Motorola reports quarterly results. Good luck with the buyout, Google

The Android phone business isn’t doing a whole lot to help Motorola Mobility, the company that Google is paying $12.5 billion to buy. They might want to rethink their purchase in light of the most recently numbers. They’re just terrible.

Motorola shipped — shipped, not sold — 5.3 million smartphones in the quarter. As a reminder, Apple sold 37 million.

For the full year, Motorola shipped — shipped, not sold — 18.7 million smartphones. As a reminder, Apple sold 37 million smartphones last quarter.

They shipped — shipped, not sold — 200,000 tablets last quarter. TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND. As a reminder, Apple sold 15 million tablets.

For the year, Motorola shipped — shipped, not sold — 1 million tablets. As a reminder, Apple sold 15 million tablets last quarter.

The company lost $80 million in the quarter — $70 million of that was by the mobile division. The unit lost $285 million for the year.

But remember, Android is winning, because it’s open. Or something.

From Parsilemon.

Bad news for Google: Verizon blocking Google Wallet

From 9to5Google (bolded portion is mine):

The Galaxy Nexus headed to Verizon Wireless in the next week or so won’t feature Google Wallet, even though it has the NFC chip to do so, we have learned.  The app won’t be available in the Android Market for Verizon Galaxy Nexus users. Big Red simply blocked it.

Blasphemy you say?  ”Pure Google Android?”  Nope.  The Verizon Galaxy Nexus will receive its updates directly from Google, not a carrier.  But Google caved to Verizon and blocked Wallet from the device.

The reason Verizon has chosen to kick Wallet out of the device is likely because of their recent creation of a new mobile payment project called ISIS. ISIS not only features Verizon, but also is a partnership with AT&T and T-mobile to build a new mobile payment network much like Wallet.  It is supposed to roll out in 2012.

Interesting that Google caved to Verizon on a pretty key differentiating product on their flagship phone. Anyone care to bet whether Apple caves when they roll out NFC on the iPhone?

Read the rest of the article here.

New Nook Color coming November 7

I have the Nook Touch, the black-and-white e-ink reader Barnes & Noble released last summer. I love it, and use it almost every day, in addition to my iPad (which my wife has commandeered to read the complete Dresden Files). I wanted a small, light, touch-based ereader, and at the time the Nook was the only game in town.

Barnes & Noble’s released their first Nook Color just about a year ago. A new version of the Android-powered device is set to debut next week.

The biggest question is how much the new tablet will cost. With the Kindle Fire on sale at $199 (it ships November 15), there’s some pressure on B&N to come close to matching that price, though Amazon is allegedly losing money on each Fire it sells (our sources suggest the Fire currently costs around $220 to build). With that being the case, Barnes & Noble is more likely to come out with a faster, more powerful Nook Color that costs $249, though we wouldn’t be surprised to see it at $299.

At the same time, the company may leave the original the Nook Color on the market and price it at $199.

Read the full article at CNet.com.

Google buys Motorola Mobility

So now Google will be providing the “open” Android operating system to handset makers like HTC and Samsung, while at the same time directly competing with them in the smartphone sales space. I’m sure HTC and Samsung are thrilled. I wonder how long it will be until they drop Android entirely in favor of Windows Phone 7, or perhaps Bada in the case of Samsung.

Google CEO Larry Page states on the official Google blog that they were forced into this move because of “anti-competitive” lawsuits over patents from companies like Apple and Microsoft. Boo hoo, Larry. Cry me a fucking river. You get caught red-handed stealing IP from others, then yes, you’re going to get sued. But even though the reason stated for the purchase is a robust patent portfolio, it still leaves Google/Motorola in the awkward position of now directly competing against other licensees of Android.

It will be interesting to see how this works out for Google. I’m guessing that in a few years the only Android supplier will be Google/Motorola.

Flipboard CEO: No Android challenges to the iPad in 2011

My Flipboard cover page

If you have an iPad and don’t have Flipboard, stop whatever you’re doing and get it right now. It’s one of the best ways to showcase exactly how the larger screen of an iPad makes it fundamentally different from an iPhone, and what can be done with a cleverly designed interface.

Just load Facebook on it and tell me this isn’t the way Facebook is supposed to be. It’s so superior to the original Facebook UI it’s almost shameful. Flipboard takes Facebook, Twitter, and whatever other websites or social feeds you want, and transforms the mode of interaction into a magazine-style flipping interface. It’s one of those things you have to experience to get, but once you do … wow.

Flipboard is [insert whatever the latest buzzword is for awesomely spectacularly cool].

Flipboard’s CEO, Mike McCue, recently sat down with Business Insider to talk about his company and the current state of tablets:

We are focused on the iPad. We have so much work to do just on the product for the iPad. We don’t have time to think about any other platform, let alone another tablet. That’s been our model, to continually enhance the product we have on the iPad. We’re going to continue to do that for a while until we feel like another platform makes sense. Then we’ll have to look and see what other platform has the critical mass and volume and capability supporting what we want to do.

He doesn’t see Android tablets catching up to the iPad anytime soon. Considering the lackluster sales of the Motorola Xoom — technically the best competition the iPad’s had so far — it’s pretty easy to come down on his side of the fence.

Read the full interview here.

Ars Technica reviews the Motorola Xoom tablet

Overall there are a lot of things to like, but in the end it feels rushed and incomplete.

The Xoom’s impressive hardware specifications and ambitious feature lineup are intriguing, but the product falls short of its full potential due to a general lack of completeness. It feels like it was rushed to market and delivered to consumers prematurely. The number of headline features that are simply absent at launch is emblematic of the device’s deficiencies.

As a reviewer, I’m finding it particularly hard to evaluate the Xoom. When I test beta hardware or software, I tend to give the manufacturer or developer the benefit of the doubt and focus on the product’s potential. I’m tempted to approach the Xoom from that perspective, but I just can’t rationalize that kind of leniency for a product that has been officially released and is selling for $800.

If you compare the Xoom against the iPad 2 today, there isn’t much of a case to be made in favor of the Xoom. If you make the same comparison four or five months from now when the Xoom has all of its features intact, the story is going to look rather different. LTE and Flash are both desirable features that would make the Xoom look really appealing to a decent-sized mainstream audience.

It’s worth keeping in mind, however, that the tablet market will be more competitive by the time the Xoom gets all its features. There are a number of Honeycomb-based devices launching in the near future, some of which seem a bit more polished. It’s also possible that we will see the second wave of Android 3.x tablets arrive this summer. At that point, the platform will be more mature and the third-party software ecosystem for Android tablets will have had some time to evolve.

I’m curious about sales. Who will be buying this? It has one price, $800. As expensive as the most expensive iPad. So who’s going to drop that kind of money on a beta-level tablet? I doubt that there are hardcore Motorola lovers out there who simply must have “all things Moto.” I do know there are lots of Apple haters who’ll never buy an iPad and will look for any alternative, but the price of this one may be too much just to stick it to Cupertino.

For the record, I think the television commercials for the Xoom are totally ass. Dark, cyber-landscapes with some guy picking up a tablet and being encased in a floating metallic sarcophagus so he can play a game. Who does this appeal to? And it talks specifications instead of benefits. “Dual-core processors” and “3-D graphics engine.” Who gives a shit, other than hardcore spec-geeks who probably aren’t going to buy it anyway?

There’s one thing that Apple has nailed, and that’s how to sell its stuff. You’ll never see their mainstream advertising touting processor speed or how much RAM a device has. Apple shows you how it can benefit a user, either by making their lives easier, more interesting, or more fun. Apple gets criticized a lot as being “just” a marketing company, but they succeed because their products do exactly what they claim they will.

Full review here.

 

The smartphone singularity

The singularity has been written about extensively in science fiction circles for at least the past decade, and for a lot longer in less well known, less public venues. The concept of the singularity is fairly simple. Here’s one of the definitions from Wikipedia:

A technological singularity is a hypothetical event occurring when technological progress becomes so rapid that it makes the future after the singularity qualitatively different and harder to predict.

Note that by this definition, the singularity can be caused by any kind of technology. The more common definitions of the singularity focus on a more specific definition — namely, that of superintelligent machines.

While I have certain issues with the whole concept of an AI singularity and its eventual likelihood, I’m not going to discuss them in this post. I’m going to use the more general definition of the singularity to discuss why I believe the rapid evolution of smartphones represents a true technological singularity. That is, a pace of change and progress so rapid that we can’t really tell how it will reshape the world or society. How it is already reshaping our world. To do that, I’m going to use the looser definition of a singularity rather than the more rigid one that is limited to artificial intelligence.

Mobile Phone Evolution
Before smartphones, we had “dumb” mobile phones. These first became available in 1983 with Motorola’s DynaTAC 8000X, but didn’t really hit any kind of mainstream penetration until the mid to late 1990s. The implications of mobile phones were a long time in arriving. Until the past few years, mobile phones were seen as accessory devices — they were in addition to your landline at home or your desk phone at work. People still primarily thought in terms of calling places. If you were at home, people called your landline even if you had your mobile phone with you. Mobile phones were to be used when you were away from your primary phone, which was a landline.

A few years ago, that thinking began to change. Kids who grew up with mobile phones questioned the need for landlines at all. They never wanted to call a place. They always wanted to call a person, and if that person had a mobile phone, that was the number they used. Landlines were seen as superfluous. When these youngsters began to graduate from college and go out on their own, they shocked many of their parents by eschewing landlines altogether. “If you want me, call my cell,” was practically the mantra of a generation.

So with more and more people carrying around these devices, manufacturers decided to add more and more functionality to (a) increase perceived value, so they could (b) charge more for the phones and ancillary services, and (c) maintain a regular upgrade cycle of product that would ensure continued cash flow.

And the smartphone was born.

Smartphone Evolution
The smartphone is about fifteen years old, beginning with the Nokia 9000 Communicator in 1996. The first “modern” smart phone is probably the BlackBerry 5810, released in 2002. I say “modern” because it was the first smartphone to really manage email on a mobile device.

The great untethering was beginning. Not only did you no longer need to be tied to a landline for your phone calls, you no longer had to be tied to your desktop (or laptop) computer to send and receive emails.

Untethered email was just the beginning. Mobile browsing arrived. It wasn’t very elegant at first, but today you can browse the web on a mobile device with as much ease as you can on a desktop. More and more websites have versions optimized for mobile browsing. Soon there will be a second Internet, a refracted mirror of the first, one designed for mobile devices.

You now have the Internet in your pocket.

Think about what that means. I’m carrying around instantaneous access to practically the totality of human knowledge. Websites, wikis, blogs, video. Mobile devices now have access to them all. That’s a heady, sobering thought. Near-field communications capabilities are being added to smartphones this year, which will allow them to be used as electronic wallets to process payments with a mere wave of your phone. More and more, smartphones aren’t being used as phones at all; texting, emailing, and other messaging capabilities (for instance, Facebook and Twitter) are superceding actual phone calls as the primary means of communicating between people.

Where does this go next?
Who can say? Smartphone adoption rates around the world are growing exponentially, but there’s still a massive amount of headroom before we reach anything approaching saturation. Imagine a decade or two from now, when feature-phones have largely disappeared and almost everyone is carrying a smartphone, connected instantaneously to each other around the world. What will that mean for governments? For banking? For telephony? How we get our entertainment? What will cable television look like twenty years for now? Will it still exist, or will everything be on demand, available anywhere, anytime, from the device you carry in your pocket?

That’s the exciting part. We’re in the midst of a singularity, and didn’t even know it.

Google TV in trouble

A number of consumer electronics manufacturers were set to debut a new round of Google TV devices at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas next month. Companies like Toshiba, LG, and Sharp were going to join the likes of Sony and Logitech in offering stand-alone devices as well as televisions equipped with Google’s fledgling Internet television service.

That is, they were set to do so until Google pulled the rug out from under them and asked them to  ”delay their introductions, according to people familiar with the company’s plans, so that it can refine the software, which has received a lukewarm reception.”

From the New York Times:

The biggest promise of Internet television — the ability to watch any show or movie at any time, streamed over the Web — is far from reality with Google TV. People can pay to watch shows or movies on demand using Netflix or Amazon on Google TV, and can watch regular TV programming. The major networks, though, are not providing shows on Google TV, and NBCCBS, ABC and Hulu have blocked people from watching full-length shows on their Web sites using Google TV.

Google TV offers viewers other things they may not find useful, like watching YouTubevideos and showing friends vacation photos on a bigger screen, or monitoring ESPN.comwhile watching the game and writing Twitter posts about “Mad Men” on the same screen displaying the show.

It’s not like I didn’t see this coming.

I don’t personally have anything against Google TV as a concept. But the execution was so half-assed as to be laughable, and deserving of the scorn and dismissiveness it received. This was more of Google just throwing poorly thought out shit at the wall to see what sticks. So far not much has (other than the Android mobile phone OS), but the room sure is starting to smell.

In a year Google TV will either be as dead as Google Wave, or be transformed so completely into something else — and something far less than what was originally promised — as to be completely irrelevant.

The difference between Apple TV and Google TV

The Google TV remote from Sony:

The Google TV remote from Logitech:

The Apple TV remote:

Let me be the first to say, Bwahahahaha!! Are they on freaking drugs?! Who the hell thought these hideously complex remote controls would appeal to anyone? The fact that they’ve already slashed prices $100 on these things — when they’ve only been out for a few weeks — is indicative of the problems they’re having.

Google TV appeals to no one. Not when buyers realize how complex it is, and how little you get for your money.

I was in Best Buy the other day and saw stacks and stacks of the Sony Google TV, and while the store was crowded, absolutely no one was looking at them. They had some of the remote controls sitting out on the boxes, and they looked absolutely ridiculous.

Seriously, who thought this was a good design?

Another problem is that Google, with their philosophy of everything should be free, neglected to get permission or work out deals with content providers for online video streams that would be accessed through Google TV.

Oops.

So what did the content providers do? They blocked Google TV from accessing their websites.

I picked up an Apple TV last night and hooked it up in about twenty minutes. (Most of that time was spent finding a spare HDMI and Toslink cable I had lying around and threading the cables through the too-narrow wire management slots on my television credenza. Hooking the wires into the Apple TV itself took about twenty seconds.)

Apple TV has a lot of content available. It’s not everything, but there are lots of network TV shows available for rental through iTunes (you know, where Apple actually went to the trouble to make deals with the content providers).

I really got it for the Netflix app, which allows me to stream all of Netflix’s “watch it now” content to my television. I was using this application a ton on my iPad (and really like it), but thought it would be cool to have on one of the televisions as well. Setup was a breeze, browsing content is painless, and the picture and audio quality so far is pretty good.

It’s not perfect, but it does what I want it to do, and has a nice, clean interface and very uncluttered remote. It’s also several hundred dollars cheaper than Google TV, even after their price slashing.

I’d love to figure out a way to ditch my cable company, but my family and I are too hooked right now on a handful of current shows to make cutting the cable practical. But I can see the day isn’t too far off when it will be practical.

I, for one, can’t wait.

Advertising: iPhone vs. Android

I’ve noticed something about the advertising differences between Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android phones, specifically the Motorola Droids (and, specifically, television ads). I think what I’ve noted highlights the differences between the devices and their intended audiences. I also think one is more effective than the other, but I’ll get to that in a minute.

DISCLAIMER: I’m an iPhone 4 and iPad owner, my wife has an iPhone 3GS and MacBook Pro, and my sons have iPod Touches. So I am definitely on the side of Apple in this horse race.

Here’s a recent iPhone 4 ad that highlights FaceTime, Apple’s built-in video calling feature:

Here’s the latest Droid ad that highlights Lookout Mobile Security:

Notice the difference? The iPhone ad isn’t really about technology — it’s about how technology can bring people together. There’s no voice over, no “techie” discussion. Just lots and lots of visuals showing how FaceTime works. For old people, young people, and everyone in between. Even deaf people, which is really the home run of this ad.

Then there’s the Droid commercial. Like all Droid commercials so far, it takes place in a dark, windowless, dingy, industrial sub-basement of some kind. There’s not a human being in it. A robotic arm controls the phone and is the only “character.”

The ad is about mobile security. While mobile security is important, I kind of doubt it’s a major selling point for phones (notice I said major selling point — I’m sure it will appeal to paranoid IT types, and people who lose their phones a lot). It’s primary appeal is to the techno-geeks, which is all well and good, but certainly far from mass appeal.

I really like the actor doing the voice over, Lance Henriksen, but in one of his more famous roles, he played an actual robot! (In Aliens, in case you were wondering.)

And the way the Droid holographic app spheres expand at the end? I wouldn’t want to be in the room when that happens. It’s actually kind of scary. It looks like even the robot scrams when the holograms go wild.

For me, the iPhone ad is the clear champ.

(I do understand the robots are playing off the “droid” motif, but that still doesn’t make it particularly effective or appealing advertising. I’d love to know if they did any focus group research, and if so, what kind of demographic segments they used.)