5 ways the Samsung Galaxy S4 stunned an iPhone user
I've been an iPhone user since the beast came out, and although I've
dabbled with a second Android phone for work here and there, I'd never
found any that impressed me. And I've been pretty immune to the hype
about the Samsung Galaxy S4,
which hit stores on April 26. It seemed to be a clever update to an
already impressive phone, and one not worth spending money on.
I went into the mobile phone store on Friday determined to buy a
Galaxy S3, for free, because of how deeply carriers are discounting it. I
did not know that April 26 was delivery day for the new phones; the
store in Los Angeles was literally in the process of changing the
displays around as I walked in. The LG Optimus line also looked good,
and it was also fairly cheap, provided that I purchase a $70 data
contract.
But before the sales guy could upsell me, I started upselling myself.
I walked out of the store with an S4. I've spent the weekend playing
with it. And as someone who has long been an Apple holdover, and as
someone who will still use the iPhone for my non-work communication
needs, I feel qualified to compare the two. My perspective is as a
fairly gruntled (as in, I am not disgruntled, really, just habituated,
to my phone) iPhone 5 user who hasn't really USED the Android operating
system in years.
Here are five things that leapt out at me about the Galaxy phone. I
realize that many features are not S4-specific; they're more generic to
the operating system.
1. It does what I want it to do. I can't really
customize the iPhone without jailbreaking it, and so I'm used to drawing
within the lines when it comes to designing how I want my phone to look
and to talk at me. It still takes me like a half a day to add a new
ringtone to the iPhone, and I have to do a lot of it on my laptop. On
Saturday, a friend sent me a ringtone from an old BlackBerry, and within
40 seconds, I had customized the Android phone to chirp at me with that
sound. This is shocking for us iPhone users. It's like the break of
dawn.
2. It can do several things at once.
When I was fiddling with the Galaxy S4 at the store, I wanted to see if
I could slow it down by playing a video, taking a picture, using
Facebook and another social media app, all in rapid sequence, shuttling
quickly between them, and then adding a few more tasks. The iPhone
doesn't do this well at all; the Galaxy didn't blink. I expected things
to load more slowly than they did. It is very rare when your phone
surprises you by how quickly it loads something.
3. The Galaxy' S4's internal camera app is brilliant. The
sensor (13 megapixels) doesn't make that much of a difference, but the
software that greets you when you use it is incredible. I must have six
or seven different photo apps on my iPhone. I don't think I'll need to
download any on the S4. The way the S4 stores and edits photos is also
incredibly intuitive; I still don't have the iPhoto system figured out,
but I was able to link my Facebook, Picasa, and Dropbox photo feeds to
the Galaxy in less than two minutes. For all those Los Angeles shirtless
photos a gay guy will inevitably acquire on his phone, it's also really
easy to hide photo galleries. The iPhone forces you to the app store
for that.
4. More room for podcasts. I never really knew how
much my podcasts sucked up storage memory on the iPhone. But I've got
about 12 gigabytes worth, and I'm not considered a super-user. The S4
comes with 16 gigabytes, of which about 12 are free, but of course, you
can buy 64 gigabytes worth of storage on a micro storage drive for a
hundred extra dollars. That's a lot of podcasts.
5. "Wait. You mean I can just replace the battery?"
How many times has an iPhone user said this upon learning that many
Android OS phones have removable batteries? The S4 doesn't have a
super-long battery life, but it got me through a weekend day and night's
worth without fully draining. And, of course, I could always simply
change out the battery if I wanted more. No more Mophie Juice Packs for
me. (I like Mophie Juice Packs, but they add heft to my iPhone.)
Bottom line: What leaps out at a long-time iPhone
user is the degree of control that's been built into phones like this,
as well as the way the phone seems to have been built for people who
live their lives online. I won't get rid of the iPhone, but I understand
now why Apple needs to send out letters
to its product owners reminding them why they bought their iPhone in
the first place. (Their keyboard is much easier to use, and the
knock-off versions on Android don't do it justice, for example).
Is Space Big Enough for Two Asteroid-Mining Companies?
The latest company to launch into the asteroid-mining business isn't worried about competition from its biggest rival, saying that the resources of deep space are vast enough to support a bustling new industry off Earth's surface.
The new company, Deep Space Industries, Inc., announced today (Jan. 22) that it plans to mine asteroids for metals, water and other resources, with the goal of helping humanity spread throughout the solar system. Another company with similar goals, the billionaire-backed Planetary Resources, unveiled its own plans last April.
Both companies can coexist and prosper, Deep Space officials said during a press conference today.
"We love Planetary Resources," Deep Space chairman Rick Tumlinson said. "Space is big. There's room for everybody."
Deep Space and Planetary Resources will go after near-Earth asteroids, many of which are rich in water and a variety of different metals.
Both firms aim to split asteroid water into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen, which are the chief components of rocket fuel. Asteroid-derived propellant could be dispensed from off-planet "gas stations," allowing satellites and journeying spacecraft to top up their tanks cheaply and efficiently.
Such off-Earth depots could extend the lives of satellites and make manned trips to far-flung destinations like Mars much more economically viable, advocates say.
The metals and other materials, meanwhile, could be used to construct habitats, solar-power satellites and other spacecraft, potentially jump-starting an in-space manufacturing industry. Precious metals such as platinum and gold could also be delivered to Earth for terrestrial use.
So far, astronomers have identified more than 9,000 near-Earth asteroids, with about 1,000 being added to the rolls every year. Such numbers suggest there are more than enough to keep two mining companies busy for a long time, Deep Space officials said.
"There are two or three million near-Earth asteroids," said Deep Space CEO David Gump. "There's room for everyone to prosper, I think."
The startup of two asteroid-mining firms — along with the rise of private spaceflight companies such as California-based SpaceX — is a sign that humanity may finally be taking real steps toward the long-held dream of permanent space settlement, Tumlinson said.
"One company may be a fluke," he said. "Two companies showing up? That's the beginning of an industry."
Source:- http://news.yahoo.com/space-big-enough-two-asteroid-mining-companies-212904493.html
Mega 101: Everything You Need to Know
An Internet entrepreneur in a legal battle with the U.S. Department of Justice over his file-sharing and cloud storage site is at it again, and this time he says his new website is legal.
Kim Dotcom, the man behind the file-sharing site Megaupload, launched a new site called Mega (mega.co.nz), Sunday in New Zealand, which allows users to upload up to 50 gigabytes worth of files and store them, and share them — in a limited way — with other users. The amount of storage space increases if users sign up for a premium account.
The twist is that this time the company doesn't know what's in the files, because they are encrypted. The encryption keys are in the hands of the user only.
It is possible to share the files by providing a URL with the password embedded in it, but in this case as well, only the person accessing the file can see the data.
For users, it could be a great way to store confidential files, and it's a larger space initially than Dropbox, which starts its free service at 2GB, or Google Drive at 5GB. That said, there are some caveats.
First is the encryption. If you lose the password, you won't be able to recover it — period.
Then there is the question of the site's legality. Kim Dotcom has told the BBC that "This startup is probably the most scrutinized by lawyers in Internet history."
That gets into Kim Dotcom's legal problems with the U.S. government. Dotcom funded Megaupload in 2005 as a place for people to store files on the Internet. The big difference between it and other file storage services was the amount of space offered — 200 gigabytes. Users could share files with each other or with the general public.
The Motion Picture Association of America and the Department of Justice saw a massive copyright abuse system. The DoJ said in its indictment that Megaupload's business model, which rewarded popular downloads with cash payments, encouraged people to upload copyrighted content.
Dotcom and Megaupload argued that they complied with takedown notices. Either way, in January of last year, police raided Dotcom's New Zealand home, arrested him, and shut down Megaupload. The U.S. government then requested he be extradited. A hearing to determine whether that happens is due in March.
In the wake of the arrest, hacktivist group Anonymous staged a series of distributed denial of service attacks.
Because the new site is encrypted —Mega says it doesn’t even have the key, because the key is the password to the site known only to the user — Dotcom can legitimately say he has no idea what is being uploaded. Generally, copyright violations apply to people who know that their site is being used to pirate content and don't make a good faith effort to remove it in the wake of takedown requests (which fall under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA).
A big part of the legal argument between Dotcom and the DoJ is whether he made that effort and whether he deliberately encouraged thesharing of copyrighted content. The DoJ says the company didn't because the files were still on their servers and if there were multiple copies, the links all had to be taken down individually.
It's still possible that the DoJ will go after Dotcom’s new website Mega, though, because by setting the site up so that he can't know what users are doing, he also leaves himself open to the charge that he's offering a safe haven for copyrighted works. On top of that, one of the terms of Dotcom’s bail in New Zealand is that he cannot start any new businesses until the criminal copyright case in the U.S. is resolved, according to the Economist.
So if you're thinking that you might want to use the new Mega site, be aware that it could be forced to shut down if Dotcom's lawyers haven't covered all the angles.
Source:-http://news.yahoo.com/mega-101-everything-know-212603971.html;_ylt=AixZJVnqFghBTPqzOzgXgUojtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTJjYjNsb2I4BG1pdANUZWNoIFNsYXRlBHBrZwM3NjgxOGMwYS00NzAwLTMwNDgtODEzNi03MGJjZjg1Y2YxNzMEcG9zAzEEc2VjA01lZGlhU2xhdGU-;_ylg=X3oDMTFpcTZobnQ4BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN0ZWNoBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
Intel may have little choice in big manufacturing bet
Intel Corp's decision to spend $13 billion in 2013 to develop and build future manufacturing technology has not gone down well on Wall Street but it may be necessary if it wants to stay on top of rivals in coming years.
The top chipmaker's shares slumped nearly 7 percent on Friday, a day after executives said the company would increase 2013 capital spending from an already dizzying $11 billion.
Some analysts decried the move, saying adding new capacity should be far from Intel's mind in a waning personal computer market. Increased spending may further pressure margins and leave Intel with even more idle capacity if PC sales keep falling.
But others believe that Intel's top priority must be maintaining its technological edge, a costly but necessary endeavor that may even pay off in the long run with market share gains. Moving up the technology ladder can also deliver cost savings, helping safeguarding Intel's margins as it tries to catch up to rivals in smartphones and tablets.
"That's the bet they're making and they're all in," said Sanford Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon. "If you stop, TSMC and Samsung close the gap - and you're toast."
Of Intel's $13 billion capex this year, $2 billion will go toward expanding a fabrication plant, or fab, in Oregon where engineers will work on a long-term plan to manufacture microchips on silicon wafers measuring 450 mm - about the size of a large pizza.
The other $11 billion goes toward more immediate improvements in Intel's manufacturing technology, letting it build chips over the next two or three years with features measuring just 14 nanometers, and then 10 nm. The narrower the features, the more transistors can fit on a single chip, improving performance.
The newest fabs currently use 300 mm wafers, about the size of a vinyl record. Moving up in size will make room for more than twice as many chips to be etched on each, leading to cost savings.
Lowering costs will be a serious priority for Intel as it ventures into the tablet and phone markets, where chips sell for much less than in the PC industry. Intel, which has yet to make meaningful progress in mobile, stresses that its most advanced fabs have the lowest cost per chip produced.
"One of reasons why Intel is so aggressive on capital spending is to maximize the chances it has of protecting its gross margins as it moves into smaller and lower priced CPUs," Longbow Research analyst JoAnne Feeney said.
SPENDING SPREE
Intel is not the first tech company to worry Wall Street with aggressive long-term investments whose payoffs are difficult to estimate.
Investors in the past have criticized Amazon.com Inc for splurging on costly warehouses and other shipping facilities, investments that eventually paid off and contributed to rich stock valuations.
While the size of Intel's capex increase alarmed investors, the chipmaker since 2011 has been spending heavily. Intel normally pours 12 to 16 percent of its revenue into capex, but spending has been closer to 20 percent in the past two years and will probably be higher this year, Feeney estimated.
The costs of developing the new technology to use 450 mm fabs are so high that just a few companies, such as Intel, Samsung Electronics and Taiwan's TSMC, are expected to have the scale to make the jump worthwhile. Building 450 mm plants from the ground up is expected to cost $10 billion or more.
It's not just a matter of creating bigger silicon wafers. Most of the high-tech equipment - sold by the likes of Applied Materials - used in chip manufacturing has to be redesigned as well.
The transition from 300 mm to 450 mm is so expensive and complicated that the world's biggest chipmakers and tool makers are collaborating to establish new standards and timing new technology.
Intel made a $3 billion strategic equity investment last year in chip equipment supplier ASML to help fund the development of future lithography tools for 450 mm fabs, a move followed by rivals Samsung and TSMC.
Intel's Oregon plant will lead the effort to produce chips on 450 mm wafers, with other larger Intel plants upgraded in the future, Chief Financial Officer Stacy Smith told Reuters on Thursday.
Rasgon said Intel's long-term investments in manufacturing will mean more pressure on its margins over the next few years, but that its spending will help ensure it remains a major player in the chip industry over the next decade - though there's no guarantee.
"If there's any company I can look at five years from now, they'll be here and they'll be really successful at whatever they're doing. But I don't know what they'll look like," Rasgon said.
"They have to do this, but it doesn't mean I want to own the stock while they're doing it."
