By Graham K. Rogers

Opening Gambit:

Apple Stuff

A couple of weeks ago we reported that Bob Mansfield was to retire from Apple, but he is so useful to the company that he has been persuaded to stay on a while longer in an advisory position, AppleInsider reports in an item that also tells us that Craig Federighi and Dan Riccio have been promoted to senior vice presidents

A rumor on the iPhone brings up again the idea of the NFC feature that the new device has been claimed to have on a number of occasions. However, this time AppleInsider have a photo of what could be the NFC chip. Brian Klug, Anand Lal Shimpi at AnandTech however feel that this is not the NFC chip an provides some good analytical reasons why. However, just in time, Lance Whitney reports that Apple now has a patent that "details a method for confirming payment transactions on an electronic device": how about that?

With the iPhone 5 (or whatever it is to be called) almost upon us in all probability, Sam Byford tries to make sense of rumours concerning the new device.

While we are fairly certain that there will be an Apple event on 12 September to announce the next iPhone, there are persistent rumours about a second event, with some suggesting this might be the long-expected iPad mini (I am still skeptical). A report on AppleInsider introduces a new rumour (several sites were repeating this early Wednesday) concerning a new wifi-free AirPlay -- streaming of music direct to devices. Actually it does need wifi, but not a network apparently. Was there some overkill in San Francisco this week when the theft of an iPhone led to shots being fired, a school being closed and a chase? Daniel Eran Dilger on AppleInsider reports that this was part of an investigation into a smartphone theft ring and things seem to have got out of hand when a phone was stolen and the police sprang into action. Or over-reaction.

A reliable source for technical hints is Topher Kessler now on CNET and he has a couple that I think are worth repeating this time (I mean he has more, but I like these especially). The first concerns malware and is a new exploit that can effect Macs (although none has been found yet) that uses Java 7. Topher explains how to disable the Java while waiting for Oracle to get their act together.

There are also apparently issues for some Mac users on occasions that cause a faulty power up: no sound chimes and the rest fails. Topher suggests a couple of ways to analyse this should it ever happen to you and some fixes.

I found a new site with hints and ideas that some Mac users will find useful this week: Mac Most. I was sent to the site from MacSurfer which linked to a demo video of how to make simultaneous videos with Keynote. Fairly well made and clear enough for most, this is an interesting resource for anyone who wants more out of the Mac.

Also coming up with a useful hint on HDR photos on the iPhone is Leanna Lofte on iMore, who often writes on the iOS devices.

The Genius bars are contact points for customers with problems and that usually means some form of stress. AppleInsider reports that part of the training manual for the guys who work at the Genius Bars has some fairly tight instructions, like reading body-language (useful to know if someone is about to throw a broken Mac at you) and certain words that must never be used. like Crash and Hang. Unexpectedly quits, Does not respond and tops responding are preferred expressions.

Apple are hot on this and there are a lot of preferred terms for technology on the Mac. An example might be the spinning rainbow of death, which Apple prefers to be called, The Spinning Wait cursor.

Apple v. Samsung

With a ban being sought by Apple, Samsung have sprung into action and will be fighting any injunctions that are imposed, with all possible measures, Sam Oliver reports on AppleInsider.

However, we read early Wednesday that no ban will be possible until December at the earliest with rescheduling and comments from the Judge, Bryan Bishop reports. This is partly because of the breadth of the ban and the amount of paperwork from both sides.
One thing I have wondered about -- and I know there have been several comments on this (most especially from MacDaily News) -- is the question of Samsung and Samsung: the handset maker and the major supplier of Apple. MDN thinks that the position is untenable: Samsung has copied and should not have been a supplier when this became clear. I think so too but accept that this may be a little more complex, especially is there are contracts involved. Katie Marsal reports on this supplier aspect of Samsung and the firewall that apparently exists at the company who are hoping that the supplier business will remain. I am sure they do as it is worth several billion dollars each year.

Some people wonder why Apple, despite winning this case did it without exactly going "thermonuclear" which is what Steve Jobs promised. However, as Jim Dalrymple points out he was not promising mega-war with Samsung, but with Google. Maybe Google is next.

This is also the direction that Tim Bajarin is going on PC Magazine. Apple will go to great lengths to protect its intellectual property and the Samsung case was a warning shot across the bows for other manufacturers: "this trial has already caused them to think twice before copying anything related to Apple." Bajarin also points out that the reason for Jobs' anger may have been the betrayal he felt that Eric Schmidt had made.

So what about Google? Jeff Gamet reports that noises out of Mountain View suggest they are not all that worried and the statement issued mentions the Appeals and review processes and that the case was not really about Android. Not yet.

The comments from Google were also examined by Karen Swisher on All Things Digital and she translates their comments as,

Good lord, let's hope Samsung wins on appeal, because if Apple prevails, it might be coming for us next. We hope our massive patent-buying splurge in mobile will protect us, but the there-is-nothing-new-under-the-sun defense is our fallback position.

Another comment on the way Google should be worried came from Stephen Rosenman on Seeking Alpha who thinks that there are going to be major implications for Google coming from this case about these "shameless knock-offs" and he thinks that Google is "ripe for a fall."

In another development Foss Patents reports that in Germany Motorola has come to a licensing agreement with Apple in a case regarding standard-essential patents: "Apple is now licensed to use some if not all of Motorola's standard-essential patents in Germany," and this is likely to have a knock-on effect elsewhere.

Despite what we read in a statement from Tim Cook earlier in the week, the Samsung blog has an internal memo regarding the case and this includes the comment, "We initially proposed to negotiate with Apple instead of going to court, as they had been one of our most important customers. However, Apple pressed on with a lawsuit. . . ." So some one is telling porkies here. [For those not familiar with London rhyming slang, this is Pork pie = Porky pie = lie.]

The statement continues,

History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation.

So with Apple continuing to enjoy massive growth and with a popular customer base, and with considerable innovation, that reads to me like Samsung shooting itself in the foot.

A sort of confirmation on this appeared Tuesday evening in my in-box when I read an item on MacDaily News concerning a survey carried out that suggests around 60% of Apple users are likely to buy another Apple product after a positive experience at a Genius Bar -- not in Thailand of course. However all is not well in Apple land and MacDaily News carries a story and some harsh comments concerning the way John Browett is running Apple Retail: into the ground, MDN thinks and will not be happy until Browett is gone.

But what about the jury? There were some comments from jury members over the weekend, but on Tuesday evening there was a link to a video of an interview by Emily Chang with the foreman, Vel Hogan on the Bloomberg website. There are a couple of surprises in the interview. Some points become much clearer, especially the figure the jury came up with: much less than Apple's numbers but a little more than Samsung's.

There were of course lots of comments on the implications of the Apple v Samsung case. I made some myself on Monday's Cassandra patents item:

Enforcing patents means to me that the companies can use what has been invented by other companies should those companies allow this and if they pay a licence fee. There are also the FRAND patents that are essential to technology and these also need to be used under licence, but the fees must be reasonable.

The idea about stifling innovation is typical lawyer talk. They obviously have no idea how engineers create things when there is a problem that needs a solution: the Samsung way of stealing what you want, like the GOP way of stealing music they think would go with a campaign, or those who steal pictures and text from a website, simply because they can, is the result of not thinking in innovative ways: and presuming that ownership is a matter of convenience.

I also commented about Samsung (and tech companies in general), "they will need to produce something so unusual that the standard ways of working are simply turned on their head and the new product ends up being the de facto standard."

I was surprised to find that for once Andy Ihnatko took the view that the Apple win would be a negative and (following the Samsung statement) this would stifle innovation.

One who has the same opinion that I expressed on Monday is Jim Dalrymple on The Loop (nice to be vindicated in this way) and he also suggests that "this decision should lead to more innovation, not less".

Also contradicting Ihnatko was Marco Armenti who is the developer of Instapaper and who might be interested in how Apple's inaction is causing his hard work (and that of hundreds of other developers) to be sold to users here by distributors who pass almost none of the cash they take back to Apple and hence the developers. [Customers pay a fixed fee to the store -- not the semi-official iStudio stores -- who then install hundreds of apps on their iPhones or iPads.] In contradicting Ihnatko, Armenti makes the point that "If Samsung wasn't so blatantly idiotic about copying so much from the iPhone, Apple wouldn't have won so many of their claims."

Another following the same argument stifling innovation argument was Nick Wingfield on NYTimes who trod his way carefully through this minefield with carefully selected contributions, such as Bill Flora who likens the similar concepts involved in patents to a circular steering wheel. The Samsung and Apple case was nothing like that at all and one of the points that convinced the jury was the before and after iPhone effect on Samsung designs. Believe me, you would not get confused between the steering wheel of a 1970s Mini and the current BMW. It is not the shape, it is what you do with it.

Some comments seemed as if they were badly timed, like James Hein who was a freelance writer on all IT subjects under the sun when I wrote for the Post Database. And master of few. His expert comments on the iPhone before its release still rank as some of the most crass, but were really just following everyone else: if you hunted around, you would find his opinions had sometimes been aired a week or so before, such as the uselessness of the iPhone keyboard.

Not that he had put his hands on the device then, but that won't hold down the Hein. Anything that goes against Apple is fair by him.

Now of course, with exquisite bad timing, he is back in the Post, so perhaps they have realised there that their disloyalty in dropping most of the freelance writers to save a few baht each month and rely on days-old wire service hand-me-downs was a false economy as it lost precisely what people had valued the Post for: its local values.

This week the Hein is taking the Samsung party line in the defence submission about copyrighting rectangles, which is not what the case was about at all: heavens, even the Korean court recognised that Samsung had copied something from Apple. And the defence pronouncements were not the same as the evidence presented. He should listen to the jury foreman's comments on that very point: too close in their feel and function. Not in their rectangles.

If the schedule is like it was when I was writing, then he had to send that in last weekend (digital technology meant that the deadlines became longer) but anyone following the case would have realised it was coming to an end and that juries decide on evidence. All the reports suggest that they were convinced that Samsung had blatantly copied many of the technologies that Apple had created (not copied) and that Samsung execs were lying.

Sure Samsung devices (and others) may end up costing $20 more because they have to pay for licences, as Microsoft already does for Apple technology (in a cross-licensing deal): or perhaps rather the devices are $20 cheaper because Samsung decided it would not licence the technology and just copy it.

The Hein and Ihnatko cases fall down when you take a look at many street markets in Thailand where one can buy knock-off Gucci, Chanel and other brand name merchandise that is probably made in a shop round the corner. If you want to maintain the argument that copying is part of innovation and Samsung should be OK despite the investment that Apple (or any other company that invents) has put into the development, then there would be no reason for the police to arrest those selling knock-off bags and Thailand would not be considered a country that copies by default. An Asian problem perhaps. This same argument could be extended to computers, software, music and movies; but in reality we know that it cannot. This "Samsung good, Apple bad" meme is simply one of convenience and very short-sighted.

So, if Apple was wrong, why is Samsung speaking to US carriers about removing some features from the phones, as Chris Welch reports on The Verge. There were some interesting analytical comments from Horace Dediu on ASYMCO.

Half and Half

Other Matters

Another social networking service is Twitter who are most certainly not the current flavour of the month. A lot of complaints have been aired about how they changed the rules for API use and several developers have fallen foul of this. Now we read in an article by Rene Ritchie on iMore that Tapbots have had to remove their links due to one of the API changes, although they had been in consultations for days with Twitter over this. AppleBitch also has some comments on this and the point that "changes like these are starting to get a little worrying."

One of my other interests is motor sport and this week I read on Autosport about a new formula for electric cars that the FIA is to licence (they control all motor sport). Formula E will be up and running in 2014 but it is expected to be licensed out in the same way Formula One is licensed to Formula One Management, the company run by Bernie Ecclestone.

We have commented here before on the pervasive reach of Huawei -- most Thai telecomms hardware comes from them via deals with CAT that were foisted on True. Australia took the step of severely restricting where some of the network hardware could be installed for fear of back doors, allowing the siphoning off of data. Now, Jay Greene and Roger Cheng report (in a long article that covers several aspects of Huawei's operations) that a committee in the US Congress are (perhaps belatedly) asking some questions about the tentacular reach of Huawei and if America ought to worry. Short answer from here: Yes.

However, in the article Greene and Cheng write about Huawei's Madame Cheng (now there's a coincidence) who claims all innocence on behalf of Huwaei on this question. Well, she would, wouldn't she?

Local Items

Late Tuesday I noticed that email was not arriving from a couple of accounts. Not a problem usually as Mail usually tries again later and it will come back. To help, I quit Mail then got distracted and did not start it again until the morning. Still no email from my eXtensions accounts and when I checked the site, that was offline too.

While checking I also found that DTAC was still having problems and I have no 3G this morning: rainy season problems or worse?

Rain? A penny dropped, sort of. I can normally double check with 3G, but all I have here right now is my own wifi and part of any analysis of such a situation is to restart suspect devices. I turned the wifi off, then on, accessed the Apple site to make sure it was working, then tried my own site again. Nope: external problems.

I sent email to the web host service and hope that comes back soon. You will know it is back if you can read this of course.

Graham K. Rogers teaches at the Faculty of Engineering, Mahidol University in Thailand. He wrote in the Bangkok Post, Database supplement on IT subjects. For the last seven years of Database he wrote a column on Apple and Macs.