ParisLemon

Following up on yesterday’s news, Verizon has decided not to charge their ridiculous $2 fee to those wanting to pay their bills online or via phone. 

Good save. But I’m with Harry McCracken:

When Verizon says it won’t charge $2 for online payments, it’s saying it’ll get $2 out of you in some less obvious manner. Some victory.

— Harry McCracken (@harrymccracken)

December 30, 2011

I’m surprised Apple’s system (or lack thereof) for app testing has lasted this long without a major overhaul. At some point it seems like Apple has to acquire TestFlight or build their own version.

As Jessica Vascellaro points out, the developer test account system was sort of arbitrarily set up:

Apple picked 100 believing it was a big enough sample for most companies, but still easy enough for it to manage, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Most developers I work with seem to use TestFlight now. But increasingly I’m seeing people simply pushing their apps live into the App Store and offer some sort of code to testers to activate the app’s service. In other words, there are apps in the App Store which do nothing for 99.9% of users. That seems like a poor solution and experience.

Others do buy more developer accounts to open up testing to more users, but that still requires UDID sharing which is something most users will never be really understand.

But it doesn’t contain a middle finger, so it’s fine.

Update 12/31: Pulled in the most open way possible.

Chris Ziegler of The Verge was finally able to clarify (via a source, presumably within Google) what Google means exactly when they give Android activation numbers. Essentially, it’s when you activate Google services on the device.

In other words, Kindle Fire, Nook, etc, don’t count as Android devices by this metric. Seems a bit odd, no? Android is an open ecosystem, but Google only counts you if use their services. 

Sure, you can argue that Google has no way of knowing the numbers for those other Android devices, but they could at least acknowledge them. It’s weird that they don’t given the millions of units this would add overall ecosystem bottom line. 

On the other hand, Google probably doesn’t like what players like Amazon are doing by forking Android. You usually don’t give your enemy a pat on the back. 

Other things Apple will not be releasing at events they don’t put on this year include:

• iGun
• The iPad 4, 5, 6, or 7
• Apple Ham Radio
• The Kraken
• Apple+
• The iPhone 5, 6, 7, 8, or — get this — 9
• Apple Petting Zoo
• BioDome 4
• An Android phone
• Their blow out Q1 earnings
• Puppies

Actually, maybe puppies. Sources cannot confirm or deny this.

I give AT&T a lot of shit (and rightfully so for jackassery moves like this). But it’s important to remember that their main competitor, Verizon, is also a sleazy carrier. Today brings the perfect example of that. 

The largest carrier in the U.S. is apparently about to start charging a $2 fee if you pay your bill online or over the phone, sources tell Droid Life. Yes, they’re charging you to pay your bill. The only way to avoid the charge is to set up automatic payments which some people, like myself, don’t want to do. 

What a total shitbag move. Verizon is actually incentivizing many people not to pay their bill. Pure greed.

Update 12/30: That didn’t last long.

The popular argument nowadays is that the movie business is tanking because the majority of movies suck. But that’s not really true. Sure, many big, Hollywood movies suck. But for each of those, there are a few smaller, independent movies which are great. In fact, as a whole, I might argue that quality is better than it ever has been thanks to technology greatly driving down the cost to make a film. 

As Ebert lays out, the actual problem is with the distribution model. That is, most movie theaters in the U.S. are set up to play only the big ticket items — and again, a good percentage of that is crap. Massive films like Avatar and The Dark Knight disguise this — but only temporarily. This year there wasn’t a film of that magnitude, so we’re seeing it.

Here’s a shocker: the theaters showing actual good movies are doing quite well.

I see a healthy number of movies myself — at least one a week, sometimes two. But I rarely go to the AMCs of the world (in fact, the only time I’ve been to one recently was to see an IMAX). I go to theaters like Sundance which pride themselves on the quality of the experience and the quality of the films they show. You buy a reserved seat and you can buy a drink for the showing. Because it’s a bit more expensive, the audience tends to be better behaved as well. It’s well worth the money.

Ebert has this exactly right and the theater industry would be wise to listen to him. But they won’t. Because next year, we’ll get The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit and a few other massive films. And they’ll think everything is just fine again. And they’ll keep on thinking that until they go out of business. Which will happen.

I find myself largely in a similar boat with Justin Williams in terms of how he uses the various social networks out there. 

His thoughts on Path strike me as something I’m hearing a lot now amongst the people I know and/or follow:

Path: I never used the original version of Path, but I love using the new version as a way to give my closest friends and family members an inside look into my daily life.2 More than just sharing my own content, I enjoy seeing what my friends are sharing on it. Path is what I enjoyed most about Facebook before it turned into the Internet platform: a social network for your private, personal network.

Sadly, so do his thoughts on Flickr:

Flickr: Flickr is my least used service right now, which is sad. The personal photos I used to share on Flickr now go to Facebook and I reserve Flickr for any “real” photography I may do. As I rarely get out with my camera these days, that usage is becoming less and less. Their lack of a great mobile experience also limits its glance-ability when I am on the go.

I’m still paying for Flickr and I basically never use it anymore. Instagram has long since become my go-to photo service (as it is for Williams).

His use of Stamped to replace Yelp is interesting. I like that idea, I just don’t think they’re quite there in terms of content volume just yet.

While Williams calls Google+ the “nerdier variant of Facebook”, I still haven’t really figured out how that social network fits into my routine yet. I share most of my links there, but I see very, very few click backs as a result (more on that in a post yet to come). The conversation is usually lively, but it delves into trolling way too quickly. Essentially, it’s like FriendFeed on steroids. 

Williams’ usage of Twitter may be the most interesting:

I also obsessively delete replies after I am sure the person it is directed to has read it. When someone visits my Twitter profile for the first time I want them to decide whether to follow or not based on the content I produce, not the conversions I have with other users.

I’ve never heard of anyone doing that before. It’s intriguing, but it seems like it would be a huge pain in the ass and I’m not sure I agree with removing content after you put it out there for all to see (though @replies aren’t seen by all, to be fair). 

Williams broader point about social network overlap is a good one. Most of us are at the point now where if a new social network comes into our lives, it means getting rid of an old one — Flickr -> Instagram, for example. That’s a pretty big problem for new social networks going forward. They can’t just be good, they have to be really, really good to make up for a switching cost. Or they have to be totally different — but even something totally different means time spent there instead of elsewhere. Something will probably be cut.

Your service now can’t just be a time-waster, it has to be good enough to make the cut.

Peter Burrows’ Bloomberg report points out something that’s largely been overlooked the past several months: the opposite approaches that Microsoft and Apple are taking with Android.

Microsoft is aggressively going after Android partners with the intention of forcing them to license Microsoft’s patents. Right or wrong, this effectively destroys the Android “free” proposition. 

But Apple is going after the Android partners to stop them from selling their devices. They’re not interested in licensing their patents. They want these rival devices destroyed. Period.

But given the success Microsoft has had with forcing others to license their patents, what if Apple decides to do the same thing? Kevin Rivette of 3LP Advisors argues that this is the prudent thing to do from a business perspective. 

Steve Jobs clearly didn’t care about that perspective. He wanted Android destroyed because he felt like Google copied most of their Android innovation from Apple. But Tim Cook could alter Apple’s strategy. After all, forcing Android partners to pay both Microsoft and Apple for each device sold may be a huge deterrent for many of them. 

Most speculate that Microsoft is getting about $5 from each Android device sold by partners now licensing their patents. Rivette believes Apple could get $10. The end result would be billion of dollars or, again, Android partners second-guessing going with Android. 

Also, with such deals, Apple could possibly dictate other terms for using the patents (something like: you can only use them 6 months after we do).

A dick move? Very much so. It would also be a big break in strategy by Apple. But Burrows and co. do a good job laying out why it may be inevitable. The patent-based injunctions are temporary at best — rivals figure out little tweaks to work around them. But they spend millions in court in the process, so it may be worth it to them to simply license patents from Apple. This is exactly why Microsoft is getting these royalties. 

At the very least, this is certainly fascinating to think about.

VentureBeat’s Devindra Hardawar reports not only that HP was trying to sell webOS for $1.2 billion (the same price HP paid to get all of Palm just last year), but that Facebook was one suitor they met with. 

While Hardawar cites a source saying that this deal “was practically laughed out of the room”, I wouldn’t totally put the idea of webOS and Facebook to bed. 

Back in August, when HP was in crazy mode, myself and others laid out reasons why a Facebook/webOS deal would make sense. It still does — but maybe even more so now that HP ultimately decided to open source the OS.

Most of the reports about the Facebook Phone have them forking a version of Android in a similar way to what Amazon did for the Kindle Fire. But imagine if Facebook forked webOS instead?

Given Facebook’s HTML5 ambitions, and webOS’ HTML base, this seems to make more sense than forking a Java development platform. 

I also wouldn’t sleep on one or more OEM pushing for this. Sooner or later, one of Android’s big OEM partners is going to break away, likely when Google tries to exert more control on things like OS updates. Google can say what it wants about the Motorola deal, the second that happened, all the other OEMs started looking around at other options. Open source webOS is an attractive one. Open source webOS re-written to be FacebookOS is an extremely attractive one. 

Idea for Microsoft: whenever you decide on something brand-related, you should pause — then pick something that’s the exact opposite of your initial thought. 

Also, the bigger problem remains. If the “Superphones” are coming in Q4 2012, they’re going to run headfirst into dozen of Android “Superphones” and likely one big “iSuperPhone” — which is I’m sure what Apple will call it. It just has such a nice ring to it.

Update: As Hunter Walk reminds me, there’s actually a name for my new strategy for Microsoft: The “Costanza”. 

As opposed to what, exactly?

I personally think the key to iTV success will be the sales figures for Altoids next year.