Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Tell Ubuntu Which Third-Party Apps You Want Available


It's bound to roil open source advocates, but some Ubuntu leaders are asking the community which third-party, proprietary applications should be available for easy installation. You can weigh in on Photoshop, iTunes, Evernote, and more in an online survey.

As noted in the Ubuntu Forums post announcing the survey, the question isn't about which apps are included by default in the operating system, but which apps should be worked on to be easily installed from Ubuntu's official software sources. There are, to be sure, third-party, not-entirely-open apps available in the optional repositories you can enable from Ubuntu's settings, but by asking whether apps like iTunes, Photoshop, and Spotify should be made easy to emulate and install on your Ubuntu system, the developer community is showing a real focus on expanding Linux use beyond the seasoned geek crowd.

Hit the link to drop your thoughts on which apps should be easily installed in Ubuntu, and tell us here what kind of apps should be available in the open source OS.


[link to original | source: Lifehacker: Ubuntu | published: 18 hours ago | shared via feedly]


Android Usage Increased 200% Over Past 3 Months


According to new data from ChangeWave Research, both usage and consumer sentiment towards Google's mobile operating system Android has increased over the past several months. As of December 2009, the research firm's survey shows that 4% of all smartphone owners now use a phone running some version of the Android OS. That's an increase of 200% since the previous survey released in September.

Sponsor

Respondents were also asked about their plans to purchase a smartphone in the future. Among those who planned to purchase within the next 90 days, 21% said they would now choose Android. In September, that figure was only 6%. At that time, Android was tied with Palm as the least-preferred mobile operating system but by December's survey, it became the second-most preferred. (Palm, sadly, has dropped to least-preferred).

Apparently, some of Android's growth has come at the expense of the iPhone. While still the most popular mobile OS to date, those saying they would prefer to own the Apple device over any other smartphone dropped from 32% to 28% over the past three months (September - November 2009). However, Apple's overall share of the market has increased one percentage point to 31%, notes the survey. Research in Motion (makers of Blackberry phones) retains a 39% share and Palm has slipped to a 6% share.

While this seems like promising news for Android, let's not forget the recent figures regarding sales of the Nexus One, Google's self-sold Android smartphone. Once positioned as a potential "iPhone killer," the N1's first week sales fell short of expectations with just 20,000 sold since its January 5th launch date. So while consumer sentiment may be on the rise regarding the Android OS, the mobile OS still has quite a ways to go before it catches up with the iPhone 3GS (which, incidentally, sold 1.6 million devices in its first week).

However, positioning the N1 against the iPhone isn't really a valid comparison -the N1 is only one of many Android handsets on the market today. Other Android-enabled phones like the myTouch 3G and the Droid also have significant and growing install bases. Combined, the overall marketshare for Android is on the rise. This growth is benefitting both Motorola and HTC, each who offer a version of the Droid smartphone. (HTC is also the maker of the N1). Since September, Motorola has increased 12 percentage points in terms of future buying, the first increase ChangeWave Research has seen for the company in three years. HTC has also increased from 5% to 9% in the same time frame, a change prompted both by the N1 release and the November release of the Droid Eris model.

Discuss


[link to original | source: ReadWriteWeb | published: 18 hours ago | shared via feedly]


Google, the Internet and Civil Disobedience As a Business Strategy



Everyone, it seemed, had a strong reaction to Google's decision this week to stop censoring its search results on Google.cn. Some were impressed with its moral stance; some found it to be too little, too late; and still others viewed it as a cynical move.

Maybe I've been writing about the business world for too long, but my first thought was -– hmm, Google has turned civil disobedience into a business strategy.

To be clear, civil disobedience is substantially different for a company than it is for individual citizens. Google will never face the triumvirate risks that many people who defy oppressive governments do:  jail, torture, death. Instead, Google will likely have to shut down its offices in China, a move that could cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue this year alone.

But judging from some of the ideas that shaped Thoreau's use of the term back in the 1840s — the refusal to resign consciences to governments or to become agents of injustice –- Google is in fact acting out of civil disobedience. It's certainly not the first company to do so; those that voluntarily divested from South Africa and other countries with appalling policies were doing the same. But Google is the first company I can think of to act on such a large scale.

Does that mean Google is acting from self-interest or altruism? My guess is both, but I'll let that debate simmer on other web pages. I'm willing to accept that Sergey Brin is doing what he believes is right. But Google is a corporation, not a person, and its interests and motives are by definition much more complex.

Whether to practice civil disobedience is less and less of a marginal issue for companies in a global economy. The question of whether to practice it is an especially pertinent one for Internet companies to ask now –- if for no other reason than the fact that the Internet is an ideal platform for supporting protests. Back in 1998, Stefan Wray wrote an essay on electronic civil disobedience in which he foresaw how the Internet and civil disobedience would be closely enmeshed, noting that:

While it may be partially true…that participation in street actions has become increasingly meaningless and futile and that future resistance must become primarily nomadic, electronic, and cyberspacial, it is doubtful that physical street actions, involving real people on the ground, will end any time soon. What is more likely is that we will see electronic civil disobedience continue to be phased in as a component of or as a complement to traditional civil disobedience.

Call it cynical or practical, but Google, whose business is done entirely on the Internet, recognizes that evolution. Google is forced to choose sides in a battle that has been unfolding for some time – China vs. the Internet – and the side it's chosen will win in the long run. The risks, though, lie in how long it will take for that victory to arrive, and what it will cost Google in the meantime.


[link to original | source: GigaOM | published: 2 days ago | shared via feedly]


State of the Internet Report




The Price Of Google In China


Google Beijing by pamhuleThe news this past week that Google would cease the censorship of its search results in China, and could well be forced to entirely halt operations in the country as a result, is quite simply one of the most interesting stories to come along in the tech sphere in a long time. The reality is that it's not just a tech story; it spills into the world of international politics and beyond. And it could have wide-reaching ramifications far into the future. Did I mention there was hacking involved and potential espionage?

There are just so many angles to this story, and nearly everyone seems to have an opinion. Two of those we covered earlier in the week included Sarah's take that Google's actions were more about business (or a lack thereof) for the company in China. Paul, meanwhile, was quick to dampen the cheers from Silicon Valley that Google was doing the right thing, arguing they're four years too late for this new stance to have any moral weight. Mike followed this up with a comment on the post, "The problem with un-censoring now is that it further reinforces that the decision was the wrong one from the beginning, and that they knew full well it was wrong even when they made it." All of that rings true. But I disagree.

My position is a simple one that is twofold: it's never too late to do the right thing. And it's never wrong to do the right thing.

The people hooting and hollering immediately following Google's post on the matter may have been being a bit naive about some of the causes behind this move, but that doesn't make their immediate reaction that this is great news, any less true. Should Google have made concessions to China four years ago, veering off from their "don't be evil" philosophy? No. But that's easy to say when you're not trying to run a company that grew from a project in a garage to a multi-billion dollar business with users all over the world and public shareholders looking at the bottom line.

Many accounts have Google's initial China decision boiling down to CEO Eric Schmidt convincing co-founder Sergey Brin that it was the right thing to do for the business. Further, there was apparently talk that with a foothold in China, Google would be in a better position to change things from the outside in. That argument, along with point 8 in Google's "Ten Things Philosophy" (The need for information crosses all borders), may have convinced him to cede points one (Focus on the user and all else will follow.), four (Democracy on the web works.), and six (You can make money without doing evil.) Without making the filtering concessions, Google simply would have never have been allowed to operate in China.

Obviously, the outside in approach to changing things didn't work as well as Google may have hoped, but it may not have been a total disaster either. After all, while Google may not have had a strong foothold in the Chinese search market from an overall perspective, indications are that they did have a very solid hold of the better educated, young elite class in China. Those are the same users that are likely to one day be running some of the most powerful technology companies in the country. And they're apparently not happy about the prospect of losing the ability to use Google. Are they going to overthrown the Communist government? Not likely. But they could add significant pressure in the push to open things up more.

The sad fact of the matter is that while Google may have wrongly bent to China, so too have many companies in the past. And those companies are still doing it. And many more will in the future. Google no longer is, and assuming they stick to their word, no longer will. Again, no matter the reason, and no matter the timing, that means something.

And it especially means something coming from a company as big and as powerful as Google. Rival Yahoo has already come out in support of Google's new stance, and that's despite their substantial ownership in the large Chinese Internet company Alibaba (which criticized Yahoo's praise of Google). And so has no less than the White House. It'd be nice to see Microsoft come out in support as well (especially since their software is apparently to blame for the hacking), but they're not doing that. But thanks to Google's new stance on the matter, they'll be criticized for it more than they would have been in the past. Google's position may not hold the moral high ground, but it is shaking things up, and that matters more.

Also, I don't care who you are or what your current market share is, it takes balls to walk away from China's 1.3 billion potential customers and fast-moving economy.

With technology, and the Internet in particular, becoming more integral in all of our daily lives, this entire situation could be just a sliver of what's to come. One blog post from one Internet company has ignited a debate that's really one we should have never stopped having. And it's now being played out in a type of information warfare ranging from China all the way to the White House (think it's any coincidence that China restored text messaging service in Xinjiang today after some six months of blackouts).

Google did the right thing. And as long as they keep doing the right thing, the "why" will continue to matter less. And hopefully it will send the more important message to other companies: it's never too late to do the right thing.

[photo: flickr/pamhule]


[link to original | source: TechCrunch | published: 1 day ago | shared via feedly]