a trend.

The Score is a weekly column scoring controversial events in the mobile industry. Want to get to the point? We'll break it down and give you the score.

The Setup: In November 2006, there was no company in gaming that looked better than Nintendo. Critics were showering the company with praise for its innovative Nintendo Wii home console, and the Nintendo DS was on its way to becoming the most successful portable gaming system of all time.

Fast forward six years and 100 million Wii sales later, and the company is in a far different position. After an incredible run, sales of Nintendo's home console have come to a halt and its one-time innovative controls and graphics have become dated. Meanwhile, the Nintendo 3DS, the company's successor to the DS, stumbled out of the gate. After year on the market the console is only now, after a significant price drop, beginning to gain traction.

After three straight years of declining sales, Nintendo finally finds itself in the red with an outdated home console and a handheld fighting for its life against smartphones. But despite everything that has gone wrong for the Japanese gaming company recently, it can turn it all around if it lives up to the expectations it has set for itself in 2012.

Yes, the Wii is old. The graphics are bad and those who are waiting for awesome new games to make them dust off their Wiimotes are out of luck. But Nintendo is set to launch the Wii U later this year, promising better graphics, new games and whole new way to play them thanks to a new controller that features a giant touch screen. There's no better way to make a comeback than with a new system. Nintendo: +3,000 points

The new system does show some promise in the gameplay department, but there are reports that graphically it's no more powerful than the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3. Really, Nintendo? Those systems came out more than half a decade ago. Fail. Nintendo: -1,500 points

The 3DS got off to a poor start, but sales of the handheld have begun to turn around as more blockbuster games hit store shelves. There are even numbers showing the system is outpacing what the DS was doing at this point in its life cycle. What is it the kids are saying these days? "Don't call it a comeback!" Nintendo: +3,000 points

There is still one problem about the 3DS... Because Nintendo was forced to cut the price to actually start selling the damn thing it's now taking a loss on every unit sold. Ouch. Nintendo: -2,000 points

Final Score: Nintendo: +2,500 points

Wait, what? Nintendo posts a loss for the first time in 30 years and the company comes out with a positive score? It actually makes sense. Nobody's perfect. Nintendo is allowed to have a bad year and it can be just that: a bad year. A collection of factors played against the company this 2011.

The Wii was aging and Nintendo planned to stem slow sales of the home console with the launch of a new handheld while it put the finishing touches on the Wii U. Unfortunately, Nintendo misjudged the market and what customers were willing to pay for a dedicated portable gaming system in the age of the smartphone.

However, the company countered with a price drop and some great games, regained its swagger, and by the middle of the year expects to be able to sell the 3DS at a profit rather than a loss.

Nintendo is not out of the woods just yet. There is plenty of skepticism surrounding its upcoming console. If it fails to take off with users, the company could be in more financial trouble. However, if the Wii U lives up to expectations and the 3DS continues to sell at its current pace, then 2012 will be a smashing success for Nintendo, and the company will be on its way to starting up a new streak of profitability.

The Score: Is Nintendo's Rough Patch a Slip or a Spiral? originally appeared at Mobiledia on Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:19 am.

Apple's iTunes transformed music downloading, but if streaming companies have their way, buying tracks will be a thing of the past.

Media-Minded is our column charting how technology's opportunities and challenges transform traditional media and entertainment, for better or for worse.

Most of the top-selling albums on iTunes cost $10. But for the same price, users can subscribe for one month to Spotify, Rdio or Rhapsody, giving them access to millions of songs on their computer and mobile device. The all-you-can-eat services, particularly Spotify, have seen rapid growth in the past few months, as more customers stop downloading and begin streaming their favorite music.

The growth of music streamers, however, is threatening to upset the current standard for music consumption: Apple's iTunes Store. Users downloaded the program hundreds of millions of times, and Apple has built an empire selling devices that play the music it offers. Now, music streaming services are knocking on the door to become the users' first alternative to iTunes.

ITunes: The House That Apple Built

Apple laid the ground work for the world of digital music when it launched iTunes in January 2001. The online store met with skepticism by major record labels, but as key players in the industry began to buy in, Apple's platform became a universal record store that anyone could visit from the comfort of their own homes. ITunes successfully monetized the digital distribution of music, creating a new standard for purchasing artists' singles and albums and forever changing the music industry. As a result, Apple became a major music industry power, and its iTunes platform has become a powerful distributor beyond music.

The Case for Streaming

Just as the music industry has come to terms with iTunes as the gateway to offer its product to users, streaming services are emerging as a worthy alternative to Apple's established model, and are quickly gaining steam with consumers.

Subscribing to a music streaming service like Spotify is the most affordable way to listen to as much music as possible. The company has deals with nearly every major record label, allowing it to make music available the day an artist's CD hits store shelves.

If a user is a fan of three different bands all releasing new albums on the same day, downloading each CD from iTunes could cost $30 or more. Members of a streaming service could listen to all the new releases from a single day on an endless loop if they want, and the monthly bill would still be the same: $10.

One of the major knocks on music streamers in the past has been that if there is no Internet connection, there's no music. For example, a user depending on the iPhone's Spotify app to play their favorite music on a road trip is out of luck if they suddenly enter a dead zone and lose signal. However, each of the major streamers have introduced new features that allow subscribers to save their favorite music for offline use, so customers can play their favorite music no matter where they are.

Another big advantage to going with a music streamer is these services cut the need for storage capacity on a computer or mobile device. If a customer only has a 16-gigabyte smartphone, they may be forced to pick what songs from their music library they want to take with them. Music streamers house of all the music on their own servers, allowing users to keep their devices free of any locally stored music files.

The Case for Downloading

Sure, being able to stream all that music is convenient, but the anti-streamer could counter with the same argument that keeps many people from ever leasing a car. At the end of a yearly subscription to Spotify, what is the customer left with? The answer is nothing. The music streamed over their devices does not belong to them; it's borrowed. Purchasing an album on iTunes is real ownership. Once a customer buys an album, it exists on their hard drive forever and can be burned on to a CD or copied to an mp3 player.

Downloading music also guarantees a better listening experience. The quality of music streamers can reach 320-kilobytes per second, but that only happens when a user's Internet connection is optimal. Customers on the move are likely to fall victim to changing data speeds, which will greatly impact the quality of a listener's audio. In addition to better sound quality, users that stick to downloading have a larger musical selection. Streaming services offer millions of songs, but iTunes is the largest collection of online music, making it the only place to get several popular new and cataloged albums.

Room for Both

As streaming companies continue to find their place in the music industry and flesh out the amount of content they offer, there is a place for them to coexist with online stores like iTunes. Due to the incredible selection in Apple's music store, and the money the company has to keep certain things exclusive to its platform, iTunes will always have material that isn't in online streaming services.

There will also always be customers that prefer to purchase and own their music as opposed to streaming it from a company's servers, but any person getting their music off of Spotify, Rhapsody or Rdio is a person who likely isn't buying that same music on iTunes. Apple has enjoyed incredible revenues and profits from being the top destination for music online.

However, that may change as music streaming subscription services gain steam. Record labels have grown wary of the control Apple exerts over the digital music distribution platform and could welcome new players in the business. Still reeling from the transition to digital, music industry powers could welcome the opportunity to negotiate with streaming services, especially with the possibility of hammering out agreements that work in their favor.

Apple established a new industry model with iTunes and perfected it to a point that no one can duplicate. No one is saying that online streamers duplicate what iTunes does, but they represent a new way to do things all together, and that may be even more dangerous in the future.

Media-Minded: How Music Streaming Threatens ITunes Empire originally appeared at Mobiledia on Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:00 pm.