Archive for November, 2011
Fire’s a tablet for everyone
Violet Blue: The Kindle Fire exceeded everyone’s expectations, making converts out of iPad fans. The Fire is a tablet for everyone; its form factor makes the iPad seem like a dinner plate in comparison –- and you can get two Kindle Fires for the price of one iPad.
Plus, Prime customers can watch streaming movies and TV shows for free, the app marketplace isn’t censored the way that Apple’s is, and it’s also terrific for kids.
The Fire is more durable than the iPad; it easily survives being dropped off a kitchen counter and can’t be scratched with keys.
People will want a Fire in addition to their iPad, and that won’t be true in reverse.
It’s well worth the price. The Fire is a Kindle with benefits. Amazon’s App store is also far more friendly to developers than Apple’s, so the Fire is only going to get more exciting from here on out.
iPad remains best choice for many
Jason Hiner: The iPad has run roughshod over the tablet market for the past two years, despite a steady stream of challengers trying to knock it off its perch. Enter the Amazon Kindle Fire, the first real competitor that is causing anyone at Apple to break a sweat. Amazon is going to sell a lot of Kindle Fire tablets, without a doubt. It won’t sell as many as Apple but the Kindle Fire’s $200 price tag and solid design will be enough to nab a lot of buyers.
Still, the Kindle Fire is not the tablet for technologists or business professionals. It is the tablet for your grandma, Uncle Ted, or your 12 year old. It’s good at two things — consuming content from Amazon (books, videos, and music) and purchasing products from Amazon. The Kindle Fire does not and will not have the extended ecosystem of the iPad and the Fire’s 7-inch screen — as opposed to the 10-inch iPad — makes it less of a laptop replacement.
Piper Jaffray produced one of the first cracks from a research firm at overall revenue for developers from the iOS and Android platforms today, saying that Google’s platform has generated 7 percent of the gross revenue that Apple’s has for developers.
Specifically, Gene Munster says that Android has paid $240 million out to developers while Apple has paid out a cumulative $3.46 billion.
While it’s true that Android does trail iOS in overall revenue for developers, Piper Jaffray is omitting some key points.
1) Munster’s estimates seem to be based primarily on paid downloads. If you look at Munster’s estimates, the total gross revenue Piper Jaffray calculated for both platforms is close to the average sale price of the app multiplied by the percentage of apps that are paid and then multiplied again by the estimated number of total downloads to date.
By Zack Whittaker | November 2, 2011, 10:48am PDT
Summary: Research suggests that most UK Twitter users, which operate under strict libel and defamation laws, are ‘unaware’ of the legal risks associated with posting online content.
From gagging orders to inciting rioting, and libel suits and defamation, Twitter can be a minefield for legal implications, according to new research.
Amid the super-injunction controversy earlier this year, 68 percent Twitter users in the UK have “little or no awareness of their legal responsibilities”, law firm DLA Piper found.
Britain’s libel law is of a particular concern, something that came to light earlier this year, when thousands of Twitter users defied a court-ordered injunction by publishing and retweeting the names of celebrities who had taken legal measures to protect aspects of their private lives.
(Source: Flickr, CC)
Out of the 2,095 adult web users surveyed, the results showed that websites are not as moderated as once were, with 6 percent of respondents saying that they have had a comment removed from social media sites, compared to 14 percent in 2008.
Also, with citizen journalism on the rise, using public sites like Twitter to contribute to the news collective, just over a third thought that users should be held to the same standards as journalists on social media outlets.
If this is the case, why are so many then going on to break libel law or court orders, when journalists must often refrain from publishing or broadcasting potentially harmful or damaging content?
Super-injunctions are a very British invention. The news that court-issued gagging orders could prevents the disclosure of information, but also the very fact an injunction has been taken out, rose to infamy earlier this year, when footballer Ryan Giggs gagged the entirety of Britain, without the general population even being aware of it.
One of the problems with super-injunctions, simply put, is that bar a very select few — including lawyers, courtroom staff and the person whose privacy is held in the balance — nobody knows about the gagging order.
As the issue of freedom of speech in the UK has always, particularly in recent times, been a controversial topic, it takes only one anonymous Twitter user to break the silence, and the word can be spread virally in minutes.
Twitter, though now operating under UK law since the opening of a London office, it continues to highlight the need that “the tweets must flow”. Yet, if the tweets do flow and one unwittingly or knowingly breaks a super-injunction, that person can find themselves in contempt of court.
Suffice to say, it can carry a penalty of two years in prison.