Cell Phone News

Research in Motion's BlackBerry 10 operating system has some appealing features, but its glaring absence of available apps will hurt the company's efforts to regain relevance.

The Waterloo, Ont.-based company focuses on making the user experience on its updated platform as "fluid" as possible. This includes new gestures so customers can see all notifications without leaving the device's home screen, a messaging app that includes IMs, emails and text messages in the same space and a new live tile system and app drawer.

When the iPhone and Android smartphones began to emerge, RIM missed the boat by failing to evolve its OS to keep up. Now, the company is missing it again as it spends all its time updating BlackBerry's user interface while ignoring the health of its mobile app store. Features like live tiles on the home screen and an updated, intuitive keyboard are nice interface ideas, but they may not be enough to make customers go with BlackBerry over platforms with more established app stores.

BlackBerry 10's ability to run apps fully in the background without having to pause them could be a standout feature for the platform. However, most of what RIM is doing with its new OS are things that Apple and Google have already accomplished with iOS and Android, simply in a new packaging.

Android and iOS offer hundreds of thousands of mobile apps, giving customers hundreds of different ways to use their devices. Developers are eager to support the platforms due to the number of users each has, but they will likely shy away from BlackBerry 10 until the OS builds a larger customer base.

RIM was eager to show off the new look of BlackBerry 10, and with good reason. It offers a fresh take on some classic smartphone features and is the biggest leap the operating system has ever taken. But the company's failure to aggressively recruit developers and give them incentive to support the platform will ultimately be its undoing. RIM has promised developers $10,000 for apps for the BlackBerry platform, but that may not be enough compared to the potential audience and profits rival systems offer.

The BlackBerry 10 platform will launch later this year, but it may end up being the best platform no one is using because of its dire app situation.

Hey RIM: It's the App Store, Stupid! originally appeared at Mobiledia on Tue May 15, 2012 11:54 am.

The pervasive use of gadgets could affect our experience of time, as neuroscience begins to unravel one of the biggest mysteries of human consciousness.

Time is one of the most arcane subjects of study in multiple disciplines, a topic fascinating to philosophers and scientists but famously difficult to study. Philosophers have long contemplated its apparent plasticity: why and how does time seem to go slower during some events, fly quickly in others, and disappear altogether during certain peak experiences?

Scientists who study the brain are just beginning to unravel how complex the perception of time is, and their research intersects into how gadgets and technology are reshaping human consciousness in fundamental ways.

Does Time Really Go Faster and Slower?

Time, of course, can be measured objectively in seconds, minutes, hours and other units. But the human experience of time, i.e., how time feels as we move through it, is altogether a different beast. Where exactly in the brain do we process and experience time? The answer to that question has traditionally eluded neuroscientists, since the perception of time has no defined location in the brain, unlike other senses like sight, hearing, touch and smell.

From a subjective point of view, neuroscientists are discovering that time is actively constructed by the human mind through complex cognitive processes of both past memory and future projection, both of which use the same parts of the brain. From the brain's point of view, past and future are nearly the same, making people's sense of time highly variable.

For example, neuroscientist David Eagleman of Baylor College of Medicine, who rose to prominence for his research on time and perception in the brain, conducted a famous experiment on how time seems to slow down for human beings during traumatic or scary experiences.

Eagleman initially tried conducting experiments on roller coaster riders, but, finding that amusement park rides did not generate enough fear, devised an experiment to drop volunteers backwards from a 150-foot height without attached ropes into a special net breaking their fall. Volunteers reached 70 mph during the three-second fall. Interestingly, volunteers estimated their own fall lasted about a third longer than dives they saw other volunteers take.

Eagleman discovered that this "time warping" seems like a trick played by one's memory. During experiences of fear and trauma, a brain area called the amygdala becomes more active, laying down an extra set of memories that augment data recorded in other areas of the brain.

"In this way, frightening events are associated with richer and denser memories," said Eagleman to LiveScience. "And the more memory you have of an event, the longer you believe it took."

Eagleman said this illusion "is related to the phenomenon that time seems to speed up as you grow older. When you're a child, you lay down rich memories for all your experiences; when you're older, you've seen it all before and lay down fewer memories. Therefore, when a child looks back at the end of a summer, it seems to have lasted forever; adults think it zoomed by."

Do Gadgets Add to the "Density" of Experiences?

Eagleman's idea of "richer, denser" experiences impacting our memory and sense of time poses interesting questions as technology increasingly plays a role in our everyday life. Do activities like taking pictures of an experience for Instagram, checking into Facebook and live-tweeting add to the perceptual density of experiences, magnifying our emotional acuity as they happen and helping us pay attention to the density of details during an event?

Technology and gadgets do offer constant novelty, and novelty is one major factor that can distort our memory, since our brains respond more strongly to newness over repetition. Various stimuli such as interruptions affect our sense of time in an experience and could cause our brains to store them differently, impacting our memory of them.

Eagleman investigated the impact of novelty on time and memory by asking volunteers to estimate the duration of flashes of light during an experience; those flashes that were the first in a series, or broke an established pattern, seemed to last longer because of their newness, though they may have been essentially the same duration.

The result is an interesting paradox: a boring event takes forever when sitting through it, but it seems to pass by quickly in our memory of it. But for something exciting, time flies during the experience of the event, but remembering it is dense with detail, making our sense of its duration stretch out.

With boring events, there was little to remember, so the brain collapses the sense of duration. But in memories of something fun, the richness of details seems to expand the event's duration in our minds and weigh its importance in our memory.

Technology is often excoriated as a constant distraction or interruption to work, relationships, sleep and other fundamental human experiences. But when it comes to breaking up the routine of certain events or even causing us to take a moment to pause and take a closer look at the minutiae of everyday life, it may offer enough novelty to make an experience pass by faster while expanding its weight in our memory, leaving behind a richer tapestry of consciousness to draw upon.

How Fast is Too Fast?

Technology's precise impact on our experiences of time has yet to be measured, but it's already shown to affect certain cognitive processes. A study on "Google brain" found that people are now more like to "outsource" the memory of certain types of data in a process called "transactive memory" -- instead of remembering facts, they are more likely to remember how to find and find these facts instead.

"We're not thoughtless empty-headed people who don't have memories anymore," said Betsy Sparrow, research team leader and psychologist at Columbia University, which conducted the study. "But we are becoming particularly adept at remembering where to go find things. And that's kind of amazing."

In terms of biochemistry, studies show gadgets offer boosts of certain brain chemicals associated with novelty and pleasure. Constant usage of electronics boosts doses of dopamine in the brain, according to scientists. Juggling e-mail, phone calls, texts and other incoming information is changing how people think and behave by playing to primitive impulses that respond to immediate threats and opportunities. These tech interruptions produce a hit of dopamine that researchers say is addictive and could rewire a brain to crave constant stimulation.

"The technology is rewiring our brains," said neuroscientist Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, to the New York Times.

However, researchers grapple with the question of whether this rewiring is beneficial to human beings, or whether it is causing undue stress. Many people are now exploring deliberate slowdowns or abstaining from technology for periods of time in efforts to recharge -- and to pay closer attention to the experiences of life.

A constant through line of much neuroscience research marvels at the amazing plasticity of the human brain -- of its ability to grow and make new connections between different parts. Exploration on the impact of technology on the brain's inner workings is only beginning, particularly when it comes to perceiving the past, present and future, but there's evidence that the influx of technology is already making time move faster for us collectively: a study found that a 62-year old in 1997 perceived time is about 7.69 times as fast as that perceived by a 62-year old in 1897.

Changes in how we perceive the speed of time will likely have a potentially significant long-term impact on our productivity, our lifestyles and our ability to cope with the rapid pace of changes wrought by technology. Time indeed may seem like it is moving faster as we speed into the future, but whether that's from enjoyment or from trying to keep up with modern lifestyles remains unknown.

The Ultimate Juggling Act

The ability for humans to hold the past, present and future in their minds is a hallmark of their consciousness. Without the ability to juggle various dimensions of time simultaneously in the thought process, humans would have never evolved key innovations central to evolution: agriculture, for example, or anything involving the observation of cause and effect.

Indeed, many devastating psychological and neurological disorders - such as schizophrenia or strokes -- show how an impairment of the perception of time and the ability to construct, retain and recall memory can destroy a sense of self and enjoyment of life.

Yet we don't have a complete picture on how the human brain pieces together the perception of time, making it one of the last frontiers of understanding and one of the most enduring human mysteries. Scientists are only beginning to unravel the brain's inner workings of time and how human beings perceive it, as the rapid pace of technology continues to impact the delicate balance between past, present and future in our minds.

How Tech Is Making Time Tick Faster originally appeared at Mobiledia on Tue May 15, 2012 10:18 am.

Is the smartphone race becoming one based on software and apps, or does hardware still matter when it comes to swaying consumers?

Crossing the Wires debates opposing sides of a complex issue to give you the compete picture.

Why Hardware Will Always Matter

As Apple's iOS and Google's Android platform continue to battle for market share, it's easy to think smartphones have become all about the software, but what's under the hood, and the hood itself, still matters and it always will.

The argument here isn't that software doesn't matter. It does. In fact, software is probably the number one thing people consider before making their choice about which smartphone they're going to buy. Android or iOS? Maybe the user wants to try something different and go with a Windows Phone device. However, after that choice is made, it all comes down to hardware.

Hardware Drives Consumer Choices

Let's say the customer decides to go with Android. Great. The next question customers must ask themselves is what they will use the device for. Are they a heavy consumer of media? Will they use the device as their primary camera? The answer to which smartphone works best for them is in the hardware.

An argument could be made that most top-tier Android phones share the same specs. Most will have a dual-core processor, an 8-megapixel camera and run on the carrier's fastest available data network. However, different devices will have different strengths based on the hardware used. For example, the top three selling Android devices on Amazon right now are the Samsung Infuse 4G, Samsung Galaxy S2 and HTC Incredible 2, all free with a contract.

They all run Android, so how does the customer decide? Each also sports similar specs, but the devices are not interchangeable. The handsets have different strengths that all come down to hardware. Camera lovers are best off with the HTC Incredible 2, media heavy users are likely to enjoy the Samsung Infuse and its 4.7-inch screen and customers looking for a light, thin device would likely want to pick up the S2.

The iPhone's success is the best argument to be made by the other side that hardware doesn't matter anymore. Millions of people line up to buy a device that comes in just one flavor of hardware (aside from storage capacity) because the iOS software and Apple's App Store offer a great experience.

However, even that is changing, and Apple now offers a wider array of hardware choices and price points for consumers to choose from. Now, even if a customer decides they're going with an iOS device, users still must decided if they want the power and glass design of the iPhone 4S or if they prefer to keep it simple with the plastic iPhone 3GS.

The iPad offers even more hardware differentiation: the latest model of the iPad offers a retina display, for consumers who want to experience media and games on the tablet with clear detail and resolution.

The PC-Wars Pushed Hardware Differentiation

Analysts love to draw the comparison between the personal computer market and the smartphone market, and for good reason since they are very much alike. Smartphones have become pocket computers and the rise of Android and iOS is akin to the war between Mac OS X and Windows in PC land.

That only further strengthens the argument that hardware matters. The customer decides whether they want a Windows computer or a Mac, and then weigh a host of hardware options.

An older couple looking for a Windows computer to browse the Web and send e-mails does not need a laptop that's packing the same power as a college student who intends to edit video and play games. All the machines are running the same Windows software, so how do they differentiate? The answer is hardware.

Whether it's a computer or a smartphone, customers will always have different needs. The smartphone's operating system now plays a bigger part in a customer's decision in which device to buy. However, once that decision is made, the reason a buyer walks out of the store with one smartphone as opposed to another is always going to come down to the hardware. (Joe Arico)

Software Makes All the Difference When It Comes to Phones

As smartphones sales push out dumb phones, consumers have an increasingly powerful mini-computer in their pockets -- shifting the focus from hardware to software and apps, much like PCs shifted decades ago.

There comes a point where hardware is "fast enough," where consumers don't have to wonder whether their smartphones can run the apps they want. Once that point hits, people won't care about the components. Instead, they'll care about the brand, and the apps and services available.

Five years ago, the range of smartphones was wide. Not only did buyers have to decide on a carrier, but also power, features, camera, MP3 player, everything. Phone makers touted bells and whistles, largely in the way of hardware improvements -- such as better cameras, better screens, slimmer designs.

Then Apple and Google got into the picture. Smartphones got faster, and suddenly there were platforms for developers to create third-party apps. Consumers started caring that iOS had a better browser or iTunes, or Android had Google Apps and futuristic augmented reality glasses.

Software to Stand Out

As smartphones advance, fragmentation is converging. And that's becoming a problem for hardware makers. The truth is companies find it harder to stand out from the crowd. Their phones all run the same platform, albeit a few minor tweaks. So what's the difference?Android makers, like LG, HTC and Samsung, faced a dilemma -- when you all run Android, how do you stand out? Some companies have resorted to hardware gimmicks like 3D screens, 3D cameras and 3D sound. But guess what? Consumers didn't care, and those products flopped.

Perennial successes know that the platform -- does it run Android 4.0 or 2.3? -- and the brand -- the Galaxy vs. the Droid -- draw in customers. Maybe some still care about the guts, but it's less than a few years ago. As long as the hardware is "fast enough," consumers care less about the number of colors on the screen, or megapixels on the camera -- just as long as it runs Angry Birds.

Consumers choose their phones based on the platform and the apps available -- which is the heart of the Apple/Google battle. Control over the computer in your pocket, much like Microsoft dominates the PC on your desk.

If you're used to Apple's interface, or you really need that iPhone-only app, you'll be less likely to buy Android. And vice versa.

Apps Drive Smartphone Success

That's why Apple and Google dominate, and why HP and RIM tried so desperately, and failed, to enter the smartphone market with WebOS and the PlayBook. It's not that their hardware was bad -- in fact, they sported some of the most advanced components at the time.

The problem was much deeper. Consumers didn't buy them because their platforms didn't have as many apps as Apple and Google. And developers weren't creating apps for them because there were so few users. It's a software Catch-22 that ultimately forced both companies to shut down their mobile operations -- not hardware.

As further evidence, Android makers worry about Google entering the smartphone market with its own Google phone. Google has repeatedly said it will not play favorites, but that hasn't stopped them from beefing up their services. Android makers understand they're tied to Google's hip, for better or worse, and one move can doom them -- because Google wants a service play, integrating Google Search, Gmail and Google Maps, while tracking you to better target advertising.

The Google Phone

Frankly, if Google makes its own phones, it'll contract to someone like Foxconn, a company many electronics giants user to make its products. But not everyone integrate services the way Google can.

This happened to PCs decades ago. Remember when you used to build your own systems? That new video card mattered. That new Intel chip mattered. That new sound card mattered. Then, as hardware got "fast enough," somewhere along the line, you stopped caring about the parts. The big choice became, "Do I want a Mac or PC?" And if you chose PC, "Do I want HP? Or Dell?"

Windows and Mac fought it out. And Microsoft's "open" approach -- anyone who wants to develop for Windows, can -- ultimately won. Apple's "closed" approach -- we want to control the look, feel and experience -- hindered the number of programs available. Sound familiar? It should, because history is repeating itself.

The difference now is Google has replaced Microsoft, but the shift in consumer taste is the same -- hardware didn't matter for PCs. And it won't matter for smartphones. (Allen Tsai)

Does hardware really matter, or does it boil down to the OS and apps? Tell us what you think.

Crossing the Wires: Does Hardware or Software Matter for Smartphones? originally appeared at Mobiledia on Mon May 14, 2012 3:21 pm.

Prisoners behind bars are cut off from the rest of the world, except for the occasional visit and some mailed-in letters. But the same tools people "on the outside" use to communicate with each other -- cell phones and tablets -- are finding their ways into prisons.

Despite states cracking down on phones in prisons, the problem of mobile contrabands are spiraling out of control, despite state and federal laws that forbid them from being in inmates' hands. In addition, while most prisons either do not allow Internet use or censor prisoners' ability to go online, smartphone technology is bringing even more changes to how prisoners communicate to each other and the outside world.

Many prisons weigh the benefits of allowing Internet use, while remaining concerned about the rampant use of cellphones, which authorities can't monitor, leading to illegal activities.

The Contraband Problem

Prison officials have long battled illegal feature phones, even though they have limited uses for making telephone calls and sending simple texts. However, smartphones are eclipsing feature phones worldwide, and time isn't standing still in prisons, either, with powerful smartphones making the contraband phone issue more challenging. While convicts are generally banned from using the Internet in most prisons across the U.S., smartphones give inmates unprecedented access to the outside world.

"The smartphone is the most lethal weapon you can get inside a prison," Terry L. Bittner, director of security products with the ITT Corporation, one of a handful of companies that create cellphone-detection systems for prisons told the New York Times. "The smartphone is the equivalent of the old Swiss Army knife. You can do a lot of other things with it."

Corrections officials say smartphones allow prisoners to have uncensored time online. While some may be using their illegal phones to contact family members on the outside, others use them for more nefarious purposes, including calling up maps, photos and photographs for illegal activities.

The smartphones also allow inmates to easily orchestrate gang violence, drug deals and more while they're in prison, and to intimidate witnesses and victims who may have thought they were out of danger.

Smartphones have even been used to coordinate work stoppages not just in one prison, but among prisoners in other locations, too. During an uprising in a Georgia prison not long ago, inmates texted and e-mailed inmates at other prisons to organize simultaneous protests, communicated with advocates and even conducted news interviews over their smartphones.

The phones are also being used to bring in contraband. For example, in 2009, a Maryland prison's gang members were using smartphones to approve robbery targets and to order seafood and cigars.

Beyond Bans, What Can Prisons Do?

This activity occurs despite the fact that prisoners aren't allowed to have smartphones, or feature phones, for that matter, highlighting the slippery nature of the problem.

All state and federal prisons in the U.S. ban cellphones, even for their top officials, meaning that by law, if a prisoner wants to communicate with anyone on the outside, he or she has to either write a snail mail letter, wait in line to make a collect call on a pay phone or wait for visitor's day.

The punishment varies for prisoners found with phones. In some states, possession of a phone in prison affects the inmate's parole, while in others, prisoners face new criminal charges on top of the crimes that already put them behind bars.

In 2010, President Barack Obama signed a law making possession of any wireless device in a federal prison a felony punishable by up to a year more in prison.

But when California prison guards even found a flip phone under notorious killer Charles Manson's mattress, it shows the problem is out of control.

So should prisons just give up and allow cell phones to become as common and legal as the books and MP3 players prisoners are already allowed to have?

It doesn't appear the bans are working and surprisingly, there are many compelling arguments for allowing prisoners to not only have cellphones, but Internet through computers or tablets as well.

Why Not Jam the Signals?

Obviously, smartphones in prisons aren't going away. In California alone last year, authorities confiscated more than 15,000 phones, most likely smuggled in by friends and family members while visiting inmates. The numbers multiplied from 1,400 in 2007, according to corrections department data.

These numbers are sparking interest in equipment that can be installed to block all those signals.

Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown's administration and a private communications company want to deploy special equipment to block the phones' signals, but the study says the equipment "raises significant concerns," could undermine public safety and be unreliable, according to the a report by the nonpartisan California Council on Science and Technology.

Last month, corrections officials in California awarded a contract to filter electronic communications through Global Tel*Link, which operates traditional payphones inmates use. Global says it'll recoup its costs through increased demand for the payphones, which they say prisoners will return to once their cellphone signals get blocked.

"This groundbreaking and momentous technology will enable CDCR to crack down on the potentially dangerous communications by inmates," corrections Secretary Matt Cate said, noting inmates "have used cell phones to commit more crimes, organize assaults on staff and terrorize victims."

However, the technology, the study says, can't capture many of the signals that smartphones use, including 4G, Wi-Fi or Skype, and can't identify specific phones or users.

In addition, the technology could interfere with outside cell phone communications, which is illegal under federal law.

A Money-Making Alternative

Some prisons have worked out a way for their inmates to maintain modern communications -- and how to make a buck from it themselves. For example, the Kansas Department of Corrections allows Internet use, which it says improves security and reduces contraband.

The services are limited, but allow prisoners to exchange e-mails, photos, and visit their loved ones from miles away by video links. This not only benefits the prisoners -- by allowing them contact with the outside world -- but could help in their rehabilitation efforts by also connecting them with job services, online courses and to keep up better with the technology they'll need when they become free again.

Inmates must pay to use the service, with the money going into the prisons' Inmate Benefit Fund to buy library books or other supplies. Prisoners pay 44 cents per e-mail, the same cost as if they're sending a letter through the mail, so authorities have learned that as long as the inmates are communicating, the facility may as well make money from it.

The program also saves the prison system money by cutting down on mailroom processes and the need to check all mail that comes through. Since it is difficult to physically send contraband in an e-mail, and electronic messages are automatically scanned for words and phrases associated with criminal activity or security threats, this may be a more secure alternative. Staff members also can check attachments, like digital photos, to ensure they don't contain sexually explicit content.

By allowing inmates access to the Internet, perhaps some of the lure of having an illegal smartphone could be lost.

The Solution?

The fact is, there may not be one -- and people who want to stay in contact with their families, not break laws, may suffer. Prisoners have all kinds of ways of getting hold of smartphones, whether they're thrown over the facility's walls, smuggled in by other prisoners or even sold to them by prison guards.

Perhaps the solution isn't to ban them altogether, but make them more difficult to use. Prisons may work with cell phone providers to ban service to individual prisoners' numbers, when they find the inmates have the contraband. In addition, perhaps more advanced equipment to block cell phone service -- technology that is more modern than that being used in California -- may be the answer.

Or the answer may end up in more prisons adopting systems like that in Kansas -- and offer responsible Internet use for those inmates and their families who will benefit from it while punishing inmates who insist on illegally contacting the outside world.

The prison struggles, while difficult, are illustrating how different levels of society are grappling for the most appropriate use of mobile technology, and how important devices have become to today's society, whether among free people or those behind bars.

Smartphones in Prison: The New File in the Cake originally appeared at Mobiledia on Mon May 14, 2012 1:58 pm.

Want to send a text message while out on a stroll? In part of New Jersey, hold still, or face a hefty fine.

Fort Lee, N.J. banned texting while walking, illustrating how far lawmakers are going to remedy the dangers of texting-induced distractions. Three pedestrians in Fort Lee died because of texting while walking in the past year, and officials decided to outlaw the habit to ramp up safety measures. With a population of around 32,000, the city has already issued 117 tickets since the law's start several weeks ago.

Fort Lee is the first place to start and enforce such strict guidelines. Philadelphia began a campaign to curb pedestrian texting, but the police issued reminders, not tickets, a far cry from Fort Lee's $85 fine.

Other cities and towns have mulled distracted walking bans in the past, but none have passed them.

Research indicates texters on the move are 60 percent more likely to swerve into someone, but issuing tickets for the behavior is a little extreme. People have also died while listening to their iPods and crossing the street, but for most people who listen to music while walking, multitasking is not a problem. The ban dismisses the idea of personal responsibility and shows what it looks like when governments try to micromanage citizen behavior.

Aside from the distracted texting deaths in Fort Lee, distracted texters have made the national news on several occasions recently, with a man nearly walking into a bear, a teenager in China walking into a sinkhole and woman falling into a fountain -- all stumbling because they glued their eyes to their phones.

Anyone doing anything besides staring directly at the road ahead is in danger of not paying attention, but one of the benefits of walking is you can't kill anyone (besides possibly yourself) by going off-course and bumping into them.

Distracted driving bans are reasonable, because the fatalities and stakes are much higher. But aside from isolated incidents, texting while walking is not particularly more treacherous than doing anything else while walking.

Fort Lee's decision to focus on distracted pedestrians, instead of accelerating a campaign to punish the far more lethal problem of distracted driving, misdirects valuable time and energy. Moreover, people may respect law enforcement authorities less if they receive tickets they perceive as unwarranted, which may lead to an increase in illegal behaviors with legitimate risks, like texting while driving.

Distracted pedestrian texting might cause problems on occasion, but responding with a blanket ban is not an appropriate response. Lawmakers should focus their energies on curbing practices that are dangerous on a wider level, like distracted driving, or they run the risk of undermining the authority of its law enforcement officials by asking them to carry out a petty ban.

If Fort Lee's policy takes hold in other cities, it will do more to inspire doubt about law enforcement's priorities than it will to keep people safe. Targeting distracted pedestrians demonstrates a profound lack of efficiency, as the town goes after people who are primarily nuisances, not dangers. Fort Lee and other areas contemplating a distracted pedestrian ban should refocus their efforts on distracted drivers and more pressing public safety concerns.

Why Texting While Walking Ban Goes Too Far originally appeared at Mobiledia on Mon May 14, 2012 11:28 am.