Technology - Google News |
- YouTuber's glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves - BBC News
- Apple's Self-Destructive Qualcomm, China Strategies - TechNewsWorld
- Here's how to choose between the Amazon Echo, Google Home and Apple HomePod - CNBC
| YouTuber's glitter bomb tricks parcel thieves - BBC News Posted: 18 Dec 2018 04:28 AM PST  A former Nasa engineer spent six months building a glitter bomb trap to trick thieves after some parcels were stolen from his doorstep. The device, hidden in an Apple Homepod box, used four smartphones, a circuit board and 1lb (453g) of glitter. Mark Rober, who is now a YouTuber, caught the original thieves on his home security camera. He decided to take action after the police said they were unable to investigate the case. Smelly surpriseHe designed the elaborate bomb so that it would be activated when the package in which it was hidden was opened by thieves. The phone cameras and microphones would record the moment. The device contained an accelerometer to detect motion. When the parcel was jostled, the device would check the GPS signal to see if it had been moved from its spot. If it had, then it would send a signal to activate the phones and start recording. The glitter was in a cup that spun round on a motor when released as the box was opened. The device was also engineered to squirt a tube of strong-smelling fart spray every 30 seconds. The package was left on Mr Rober's porch with a label saying it had been sent by "Kevin McCallister" - the boy played by Macaulay Culkin in the 1990 movie Home Alone. It was stolen on several occasions and re-set to explode and capture the footage every time. On every occasion, the thieves abandoned the package once it had been triggered and they or their property had been doused in glitter. Mr Rober's YouTube video has so far had more than six million views. The former Nasa engineer said: "If anyone was going to make a revenge bait package and over-engineer the crap out of it, it was going to be me." Last week, Amazon announced that it is working with police in New Jersey to combat parcel theft crime. Officers are planting dummy boxes fitted with GPS trackers, and hidden doorbell cameras outside homes in areas identified by mapping data of theft locations supplied by Amazon as well as local crime data. One of the parcels was stolen within three minutes. |
| Apple's Self-Destructive Qualcomm, China Strategies - TechNewsWorld Posted: 17 Dec 2018 10:52 AM PST The reasons behind Apple's fight against Qualcomm seem as poorly founded as President Trump's reasons for wanting a wall. Pretty much everyone who understands walls -- including China, which has the biggest -- knows they don't really work. Unless you can afford to man the thing, people will find ways over or under it. With ever-bigger drones in development, it likely would be a matter of months before someone figured out how to build human-carrying drones to fly over en masse (or they could just buy, or more likely rent, one of these). So why does Trump really want a wall? It likely is because it would be called "Trump's Wall" and it could be seen from space. It effectively would be a lasting monument to Trump -- you know, the guy who puts his name on all his properties and has to be written into any movie shot on one. Apple recently was blocked from selling the prior generation of iPhones in China for violating two patents that will be almost impossible to work around. Perhaps taking a page from President Trump's book, the company did argue that it already had done that -- but anyone can pick up a new iPhone and see that, ah, no it hadn't. If you look into the case, you'll find the only reason Apple's new phones aren't blocked too is because they didn't exist when Qualcomm filed its complaint. Apparently you can't file a complaint about a theft before that theft actually occurs, even if it obviously is about to. That seems so last century. Suddenly the movie Minority Report comes to mind… Anyway, Qualcomm has moved to fix that. Not that it really matters because, apparently, you can't give an iPhone away in China at the moment. I'll examine Apple vs. Qualcomm and close with my product of the week: the Fossil Sport Smartwatch. Why Apple Hates QualcommBuilding Trump's wall as a solution to unlawful immigration doesn't make sense, given that it wouldn't work. Similarly, Apple's stated reason for going after Qualcomm for overcharging makes no sense. If Apple were being impacted adversely by Qualcomm overcharges, it wouldn't have been first to a trillion-dollar valuation (that didn't last long). In a market where the margins are typically 17 percent, it wouldn't have whopping 42 percent margins. I'm reminded of the old joke about the guy being pulled over for speeding saying, "Officer, I wasn't speeding -- but I passed a guy a few miles back who was!" Most companies in the telecom industry are fine with letting Qualcomm develop the infrastructure so they can focus on differentiating to customers. Qualcomm's 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G cadence, plus advances in things like imaging and music, ensures that smartphone users have to upgrade their phones at least every 10 years which ensures revenue (and this is an industry that lives on phone churn). Qualcomm is a good deal of the engine that makes everyone, including Apple, money. So why would Apple hate Qualcomm so much that it wants to put the firm out of business? It's because Apple uses a lock-in strategy, where once on an Apple platform it is painful to get off. Most of the smart Apple iPhone users I know actually use Google apps and Google's infrastructure and other third-party tools on their iPhones, so if they want to move to an Android phone they can move almost seamlessly. However, this always assumes there is an Android phone to move too. Since Qualcomm ensures that almost anyone can build a decent smartphone, Apple wants to kill the company. That way, Apple's competitors wouldn't benefit from Qualcomm's technology. Or, put differently, since Qualcomm's technology raises all boats, and Apple wants to be the only boat, it wants Qualcomm gone. Why It Won't WorkThere are two big reasons why Apple's strategy is stupid. One is that firms that have gone down this lock-in path typically have tended to abuse their power and mine their users for money. Apple clearly is doing this already, and the proof is that whopping 42 percent margin in a 17 percent margin market. Apple is milking its users for nearly 3x the profit as any other firm. That, by any measure, is excessive, and the company doesn't even have full lock-in yet. Although you may be willing to pay more for a smartphone than a laptop (which makes no sense to me, by the way) will you be willing to spend for a smartphone than a car? That seems doubtful, particularly when vendors that have this kind of dominance don't spend money to advance their products. Remember Microsoft's Internet Explorer? It had something like 94 percent share, but then stopped developing the product. Today IE is pretty much dead, and the browser is largely owned by Google. The other reason this won't work is antitrust laws. Standard Oil, RCA and AT&T, all once dominant, are now gone. (Today's AT&T is a different company with the same name.) Governments don't like companies to gain that kind of power, and they appear to be really good at putting those firms out of business. So, even if Apple got to where it wants to go, it would be screwed. It already faces a challenge in the Supreme Court (the U.S. Department of Justice is the plaintiff) which looks really bad for the company. Why This Likely Will Get Worse for AppleThe last two companies to get rid of their lock-in strategies were IBM and Microsoft. Lock-in very nearly put IBM out of business while I worked there, and when I wrote the internal paper on why IBM fell, that was one of the primary causes. IBM had taken its eye off the goal of pleasing customers and instead put it on ever more-creative ways to gouge those customers for money. Those customers eventually revolted, and the trauma to IBM was almost fatal. The firm never wants to make that mistake again and now is a huge open source champion. Microsoft's experience was with governments and regulation. Its lock-in resulted in some historically high fines, running in the billions of dollars, and almost got the firm broken up. It was such a nightmare that the company's iconic CEO, Bill Gates, stepped down. It helped cripple the company for nearly a decade. Microsoft too is now a huge fan of interoperability and open source, realizing it is better to give customers a choice -- and focus on being the best choice -- than it is to lock in customers and force them to buy increasingly inferior offerings, while mining them for money. Ironically, Microsoft passed Apple in valuation with this strategy (and arguably is the better investment), so the company rightfully loves it (and given it is really customer-friendly, we should as well). Further on this Microsoft vs. Apple comparison, if you read the article I linked to in the above paragraph, you'll see that Apple has a Supreme Court problem in the U.S. for abusing its lock-in power and overcharging in its app store. The Microsoft connection is that this isn't that dissimilar, with regard to exposure, as what Microsoft faced with the DoJ, and it didn't seem to take that risk seriously enough either. Speaking of not taking governments seriously, apparently Apple is completely ignoring the Chinese ban. This is arguably worse than Microsoft saying the U.S. Attorney General didn't matter, because as a U.S. company Microsoft is protected under the Constitution (First Amendment). Apple is a U.S. company ignoring Chinese laws, and China isn't exactly known for tolerating open defiance. Basically, Apple appears to be saying though its actions that in China, the Chinese courts aren't the boss of them. I really don't think that will end well. Wrapping UpI think Apple is out of control, and that its efforts to try to corner the market on smartphones won't work. If they did, the result would be incredibly damaging to the company. Luck isn't with Apple either, with its products being boycotted in China on top of the injunction, and with the Supreme Court trial pitting it against the US DoJ. (If the DoJ should win, it would open the floodgates for state and foreign government cases, much like what happened to Microsoft, with potential damages that collectively could be in the high billions.) Apple really need to get back to its knitting and stop acting as though it is above the law. Other firms in its place had to learn the hard way, and most of them no longer exist, even though they once owned their collective markets. I don't know about you, but I really get tired of watching highly paid executives behave badly. |
| Here's how to choose between the Amazon Echo, Google Home and Apple HomePod - CNBC Posted: 18 Dec 2018 06:49 AM PST  You've probably seen and maybe played with smart speakers like the Amazon Echo, Google Home and Apple HomePod, but they all seem to look and work about the same. Which one should you buy? It depends. An Amazon Echo might be the best choice in one house, for example, while a Google Home might be perfect for a different family. Or, if you're really technical, you might want to buy a whole bunch of smart speakers in different shapes and sizes to place all over your house. (As long as they're from the same company. While you can certainly put smart speakers from Apple, Google and Amazon in your house, none of them work together, so that will just cause more of a headache. Pick one brand and stick to it.) This guide isn't meant to say one is better than the other, but instead to give you an understanding so that you can pick which one will work best for you. Here's what you need to know. The Amazon Echo product family is the best choice for most people because it's the most versatile. Amazon offers all shapes, sizes and price points of the Echo, ranging from the $20 second generation Echo Dot to the $230 Echo Show. You can have an Echo Spot alarm clock next to your bed that works with the Echo Plus downstairs in your living room, for example. Also, the Amazon Alexa app works well on both Androids and iPhones, which means everyone in the family can jump right on board. Amazon Echo Pros: It's really easy to enter the Echo ecosystem, since you can pick up a second-generation Echo Dot for just $20 and eventually buy more if you want to. Once you have it, you can use the Alexa voice assistant to play TV shows, music and more on a Fire TV. You can ask Alexa to order you goods from Amazon, follow along with recipes on an Echo Show in the kitchen and place phone calls. If you have multiple Echos in the house, you can also use them as an in-home intercom to call the kids downstairs for dinner or use them to play music throughout your home. If you use Amazon for shopping, you can also ask Alexa on any Echo to order products. If the Echo has a screen, like the Echo Show or the Echo Spot, you can tap it to pick which item you want to buy instead of relying entirely on voice. The Echos with screens are also really useful for watching movies and TV shows from Amazon Video, seeing lyrics to songs you're listening to, seeing who's at your door if you have a smart camera there, making video calls and more. The Echo Plus has a smart home hub built in, which means you don't need to buy a separate one to control thousands of smart household products like light bulbs, outlets and door locks, even when you're not at home. Finally, it's really easy to use and manage from an iPhone or Android phone and works equally as well on both platforms. And you can add all sorts of stuff, including a smart microwave with support for Alexa, or an Echo Sub to add more bass to a regular Echo if you play lots of music. Amazon Echo Cons: Amazon says it doesn't eavesdrop on the Echo microphones or spy through the cameras. However, it does have information on the commands you speak to Alexa. (You can delete them: Here's a guide that explains how.) Amazon says it uses that data for "accuracy of the results provided to you and to improve our services," which means it's probably learning about you so it can better target products on Amazon to you. While Alexa can do a lot, you still need to go into the Alexa app to enable certain third party "skills." So, if you want to play a game like "Trivial Pursuit" with Alexa or call an Uber, you'll first need to open the app and install those skills. And finally, while Alexa is really smart, I still find that the Google Assistant is smarter when it comes to speaking naturally and asking follow-up questions. Variations of the Amazon Echo: Second generation Echo Dot $19.99 Google has another really compelling smart home speaker ecosystem. It's powered by the same Google Assistant you find on Android phones, and that makes it ideal for people who use Android.That's because anyone with a newer Android phone can access the Google Assistant by speaking "OK Google," while iPhone users need to open an app first. Still, it's a great option for folks who use lots of Google services, like Maps, Gmail and Google Calendar. Google Home Pros: You can get started with a Google Home Mini for $29 or spend up to $350 on a Google Home Max, which means there's a price point that makes it attractive for everyone. The more you spend, the better speakers you get. I've always found the Google Assistant to be the smarter than Siri or Alexa, largely because it seems to understand what I'm saying the most accurately. Also, Google Assistant is really good at follow-up conversations. That means you can ask it the weather in New York City and then ask another related question without confusing it. The Google Home can play movies and music on TVs around your house that are equipped with a Chromecast, and like an Amazon Echo, it can serve as an in-home intercom for announcements. It's also really good at multi-room music if you have several of them in your home, and can play different songs in each room. And it can do things like call restaurants and tell you about events on your calendar. The new Google Home Hub performs just as the Google Home products do, but also includes a screen. That means, like an Echo Show or Echo Spot, you can use it to view the steps in a recipe, watch YouTube TV, browse photo albums, see security cameras around your house and more. It costs $129, which is cheaper than an Amazon Echo Show. Google Home Cons: There aren't as many form factors available to choose from as there are from the Echo. You can choose between the Google Home Mini, the Google Home, the Google Home Hub and the Google Home Max. If you don't like any of them, you can buy a product from a partner like Lenovo. Unlike the Amazon Echo Plus, Google Home products don't have a built-in smart hub, so you can't control things like Philips Hue bulbs (or ZigBee and Z-Wave-ready smart home products) without installing a separate hub or bridge that lets those gadgets talk to Google. You can get away with products that don't require a hub, though, like LifX smart bulbs, and there are plenty of other gadgets, like smart outlets, that support Google Assistant. It isn't as confusing as it sounds, but some folks might find it easier to just buy an Echo Plus that includes a hub from the start. Variations of the Google Home: Google Home Mini $29 The HomePod is a good option if you care most about audio quality and you use Apple products. It's not as versatile or as smart as the Amazon Echo or Google Home product families, largely because Siri isn't as advanced as Amazon Alexa or Google Assistant. But it beats those products if you care about two things: privacy and sound quality. Apple HomePod Pros: Apple says almost all of the processing is done on the device itself, so your conversations are not stored in the cloud as they are with Google Home and Amazon Alexa. Also, I've found that the HomePod sounds better than any Google Home or Amazon Echo product; it gets nice and loud without losing a lot of quality. On the other hand, at $349 it's more expensive than other speakers, like the Sonos Play:1, which I think is really close in quality. Apple HomePod Cons: You can control smart home gadgets that support Apple HomeKit, including outlets, door locks, garage door openers, lights and blinds, but there isn't as wide of a selection as Amazon's and Google's speakers. Also, while you can ask Siri to play music, it will only listen to your commands if you subscribe to Apple Music. If you want to play Spotify or another service, you need to use AirPlay to play the songs from an iPad or iPhone. Also, while you can ask Siri to take notes, add reminders and more, it only supports one user at a time. In all, you can count HomePod's skills on your hands, while Google and Alexa have hundreds of skills. Finally, it's expensive. You need one for each room if you want multiroom audio, and Apple doesn't sell a $30 version as Amazon and Google do. Variations of the Apple HomePod: Apple HomePod $349 |
Rob Enderle has been an ECT News Network columnist since 2003. His areas of interest include AI, autonomous driving, drones, personal technology, emerging technology, regulation, litigation, M&E, and technology in politics. He has an MBA in human resources, marketing and computer science. He is also a certified management accountant. Enderle currently is president and principal analyst of the | You are subscribed to email updates from Technology - Latest - Google News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
This post have 0 komentar
EmoticonEmoticon