Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
[gizmodo.com] #lgchocolatetouch
11/05/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
[www.pacificgeek.com] #carcdrom
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
Even Apple may struggle against the force of a Union. #universalchargingsolution
10/24/09
10/24/09
What does every portable hard drive, computer accessory, mobile phone (that uses usb) use so far? MINIUSB, not micro. #universalchargingsolution
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/25/09
when cell phones are thinner than the miniusb i will believe you.
the micro is a piece of crap!!! i hate using it it never feels correct sliding into the phone. feels cheap and like it will break.
miniusb ftw! #universalchargingsolution
10/27/09
I think micro is a better choice, because we WILL have phones thinner than mini, and probably sooner than you or I think. The point of a standard is to stay relevant as long as possible, and picking the fatter format when "thin is in" would be a bad call.
And I have a microUSB using phone, and my connector is working just fine, and I tend to abuse my electronics. Maybe its just my luck though. #universalchargingsolution
10/27/09
10/24/09
This concept has been floated almost since the inception of mobile phones. Nokia had the standard on power adapter plugs for many years and a few other cell phone companies were using their design, despite it not being an official standard. So, kudos to the companies pushing this forward.
Is Apple on whatever committee is considering this? I agree with the other folks here mentioning that, despite Apple's (supposed) reliance on standards, I am concerned that they might not add the micro port on the device. It seems even more unlikely that, despite it being possible, they would switch from their proprietary connector to a universal one. But, if they did - I would be sending a nice assortment of "I love you in a special sort of way" candies to Mr. Jobs. #universalchargingsolution
10/24/09
The only thing this will end up helping is the phone makers, so they can sell the phone without a charger. I doubt they will lower the cost of the phone because of that, and average joe consumer will probably have to buy one with the new standard anyway, so that will be another $20 when buying a cell phone.
I don't really buy the 51,000 ton number. Like most statistics used to support a position, I suspect that very, very optimistic calculations were used. #universalchargingsolution
10/24/09
Also, if a friend is over at your place, you could let him charge his phone there if need be, which you could only do now if you had the same phone. There are all sorts of possibilities that this brings to the table. #universalchargingsolution
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/25/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/21/09
My read of the situation is this: AT&T is struggling with insufficient network resources and insufficient monetization of their existing network. All of the telcos would probably love to do away with the new FCC stand on net neutrality. However, only AT&T seems to be acting as if it is in a life-or-death situation because of net neutrality.
If AT&T's competitors feel that they will have more than sufficient network resources and a competitive enough pricing structure to be compliant with the new definition of net neutrality being imposed on them, and they feel that AT&T lacks those resources, they will go ahead and offer unlimited voice and data plans and contractless plans, support Skype and other 3rd party VOIP and messaging systems, etc. In other words, if they think they can get ahead of what people want to do on their network and still make a profit, Verizon and T-Mobile can let the new FCC regulations strangle those cellular providers that can't maintain that level of network usage. And it sure looks like that's what Verizon and T-Mobile are doing.
E.g., taking the projected pricing according to leaked details of T-Mobile's Project Dark: would you rather have an iPhone 3G on AT&T, or a smartphone based on any other platform than the iPhone, more or unlimited minutes, unlimited text, and unlimited data for the SAME PRICE, plus network speeds that are supposed to be OVER TWICE AS FAST as AT&T's projected (not current) network speeds?
In short, AT&T needs cash to compete. It needs a kickback from Barnes & Noble for providing the ability to download miniscule amounts of data to Nooks. It needs its employees to do everything they can to try to stop the FCC. It needs a cash settlement from the LCD industry, which has already been investigated for and found guilty of price fixing in the past.
Muahahaha.
10/21/09
"Insufficient monetization of their existing network?" WTF does that mean? The implication of your statement is that they aren't making the money off the network that they could? Only that doesn't seem consistent with your philosophy. Perhaps you should start working with smaller words and smaller concepts and build up to bigger things. #lcdpricefixing
10/22/09
Here's some reading for you on the general picture:
[www.mobilitysite.com]
[apple.slashdot.org]
[news.cnet.com]
[www.engadget.com]
[tech.slashdot.org]
[arstechnica.com]
I would say that AT&T signed on for the iPhone 3G thinking it had some idea about how many people might buy it, and how much data they would be using. Whatever those numbers were, AT&T was wrong on both counts. Do you think they planned to not make a profit until month 17 of a 24 month contract for an iPhone 3G? "Not making a profit" means "losing money," by the way. AT&T is basically complaining that they hadn't anticipated an average use of 400MB per month per iPhone. They signed on millions of customers for the iPhone 3G; and they play catch up on subsidies and operational costs on each and every two-year contract for 70% of the duration. I call that "insufficient monetization of their network." What do you call it?
10/22/09
First, it is premised on AT&T taking a bunch of steps to increase near term revenues. Only none of the things you cited have any prospect of creating near term revenue. The nook isn't going to generate dick, and probably has the same cycle in terms of payback as the iPhone. The LCD suit will be litigated forever. They will lucky to see any money for several years.
Second, "monetizing assets" means taking assets--things you have--and finding ways to generate money off them for minimal investment. Whatever you are talking about, whatever the hell it is, it isn't "monetizing an asset." You seem to be implying that they need to invest in their network--well they have. To the tune of $38B in the past two years. And will be spending another $18B this year. That isn't monetizing an asset, that is building new infrastructure. Completely different calculus. Monetizing asset = taking paid for asset and realizing revenue. Investment means making capital expenditures and calculating a return.
Third, do I think they planned not to make a profit on the iPhone until well into the contract? Yes, dumbass. It is just another way of saying that the return on their investment took time. The fact that they are making a profit--even after month 17--means they invested money in the iPhone and then got more money back. The fact that their investment had not had a return yet in month 16 doesn't mean they "lost money." Just means it hadn't turned a profit yet--they only "lost money" if the contract ended in mo. 16, and, as we know, its a two year contract. The iPhone carries one of the largest subsidies ever paid by a carrier. You really think, that after paying a $400 subsidy on day 1, it is reasonable to expect them to turn a profit the first month?
Like I said, learn what the words mean. They it becomes easier to put them into coherent order to form logical arguments. #lcdpricefixing
10/22/09
10/21/09
And they're strangely comfortable with it. #lcdpricefixing
10/21/09
"I don't see why not!" #lcdpricefixing
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
Seems like the world falls into a couple different categories. Serious SMSers, who pay almost nothing per SMS. NonSMSers, like me, who pay nothing because we don't use it. OK, I'll admit that there may be people stuck in the twilight... But, we're really talking about less than $5/mo here. Guess I just have a hard time getting worked up over it. #lcdpricefixing
10/21/09
10/21/09
I still fail to understand SMS anyway. My wife SMSs me. It is no more or less difficult, I would think, to write a bloody email. Only you get more characters. And a better guarantee of delivery. And other features. And, virtually every phone is data enabled, or at least email enabled. So someone educate me, why do people give a flying toss about SMS? #lcdpricefixing