(CNN) -- Mobile World Congress is the world's largest mobile phone trade show, held every year in Barcelona. It is the venue for manufacturers like Nokia, HTC, LG, and Samsung to reveal the must-have mobile devices and services of the year.
This year is likely to be no different with big launches expected from all the major players except Apple.
So what can we expect? Some phone makers have already announced their MWC line up, some have hinted, others have been rumored. Talking to sources, joining the dots, and getting the word on the street, this is what is expected at the show:
Nokia
Nokia is rumored to be launching a number of handsets at MWC this year. Some will focus on emerging markets (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), while the others, the developed ones. The phones you are most likely to be interested in will be a European version of the recently announced Nokia Lumia 900, and a low end Lumia; the Nokia Lumia 610. Both models will work with Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 operating system.
HTC
We are expecting three handsets from the Taiwanese company; The HTC One X, The HTC One S, and the HTC One V. The top-of-the-range One X will feature the new Nvidia Tegra 3 quad-core processor and run Android, while Pocket-lint has confirmed with sources that the One V will be a music-focused device aimed at men and similar to the more female friendly (if that is possible) HTC Rhyme that is already on the market.
Samsung
Although Samsung was expected to launch the Samsung Galaxy S III at MWC this year, the company has now confirmed that it won't. With a number of pre-MWC launches already detailed, Samsung is expected instead to focus on tablets at the show. If rumors are to be believed, it will launch a 10.1-inch version of the Samsung Galaxy Note announced in September 2011. The difference from all the other tablets it sells? It will have a built-in stylus.
LG
Following Samsung's lead with the Galaxy Note, LG has announced its LG Optimus Vu prior to the show. A cross between a phone and a tablet, it will measure 139.6mm x 90.mm, meaning it's going to be one for those with big hands and big pockets. There are also rumors that the company will announce a follow up to the LG Optimus 2X called the 3X. Expect it to have a quad-core processor too.
Research In Motion
BlackBerry maker RIM has said that there will be no new hardware at the show this year, but that it will be showing off the new PlayBook 2.0 operating system and the software operating system, BB OS 10, that it hopes will power its new phones expected later in the year.
Panasonic
Having just announced a new waterproof and dustproof phone called the Eluga, Panasonic has also confirmed it has a second handset in the pipeline to launch at MWC. It will feature a dual-core processor, OLED screen and will run Android.
Fujitsu
Japanese brand Fujitsu has confirmed that it will be launching phones in Europe following its success in Japan. The company has yet to announce which models it will be bringing the continent, however the smart money is on the waterproof quad-core Tegra 3 powered Android smartphone it announced at CES in Las Vegas in January.
Sony (aka Sony Ericsson)
Trying to pinpoint a Sony phone destined for Mobile World Congress is as hard as Sony Ericsson's transitions to Sony. We are expecting a European launch for the already announced (at CES) Sony Ericsson Xperia S though. Rumors and leaked internet photos suggest maybe a bigger screen version too, as well as an array of other Android devices.
Motorola
Motorola's MWC plans are even quieter than Sony's with the company traditionally focusing on CES in Las Vegas to launch many of its first-half-of-the-year handsets. There is a suggestion that Motorola has teamed up with Intel to launch one of the first Intel-powered smartphones, but that is still to be confirmed. Motorola doesn't have a press conference at the show, but Intel does.
The TNS Group is a leading technology services company located in Stamford, CT committed to delivering IT innovation and excellence!
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Google Back in the CrossHairs For Privacy Violations
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- In the latest high-profile flap over online data privacy, Google has been caught bypassing the privacy settings on Apple's Safari Web browser, letting advertisers track users in unintended ways.
A Wall Street Journal investigation published Friday drew attention to the issue and set off alarm bells across the Web. In response to the Journal's probe, Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) discontinued its use of the tracking code.
The actual consequences were pretty limited: Google's code was being used only to target ads, and users' personal information was never collected. But it was yet another prominent example of a tech company drawing fire for a slipshod and sneaky way of handling private data.
The Google imbroglio revolves around the company's ad network, which serves advertisements across a wide range of websites.
Sites use files called "cookies" to follow users' movements and log-ins as they travel through the Web. Apple's (AAPL, Fortune 500) Safari has far stricter tracking restrictions than any other major browser: By default, it blocks third-party cookies. That's a big problem for ad networks, which rely on those cookies to measure their campaigns and to enable some ad functions.
That's what tripped Google up. It wanted to give viewers who were signed into Google's network the ability to use Google's +1 button to tout ads that caught their eye.
To do that, it exploited a loophole in Safari, essentially tricking the browser into thinking that the viewer had interacted with the ad. That fooled Safari into giving Google permission to install a test cookie and create a temporary communication link back to Google's servers.
Google says that link was designed to operate anonymously and did not collect any personal information. But it had an unintended consequence: Other cookies were able to follow in the first one's wake. Google essentially cracked open a door and others piled in behind it.
While it admitted using the Safari workaround, Google cast the subsequent cookie flood as an inadvertent screw-up.
"The Safari browser contained functionality that then enabled other Google advertising cookies to be set on the browser. We didn't anticipate that this would happen," Google said Friday in a prepared statement. "We have now started removing these advertising cookies from Safari browsers."
Google wasn't the only one exploiting Safari's loophole. Stanford grad student Jonathan Mayer, who published an extensive technical analysis of it on Friday, found at least three other advertising companies taking advantage of it: Vibrant Media, Media Innovation Group and PointRoll.
"I think there's quite possibly a deceptive business practice here," Mayer said in an interview with CNN.
He questioned Google's claim that no private data was ever misued.
"Google released a statement that there was not personal information at play. I'm not quite certain what they mean by that," Mayer said. "They were quite intentionally moving information about a Google user's account over to Google's advertising networks."
In his technical analysis, Mayer intentionally steered clear of a broader question the debacle raises: Is Safari's third-party cookie blocking the right way to go?
It's a big departure from the industry standard. Microsoft's (MSFT, Fortune 500) Internet Explorer, Firefox and Chrome all allow third-party cookies.
Apple says its motive is privacy. Safari's third-party cookie ban is designed "to prevent companies from tracking the cookies generated by the websites you visit," Apple says on its website.
But many websites rely on advertising to fund their operations, and Apple's ban wreaks havoc with tracking across ad networks. Those ad networks are Apple's direct rivals: It competes against them with its own iAd network, which serves ads through applications instead of websites.
Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"Marketers who rely on third-party tracking cookies are effectively blind when it comes to measuring performance on the iPad and other iOS devices," ad software maker Marin Software wrote last year in a research paper examining the problem.
The block also causes problems for some Web apps that integrate content across multiple sites. The permissions that a user intentionally grants on one site can't be carried through to other, linked sites.
Facebook's "best practices" guide for its developers lists "cross-domain cookies do not work in Safari" as a common problem and recommends using the same kind of workaround Google employed.
It's not lost on Apple's critics that the company's cookie ban is a big thorn in the side of Apple's key competitors.
"Let's step back a second here and ask: why do you think Apple has made it impossible for advertising-driven companies like Google to execute what are industry standard practices on the open web?" author John Battelle, who founded an ad network and wrote a book about Google, wrote in a blog post.
"Do you think it's because Apple cares deeply about your privacy? Really?" Battelle asked. "Or perhaps it's because Apple considers anyone using iOS, even if they're browsing the web, as 'Apple's customer,' and wants to throttle potential competitors."
A Wall Street Journal investigation published Friday drew attention to the issue and set off alarm bells across the Web. In response to the Journal's probe, Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) discontinued its use of the tracking code.
The actual consequences were pretty limited: Google's code was being used only to target ads, and users' personal information was never collected. But it was yet another prominent example of a tech company drawing fire for a slipshod and sneaky way of handling private data.
The Google imbroglio revolves around the company's ad network, which serves advertisements across a wide range of websites.
Sites use files called "cookies" to follow users' movements and log-ins as they travel through the Web. Apple's (AAPL, Fortune 500) Safari has far stricter tracking restrictions than any other major browser: By default, it blocks third-party cookies. That's a big problem for ad networks, which rely on those cookies to measure their campaigns and to enable some ad functions.
That's what tripped Google up. It wanted to give viewers who were signed into Google's network the ability to use Google's +1 button to tout ads that caught their eye.
To do that, it exploited a loophole in Safari, essentially tricking the browser into thinking that the viewer had interacted with the ad. That fooled Safari into giving Google permission to install a test cookie and create a temporary communication link back to Google's servers.
Google says that link was designed to operate anonymously and did not collect any personal information. But it had an unintended consequence: Other cookies were able to follow in the first one's wake. Google essentially cracked open a door and others piled in behind it.
While it admitted using the Safari workaround, Google cast the subsequent cookie flood as an inadvertent screw-up.
"The Safari browser contained functionality that then enabled other Google advertising cookies to be set on the browser. We didn't anticipate that this would happen," Google said Friday in a prepared statement. "We have now started removing these advertising cookies from Safari browsers."
Google wasn't the only one exploiting Safari's loophole. Stanford grad student Jonathan Mayer, who published an extensive technical analysis of it on Friday, found at least three other advertising companies taking advantage of it: Vibrant Media, Media Innovation Group and PointRoll.
"I think there's quite possibly a deceptive business practice here," Mayer said in an interview with CNN.
He questioned Google's claim that no private data was ever misued.
"Google released a statement that there was not personal information at play. I'm not quite certain what they mean by that," Mayer said. "They were quite intentionally moving information about a Google user's account over to Google's advertising networks."
In his technical analysis, Mayer intentionally steered clear of a broader question the debacle raises: Is Safari's third-party cookie blocking the right way to go?
It's a big departure from the industry standard. Microsoft's (MSFT, Fortune 500) Internet Explorer, Firefox and Chrome all allow third-party cookies.
Apple says its motive is privacy. Safari's third-party cookie ban is designed "to prevent companies from tracking the cookies generated by the websites you visit," Apple says on its website.
But many websites rely on advertising to fund their operations, and Apple's ban wreaks havoc with tracking across ad networks. Those ad networks are Apple's direct rivals: It competes against them with its own iAd network, which serves ads through applications instead of websites.
Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"Marketers who rely on third-party tracking cookies are effectively blind when it comes to measuring performance on the iPad and other iOS devices," ad software maker Marin Software wrote last year in a research paper examining the problem.
The block also causes problems for some Web apps that integrate content across multiple sites. The permissions that a user intentionally grants on one site can't be carried through to other, linked sites.
Facebook's "best practices" guide for its developers lists "cross-domain cookies do not work in Safari" as a common problem and recommends using the same kind of workaround Google employed.
It's not lost on Apple's critics that the company's cookie ban is a big thorn in the side of Apple's key competitors.
"Let's step back a second here and ask: why do you think Apple has made it impossible for advertising-driven companies like Google to execute what are industry standard practices on the open web?" author John Battelle, who founded an ad network and wrote a book about Google, wrote in a blog post.
"Do you think it's because Apple cares deeply about your privacy? Really?" Battelle asked. "Or perhaps it's because Apple considers anyone using iOS, even if they're browsing the web, as 'Apple's customer,' and wants to throttle potential competitors."
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
FCC Getting Huge on LightSquared - NO GPS FOR YOU
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- LightSquared's plan to become a fifth major nationwide wireless carrier hit a major snag this week, after government regulators said they would continue to bar the company from launching its network.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration said late Tuesday that LightSquared's network could interfere with GPS signals, despite LightSquared's proposed engineering solutions. That interference has the potential to be extremely dangerous: In addition to powering consumer navigation devices, GPS is used by the military and the aviation industry to guide airplanes and missiles.
As a result of NTIA's decision, the Federal Communications Commission revoked a waiver that would have allowed LightSquared to turn on its network. The FCC on Wednesday plans to issue a public proposal that would bar LightSquared from launching its service "indefinitely."
LightSquared wants to sell wireless on a wholesale basis, a move that would potentially add dozens of rivals to AT&T (T, Fortune 500), Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500), Sprint (S, Fortune 500) and T-Mobile to the mix. Since the company only plans to launch efficient, next-generation network technology, it believes that it can severely undercut the current national carriers' prices.
The wannabe wireless company, owned by Philip Falcone's Harbinger Capital Partners hedge fund, remains adamant that its technological solutions to the interference issues are valid and resolve the problem.
"The NTIA's recommendation relied on the flawed conclusions ... about LightSquared's potential impact on GPS," a company spokeswoman said Tuesday in a prepared statement. "LightSquared recognizes, however, that this is just one step in the process, and it remains committed to working toward a resolution."
The problem stems from the fact that LightSquared's spectrum -- the airwaves that are used to broadcast wireless signals -- is directly adjacent to the GPS industry's spectrum. As it turns out, the GPS companies have been jumping the fence for years, picking up signals transmitted through their neighbors' property. It had gone unnoticed, since LightSquared and its predecessors hadn't been using the spectrum until recently.
GPS giants Trimble Navigation (TRMB) and Garmin (GRMN) said in response that their systems were never intended to be immune from strong signals on nearby frequencies. They have a point: The spectrum LightSquared owns was originally licensed only for satellite services, not the much stronger terrestrial transmissions LightSquared wants to put there.
To do that, LightSquared needs FCC permission. The agency granted its conditional waiver last year. The FCC's technical staff expressed surprise when the issue later blew up into a major controversy with GPS device manufacturers.
But after experimenting with several potential solutions, the agency now says it sees no quick fix. And although the interference issues aren't LightSquared's fault, the FCC said its hands are tied.
"There is no practical way to mitigate potential interference at this time," said Tammy Sun, a spokeswoman for the FCC.
LightSquared has made many concessions in its attempt to gain regulatory approval, including limiting itself to broadcasting in just half of the spectrum band that it had licensed. In its view, regulators are coddling the GPS industry.
"GPS in America has become 'too big to fail,'" Jeff Carlisle, head of LightSquared's regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post this week. "Like Wall Street, the manufacturers of GPS devices have spent years profiting off of vulnerable technology and are now seeking protection from the government instead of implementing the necessary reforms."
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration said late Tuesday that LightSquared's network could interfere with GPS signals, despite LightSquared's proposed engineering solutions. That interference has the potential to be extremely dangerous: In addition to powering consumer navigation devices, GPS is used by the military and the aviation industry to guide airplanes and missiles.
As a result of NTIA's decision, the Federal Communications Commission revoked a waiver that would have allowed LightSquared to turn on its network. The FCC on Wednesday plans to issue a public proposal that would bar LightSquared from launching its service "indefinitely."
LightSquared wants to sell wireless on a wholesale basis, a move that would potentially add dozens of rivals to AT&T (T, Fortune 500), Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500), Sprint (S, Fortune 500) and T-Mobile to the mix. Since the company only plans to launch efficient, next-generation network technology, it believes that it can severely undercut the current national carriers' prices.
The wannabe wireless company, owned by Philip Falcone's Harbinger Capital Partners hedge fund, remains adamant that its technological solutions to the interference issues are valid and resolve the problem.
"The NTIA's recommendation relied on the flawed conclusions ... about LightSquared's potential impact on GPS," a company spokeswoman said Tuesday in a prepared statement. "LightSquared recognizes, however, that this is just one step in the process, and it remains committed to working toward a resolution."
The problem stems from the fact that LightSquared's spectrum -- the airwaves that are used to broadcast wireless signals -- is directly adjacent to the GPS industry's spectrum. As it turns out, the GPS companies have been jumping the fence for years, picking up signals transmitted through their neighbors' property. It had gone unnoticed, since LightSquared and its predecessors hadn't been using the spectrum until recently.
GPS giants Trimble Navigation (TRMB) and Garmin (GRMN) said in response that their systems were never intended to be immune from strong signals on nearby frequencies. They have a point: The spectrum LightSquared owns was originally licensed only for satellite services, not the much stronger terrestrial transmissions LightSquared wants to put there.
To do that, LightSquared needs FCC permission. The agency granted its conditional waiver last year. The FCC's technical staff expressed surprise when the issue later blew up into a major controversy with GPS device manufacturers.
But after experimenting with several potential solutions, the agency now says it sees no quick fix. And although the interference issues aren't LightSquared's fault, the FCC said its hands are tied.
"There is no practical way to mitigate potential interference at this time," said Tammy Sun, a spokeswoman for the FCC.
LightSquared has made many concessions in its attempt to gain regulatory approval, including limiting itself to broadcasting in just half of the spectrum band that it had licensed. In its view, regulators are coddling the GPS industry.
"GPS in America has become 'too big to fail,'" Jeff Carlisle, head of LightSquared's regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post this week. "Like Wall Street, the manufacturers of GPS devices have spent years profiting off of vulnerable technology and are now seeking protection from the government instead of implementing the necessary reforms."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)