It is no secret that Android has seen a lot of commercial success over the past few years. A big part of that success has come from the perceived low cost of manufacturing an Android-powered device. Unfortunately, Google's mistreatment of others' patents has made the per-device cost pretty steep. For some manufacturers, they could pay upwards of $15 per device to license patents that Google has violated.
This is one of the main reasons we have seen companies searching for an Android alternative. Combine that with the shifting sands that are Android's manufacturing rules and regulations, and you'll find an immediate need for manufacturing alternatives. This week we got to see how manufacturers, both big and small, are responding to the Android issue.
SamsungFirst we have Samsung. Samsung, whose smartphone business has been built on the back of Android, has been unhappy with the platform for a while. They have been working in-house on their own operating system, Tizen, which has been released on several devices. None of these, however, has been a Samsung smartphone. All of that changed at Samsung's Tizen developer conference, where the company has announced their first Tizen-powered smartphone, the Samsung Z.
On the outside, the device is classic Samsung: big screen, great camera and their iconic physical home button, which they currently use on both Android and Windows Phone devices. In fact, a casual look at the handset would lead you to believe it is one of their flagship Galaxy handsets. You wouldn't be far off, with the device having many of the Galaxy S5 features: fingerprint sensor, heart rate monitor, 2.3GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon processor, an 8-megapixel camera with LED flash, etc.
The big difference here, of course, is the operating system. However, if you are a Samsung fan, you might not notice too many visual differences. That is because the TouchWiz interface that Samsung uses on their Android phones is designed by them, as is Tizen. With this, Samsung has made the transition from Android to Tizen fairly seamless for users.
Hit the break for a photo and some of the other manufacturers ditching Android.
One of the interesting things about Netflix CEO Reed Hastings is the fact that he's not afraid to say what he thinks. Over the past couple of months the thing he's been thinking about is net neutrality. This is been at the top of his mind because of the situation he's gotten into with some of the Internet providers. The service he has the most trouble with is Comcast.
This week at Re/code's Code Conference, he said what he was thinking once again. Once again, Comcast was the target of his frustrations. He calls out Comcast for what he considers to be "double dipping." By that he means Comcast charges both the subscribers and Netflix for the same Internet access.
They want the whole Internet to pay them for when their subscribers use the Internet. Should Comcast be able to charge everyone else for access to their subscribers?
He says the price Netflix is currently paying to keep their speeds high on some of the larger ISPs doesn't hurt them yet. However, if you're a cable subscriber, you know that the cable companies have a tendency to increase prices as time goes on. He feels that Netflix will become a victim of this same situation subscribers already go through.
In the past, Hastings has spoken out on the proposed merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable. He believes that the merger will only lead to more situations like this. It will certainly increase the amount that Netflix have to pay to Comcast to get their speeds up, as Comcast's subscriber count will increase dramatically.
Another recent concern has come from AT&T's announced plans to acquire DirecTV. This move could also help to consolidate the broadband market, making prices go up. Those increased prices could affect both you and Netflix. As we know, as Netflix's cost goes up,
so does their monthly price. All of these topics are what the FCC is trying to address with the net neutrality regulations.
Do you think Comcast should be able to charge for access in both directions, or should direct subscribers be the only ones subjected to fees? Let us know in the comments.
We've been talking about net neutrality around here a lot lately. That is, in part, to the FCC recently trying to reinstate net neutrality regulations. While most of the country is happy about this, not everyone feels the same way.
One of the ways the FCC hopes to reinstate net neutrality is by reclassifying broadband as a utility. This move would make the Internet an optional necessity. This would allow for easier credit checks for customers, among other benefits. As a utility, more customers should have access to better Internet connections.
Unfortunately for the FCC, they have an opponent in Representative Bob Latta from Ohio. He has introduced a bill prohibiting the FCC from reclassifying broadband as the utility. Representative Latta said the move would actually hurt the economy.
At a time when the Internet economy is thriving and driving robust productivity and economic growth, it is reckless to suggest, let alone adopt, policies that threaten its success. Reclassification would heap 80 years of regulatory baggage on broadband providers, restricting their flexibility to innovate and placing them at the mercy of a government agency.
In light of the FCC initiating yet another attempt to regulate the Internet, upending long-standing precedent and imposing monopoly-era telephone rules and obligations on the 21st Century broadband marketplace, Congress must take action to put an end to this misguided regulatory proposal. The Internet has remained open and continues to be a powerful engine fueling private enterprise, economic growth and innovation absent government interference and obstruction.
Many consumer advocacy groups have demanded the FCC make this move. Since asking for open comment on the subject, the FCC has received over 48,000 comments. The general consensus from consumers is that they want the FCC to step in and prevent carriers from limiting their access to content.
The internet should be managed like a utility," wrote one person. "Don't let corporate greed degrade line speeds.
I am requesting that the FCC reclassifies Internet Service Providers as Title II common carriers. The USA is founded on principles of equality and freedom. These foundational concepts need to be applied to the Internet, particularly as we as a society move forward with technological advances. The internet is vital to society, and this uniquely creative and open marketplace must remain a place for all of us regardless of deep pockets and political connections.
These consumers fears have been underscored by the recent
Viacom situation with Cable One. Viacom's ability to punish Internet subscribers for the perceived sins of their cable company is exactly what people are worried about. This, by definition, is the opposite of "The Internet has remained open," so eloquently spoken by Representative Latta.
So, do you think the FCC should regulate the Internet or do you think we should continue down the Wild West path we're on. We want to know. Sound off in the comments.
Electronic Arts is working to streamline its mobile development by closing another studio. This time, instead of closing social-focused
Playfish, EA is ending a studio that has been involved in a lot of big titles. Mythic Entertainment, creators of Dungeon Keeper and Warhammer Online and MMO pioneers of The Dark Age of Camelot, is closed.
According to a statement from EA,
We are closing the EA Mythic location in Fairfax, Va., as we concentrate mobile development in our other studio locations. We are working with all impacted employees to provide assistance in finding new opportunities, either within EA or with other companies via an upcoming job fair.
While it is nice that EA is working to find the affected employees new jobs, it is always disappointing when a 20-year-old studio closes. It is especially disappointing when that studio has been involved in projects early in the life of a genre. Unfortunately, it was to be expected when their mobile adaptations of
Dungeon Keeper and Ultima Forever: Quest for the Avatar were such big flops. Peter Molyneux even attacked the franchise he created by saying the new version was just an EA pay-to-win title.
Hopefully everyone in the employ of the studio in Fairfax, Virginia will find new work. As for those titles, however, hopefully they will be let to disappear into the EA failure vault.