If someone told you that doing several things on a phone is impossible, just tell him or her ” No way Jose” because now Microsoft just announce the WINDOW PHONE 7 SERIES that could do that. First of all I want to congratulate Microsoft for keeping up with Apple.  The new Window  phone 7 series  is a great tool.  by introducing this phone, Microsoft is going to show that they are working as hard as Apple to satisfy their customers.

The Shape is nice and simple. the way I see it I even think that it is lighter than the Iphone.  on the bottom it has a laft arrow, on the right hand side it the loop icon and the most interesting thing is most of the other have the house icon or menu icon, not this phone. this phone has the window icon in the middle. I am telling you this phone is pretty cool.

the phone can do a lot of works, such as  Multitasking, which is a huge thing. for instance if one is listening to music and you want to browse the web one can still be able to listen to his or her music and still be able to browse. I think personally is a plus, Here is a quote about what Mr.Joe Belfiore, who is the Corporate Vice President. He said “It’s highly likely we will suspend (applications running in the background) when a device gets to a low memory state. Microsoft also announced on Monday that Windows Phone 7 Series will have a push notification system that allows programs to get updates and alert the user even when they are not running..”.   that’s a plus. this one the reason why I think if I was going to buy the phone, that would have been my target.  here is a video link that I add on it so it could be easier for you.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dM4X-KveSs

My conclusion is so simple go in check it out when it comes out..

Recently, Google announced the acquisition of DocVerse allowing for online collaboration on Microsoft Word, Excel and Powerpoint. A tremendous step because Google Apps and Office, “don’t play well together.”

Cloud computing is simply a way of computing on the internet that shares resources instead of using software. Clearly this was not in Microsoft’s business plan a couple year’s ago. Charging way too much for software has always been in the model. However, a section of Microsoft 2010 will have a free cloud based platform. Both Microsoft and Google both recognize that cloud computing will directly influence their new products and services.

Cloud computing is here to stay. In an increasingly globalized world the power to collaborate and edit in real time, cost effectively will be an invaluable business tool. This issue is at the heart of differences between Microsoft and Google. Google views the web as an application platform versus PC software and operating systems. One is the future. One was the future. We’ve all seen how heavily they marketed bing taking square aim at google. What we haven’t seen is very many people running to convert. In 2009 these companies faced off heavily. But the battle hasn’t even begun.

Recently Microsoft convinced a US judge to issue a court order shutting down 277 internet domains infected with malware and being used by the Waledac botnet. It is estimated that 80% of unsolicited email originates from botnets and an estimate of 1.5 billion spam messages were being sent from these “zombie” computers everyday. In many cases the owners of these machines were entirely unaware that their computer was infected at all. Upon receiving the permission of US courts to disrupt this system, Microsoft severed the connection to most of these computers and cut off traffic to Waledac’s website. The effect of this action is however unclear as experts are divided as to the degree to which this has reduced worldwide spam proliferation. Richard Cox, the cheif information officer at the anti-spam service known as Spamhaus was quoted as saying “Waledac was not a high threat, its less than 1% of spam traffic.” Regardless public opinion is virtually unanimous in condoning this step as a favorable one. I personally see this as a small step towards success in the war against spam e-mail, but I am pessimistic about it having any long lasting effects. Spam it seems is the unintended negative consequence associated with the convenience of e-mail. People have resigned themselves to, in many cases, having to spend ten of fifteen minutes each day sifting through the morass of junk mail. As the world shifts away from the tangible mail of the past towards electronic mail the effects of this spam will become all the more widespread. True elimination of this problem would, however, require giving a few individuals a large degree of control over the internet, which many people are not willing to do at the moment. Perhaps, however, as more and more people turn to email as a main source of communication these attitudes towards spam will shift and harsher measures will be taken.

When we look at successful electronic kiosks, what comes to mind are the types that promote advertizing, those that collect information and ATM’s. The question is, are there other uses for electronic kiosks now that handheld devices have become such an important part of our lives?

A group out of Connecticut has created a kiosk which they believe will introduce the generation of kiosks to the main-stream market. The group has designed a kiosk which will allow the use of tools we are familiar with such as using the internet and ordering products online, as well as collecting information from customers in order to sell to targeted business groups. Either to the retail partner where the kiosk is placed or to marketing groups which could use the information to send emails or mailers for selected products or offers.

So the question is will potential customers be interested in using such a kiosk to order products and become subjected to these marketing campaigns or are we more comfortable ordering products from the comfort of our own homes from sites where we usually do our shopping?

The technology aspect of these kiosks is interesting in its own as it does give companies the ability to offer more products, sizes and selection, than would be offered in their brick and mortar environment. It also offers stores the added use of the digital displays while customers are shopping, as additional advertising space, attracting customers to special offers or the latest products. Could this advertising space more valuable than the database of collected information or is the combination of the two which becomes that next generation of kiosks we will see in the malls, coffee shops, bars and in traditional retail stores themselves?

If we take a look at how technology has changes over the last 5-10 years, handheld devises have become the latest way of searching the internet and ordering products right from our mobile devices. In most cases we are comfortable linking our cells to websites and if we happen to be on campus or in a Starbucks or Penera, we might have to enter a little bit of information to gain access to the Wifi offered on-site, but it becomes second nature and accept the risks that come along with it. We know we might expect small amounts of spam from registering at a new location, but for the most part we know where the information or to whom, it is being offered to. With a kiosk in a mall, are we really sure who will get our personal information and have we as a collective, become leery of where we give what information?

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=3822&tag=nl.e101

Over the last decade, Google has had the reputation of being the “golden child” in the tech world, claiming to put the needs of the users first, and being focused on engineering over profits.  Users have tacitly trusted Google to only use their information for explicit needs such as searching and emailing.   But the recent unveiling of Google Buzz is causing a privacy stir.  Within hours of its launch, Buzz was turning contacts most often emailed into Google Buzz Friends, exposing the world to the person’s Google profile.  In creating the automatic friends list, Google was trying to streamline the process of setting up a new social media site.  What the company thought was helpful turned out to be harmful.  Perhaps it has to do with age – younger users don’t think twice about personal information and pictures so readily accessible.  The older set feels more strongly about one picture of them with a beer in their hand haunting them in their next life.   The bottom line is, your privacy is sacrificed as soon as you register for a free email service or social website.  I think I’ll buck up and go back to RCN.

CNet.com article: Feb 18, 2010

Amazon recently announced they released a new Blackberry app which allows users to download the Kindle software to purchase and read books on their Blackberry.  Two other mobile devices where the Kindle application is presently available are the IPhone and the IPod Touch.  Plans to offer this application to Macs and the IPad are currently in the works.  The idea behind this move is to take an advantage over other eBook distributors like  Barnes and Noble by allowing other hardware to operate the software and increasing the availability.  The Kindle is priced at $259 and is sold exclusively through Amazon.  The Blackberry download is free and the average cost for purchases is $9.99. 

While it does expand the product availablity, I believe that it actually hurts Amazon. 

They developed the Kindle to enter a previously vacant market.  By enabling use on different hardware, it actually deters consumers from buying an actual Kindle.   I believe that this is just a lazy attempt to try and hold on to the eBook market without having to invest money to create upgrades to the already existing Kindle.  I believe they had a great idea and other brands such as Barnes and Noble and even Apple  thought so too, hence why they have manuevered into the eBook reader market.  A little investment and innovation could propel their original idea into the dominating hardware.  Instead I get the sense that Amazon is smelling blood in the water and it’s their own.  They have one thing going for them.  Flexibility.  An appealing feature is that once you purchase a book from them you can read it on a Blackberry, Kindle, Ipod Touch/IPhone, and Windows PCs.  This offers greater flexibility in minimizing the amount of gadgets you carry on a daily basis.   Personally, this alone is attractive as I have one or more of the devices that support the Kindle software.  This is also appealing to customers who might not typically buy the Kindle.  As a Blackberry user, I can’t imagine that this would be good to use for long term reading.  The screen on a Blackberry isn’t very big.  So the text would be small and very hard to read or large and would take longer to read.  In addition, depending on the model of Blackberry, the battery life might not last as long. 

I think that Amazon should stop playing the game conservatively and just go for it.  They have generated enough of a customer base to make changes to their current hardware offering by listening to their customer needs and develop a Kindle product tailored more towards what their customers want and what would convert new potential customers.  In order to maintain an edge means that you have to change.  If not, Amazon runs the risk of being overshadowed by hardware manufacturers who develop deals with the publishers directly vs. dealing with Amazon.

With Steve Jobs recent announcement regarding the release of the iPad, many consumers have already begun to stack Apple’s newest product up against its closest competitor, Netbooks. One article that I ran into listed 42 reasons as to why Netbooks are better than iPads. Some of his more convincing reasons include: Java compatibility, multi-tasking, and the inclusion of of USB ports. While it is hard to argue against some of these more compelling reasons, the author fails to mention some of the iPads distinct advantages over Netbooks. I’ve listed five such reasons below:

1) The iPad comes with integrated 3G. The fact that AT&T is not requiring a contract to use the service only underscores this advantage. While it is possible to get 3G network cards in Netbooks, it is not industry standard, at least yet. The iPads integrated, pay per-month 3G access will facilitate its second advantage, which is

2) Web browsing is more pleasurable on a multi-touch screen. The iPad takes the web browsing style that people fell in love with on the iPhone and iTouch to the next level. The added multi-touch ability will make surfing the internet even more fun.

3) Better average battery life. Battery life has been an issue on a number of Netbooks. With the iPad, the battery is standardized and should last 8-10 hours, which is longer than most Netbooks, which average 4-6 hours.

4) The iPad is more powerful. The average processing power of a Netbook is less than that of the iPad. The additional power leads to better gaming, video and e-book experiences.

5) Access to all iPhone/iTouch applications. Undoubtedly, there will be a number of applications that will be specifically designed for the iPad. But, until then, the iPad will still benefit from all of the apps that are available for the iPhone/iTouch. Many of the applications are unique and do not have similar substitutes on Netbooks.

These are just five of a number of different advantages that iPads have over Netbooks. Furthermore, if Apple ever manages to release a version of OS X for the iPad as well, many of the critics’ complaints will be silenced. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how the sales stack up before we can declare any definitive winner.

42 Reasons why Netbooks arer better than iPads

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

In this article, the author Guy Billout writes that the internet is actually decreasing our intelligence. While Billout certainly does make a good argument that the internet has hurt our ability to stay focused on one thing, I think he is forgetting a number of benefits. In the article he states that he often finds himself drifting after two or three pages of reading online while years ago he was able to easily drift into wordy writing. The author interpreted this loss of concentration as a loss of intelligence, while I believe it is an evolutionary new way of thinking. With information available to us at our fingertips we not required to search for long periods to get simple answers; Google has made us smarter. We are now more efficient than ever at finding everything we need answers for. I don’t think the internet has made us stupid, it has just changed the way we think.

While I think it is appropriate to argue that this new way of thinking has negative side effects, I believe the benefits outweigh the detriments. I have access to the intelligence of anyone who uses the internet while im connected. Typing a question into Google is like asking millions of people a question, then instantaneously getting the best response of the group. I thought Google did an excellent job showing this in their recent Superbowl commercial. They showed that having this new ability allows you to solve problems quickly then spend your time on whatever else you choose. If you prefer to read lengthy explanations and feel as though that will increase your intelligence, you still have that option. Our brain automatically decides what is the best way to learn what information we’re searching for. That now means quickly jumping around between stories with the new, easy access.

Google is making life more efficient

Catchy headline isn’t it! Too bad there isn’t much truth to it. Here is the link to the article with that headline: http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Computer+Industry/20100217/8355151/Is-Google-the-new-Microsoft.htm

Let me start off with a short summary of what the author had to say and express. First he starts off with how bad, ridiculously dangerous and wrong the new Google Buzz is trying to convince us that Buzz was meant to be a cross between the so popular and amazing Facebook and Tweeter and then he tells us how a friend of his who “has great affection for Google” is totally disappointed by how distant and out of touch the people from Google have become. And that is exactly how Microsoft lost its edge over the competitors.

Well that sounds all great and stuff but the problem is that Google never wanted to combine Tweeter and Facebook in its Buzz. The goal of Google is to get into the social network phenomena and come up with a product that will be as effective and even more effective than what is out there. Buzz is not the only service that they have introduced and will not be the last one. It is true that they made a big mistake by making it all automatic and public but they did correct themselves within days and set things right. Lets not forget that Facebook had its share of privacy policy issues and a lot of people were not happy with them but nobody went ahead and started saying: “oh well they are done, they have joined the dark side”. I am not going to talk much about Buzz because everybody is doing that these days and to be honest no matter how ridiculous and undeserving most of the critics are bad publicity is better than no publicity.

Buzz I believe was meant to be an easy to use social network tool implemented in Gmail making it very easy for you to just go ahead check your email and also be able to share things with people without you needing to go to another website and having to use a different service. And I do believe that implementing everything into one place/service is a great idea. Something that the author of the article did not agree with and that he said it was “not good”.

I am guessing the fact that Google “failed” with the Buzz because they made a simple mistake that they corrected right away is an indication that they are becoming out of touch. Really? Maybe they didn’t strike gold with Buzz but it is still a pretty good service and  as long as they are trying new things out, coming with competitive products and correcting themselves they will be still Google and will not turn into anything else.

The attached article  Analysis Of Bing rates the engine Bing against the more widely used Google.  To determine if I agreed with the author’s conclusions, I conducted my own unscientific evaluation.

I began by Googling and “Binging” myself.  When I typed in my name only, Google gave 22,600 options to Bing’s 667.    Using quotes around my name yielded 40 results in Google and 17 in Bing.  It seems that Google is more thorough but Bing is more targeted.  Which engine to use would depend on the type and quantity of information one is seeking.

Next I searched for images to use in this assignment.  Both displayed very similar results.  However, as the author pointed out, Bing was more user friendly, especially for the novice.  While the preferences for color, layout, etc. are under an options bar in Google, Bing clearly displays these choices in a menu on the right.

Lastly, I typed in “Movies in Brookline”.  In this example, Bing has a slight edge.  At the top, it clearly listed all the movie theatres in the area, while Google required one to click on links.

The author of the above article was impressed overall with Bing, and I agree with his assessment.  While Google is not the pits, it falls short of a bowl of bing cherries.