Raspberry Pi now baked in the U.K.

The Raspberry Pi computer is now being manufactured in the U.K., with Wales taking over from China as the location of production.

Those who aren’t aware of the Raspberry Pi can get up to speed by reading this previous article. Essentially it’s a credit card-sized micro computer that features the bare-bones needed for young programmers to learn about computing and experiment without fear of breaking an expensive PC or Mac. It’s been a huge success thanks to its price tag of just $25.


Until now the Raspberry Pi has been manufactured in China alongside most other consumer electronics. This was borne out of necessity rather than desire, with the costs and time-frame of manufacturing both being vastly favorable in China, the taxes on importing components into the U.K. over-inflated, and the lack of support for the unproven device making the decision to build abroad easy.

Things have now changed, however, and a deal forged between Premier Farnell and Sony means the Raspberry Pi is now being made in Pencoed, South Wales. The switch, which was made in the middle of August, means the creation of 30 extra jobs in the area. British-made Raspberry Pi units began shipping to customers this past week.

Raspberry Pi owners who want to know where their device was manufactured need only to look next to the power jack. If there’s a ‘Made in the UK’ stamp sitting there then you know you’ve bought British. Whether that matters to you in this global economy which is powered primarily by supply and demand is a personal preference.

This switch in manufacturing location coincides with changes having been made to the Raspberry Pi itself. Five months after the original went on sale, v2.0 of the board has been improved with changes including mounting holes for fastening it to a case, and the ability to power it via a USB hub.

Read More

Bruce Willis battling Apple over iTunes collection

Bruce Willis is, according to sources, considering legal action against Apple to ensure his offspring inherit his iTunes music collection. But the law isn’t fully understood, and the story not exactly watertight.

The Daily Mail claims Willis want to leave his huge digital music collection, built up over many years, to his daughters. However, and I quote, he has discovered he “does not actually own the tracks but is instead ‘borrowing’ them under a licence.” Willis is said to be considering a number of legal options, including establishing a family trust, and supporting existing legal challenges in five U.S. states related to the issue.


The law seems to be confused on this score, or perhaps it;s just the people reading up on it. The newspaper quotes a solicitor as saying, “Lots of people will be surprised on learning all those tracks and books they have bought over the years don’t actually belong to them. It’s only natural you would want to pass them on to a loved one. The law will catch up, but ideally Apple and the like will update their policies and work out the best solution for their customers.” But commenters across the Web have different ideas about the situation.

This all points to an ambiguity that needs to be rectified in no uncertain terms. Consumers of all kinds, right down to mainstream technophobes should be made aware of the true extent of their ownership over digital content. Even physical media doesn’t escape untouched, as evidenced by the video games industry. Publishers hate the used game industry and argue that selling a game on is illegal due to the actual content on the disc being copyrighted.

I very much doubt whether Willis is going to be the champion of consumer rights some are making him out to be, but this story, however legitimate or not it is, should at least start the conversational ball rolling. The law needs to be made clearer and less ambiguous, as digital content is only going to grow in popularity from this moment on.

Read More

Clint Eastwood and his empty Obama chair go viral on the InterWebs

I’m not sure Clint Eastwood has even ever been online before, but he’s now succeeded in going viral and kick-starting several memes after his RNC speech.

As you may have already seen or heard, veteran Hollywood actor and director Clint Eastwood made a surprise appearance at the Republican National Convention on Thursday (Aug. 30) to throw his support behind presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It was a sad, shambling performance from an 82-year-old man, and I suspect the GOP is already regretting the booking.


However, the best and worst thing about the speech was Eastwood’s conversation with an empty chair he claimed represented President Obama. He poked fun at the empty chair, asked it questions, and generally used the prop as a tool to entertain and enthrall the assembled Republican members. While everyone on the outside looking in watched in open-jawed astonishment.

One quick-witted wag immediately set up a Twitter account with the name @InvisibleObama, which gained over 20,000 followers in just 45 minutes. At the time of writing that follower count has more than doubled to 45,000. There are also other Twitter accounts trying to mock the bizarre sketch, but none have got quite as much attention.

A meme has since sprung up around Clint Eastwood and his conversation with an imaginary President Obama. It’s called ‘Eastwooding’, and involves nothing more than Photoshopped images of Eastwood and his empty chair. Mashable has already pulled together some of the finer examples, including sad Keanu sitting on the chair, and Eastwood as Dirty Harry threatening an abandoned armchair.

Even Obama himself got in on the fun by tweeting a picture of himself sitting in the presidential chair with the accompanying line of, “This seat’s taken.”

Clint Eastwood and his empty Obama chair go viral on the InterWebssrc="https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2325704772/wrrmef61i6jl91kwkmzq_normal.png" />Barack Obama
✔@BarackObama


This seat's taken. OFA.BO/c2gbfi, href="http://t.co/jgGZTb02">pic.twitter.com/jgGZTb02

31 Aug 12
Reply
Retweet
href="https://twitter.com/intent/favorite?tweet_id=241392153148915712">Favorite





The Internet is a law unto itself, and it has decided to mock Eastwood’s performance at the RNC. Whatever your political views, that can’t be good for the GOP, Mitt Romney, or indeed Clint Eastwood.

Read More

‘I Have 50 Dollars’ spoofs App.net

Whatever you think of App.net, I Have 50 Dollars should give you a laugh.

App.net, for those unaware, is the pay-for-access Twitter-alike from Dalton Caldwell (nope, I’ve never heard of him either) that recently raised $803,000 to get started. Some people – Robert Scoble, Matthew Ingram – are backing App.net very strongly, while others don’t see the point and are wondering whether it’ll remain vaporware for ever.


I guess in a world in which people will give hundreds of dollars to Kickstarter and Indiegogo campaigns for products which could turn out to be useless or bogus then App.net makes perfect sense. But I’m not interested, personally. I suspect I’m in the vast majority too; ask people whether they’d be happy to pay for Facebook and see what reactions you get. Most would walk away.

I happen to disagree with the whole concept behind App.net. It’s effectively saying Facebook, Twitter, and all other social networks that rely on advertising as a business model suck. So let’s shun advertising and get users to pay up front for the service instead. No thanks. I’m happy with advertising paying for my social networking needs, and I never notice it anyway.

I doubt very much whether App.net will succeed in any major way. Mainstream users will never pay an annual fee for a service they can get for free elsewhere unless it adds a great deal of added value. The mainstream also cares little about advertising or privacy, otherwise Diaspora – which doesn’t charge for access – would be bigger than Facebook right now. And it isn’t.

Which leads us on to I Have 50 Dollars, an excellent satirical take on the App.net Silicon Valley circle jerk that is currently taking place. I Have 50 Dollars mimics the look and feel of the App.net ‘Join the movement‘ site perfectly, with the reworded tweets from backers pitched particularly well. The big difference is that I Have 50 Dollars isn’t asking for any money, it is instead suggesting those who can afford it donate to a worthy cause. Now that is something I can get behind.

Read More

Google+ vanity URLs for celebrities, brands

Google has started rolling out vanity URLs to the biggest celebrities and brands currently using its Google+ social network. Whether us mere mortals will also be afforded the pleasure of being ourselves rather than a random series of numbers remains to be seen.

According to TechCrunch, Google has gifted Google+ vanity URLs to a number of celebrities and brands, including Britney Spears and Toyota. This comes just days after Web comic The Oatmeal was punked with a jokey vanity URL that was character-for-character the same as the one The Oatmeal author Matthew Inman jokingly referred to in a comic mocking Google+.


The reference to “vanity URLs” is a bit of a misnomer. It suggests the only reason anyone could or would want a personalized URL is that they’re vane. The truth is very different. Although I’m sure there are some people out there who would pick a URL for those reasons, most people would choose their actual name and do so purely to make it easier sharing their Google+ profile with others.

These new vanity URLs mean Britney Spears is now reachable on google.com/+britneyspears and Toyota is reachable on google.com/+toyota. The rest of us, who haven’t made crappy pop songs or who don’t sell cars, are still making do with google.com/randomseriesofnumbers … which is just stupid.

Right now I cannot see anyone even remembering the random series of numbers that makes up their URL, let alone them sharing it with someone else who would also need to remember it or write it down. But I bet you could now find Britney Spears’ Google+ profile without sneaking a peek at the previous paragraphs, assuming you have been paying attention to this point.

Facebook started offering vanity URLs in 2009, and pre-empted the rush by allowing its high-profile users to stake their claim in advance. I can only assume this is a similar move on Google’s part, but the company has yet to reveal its plans for mainstream users of the service.

Read More

Streaming music helps Warners’ bottom line

Warner Music Group recently revealed its financial figures for the last quarter, and surprise, surprise, streaming music services are a growing source of income. And they’re only going to become a bigger piece of the pie from here on in.

The music industry was the first of the major content producers to be hit by the emergence of the Internet as a source for shared and sharing media files. It didn’t know how to react to this sudden threat to its business, and flopped around trying to make examples of certain websites and certain individuals in the hopes of scaring off everyone else. That didn’t work out so well.


It has now become clear that the music industry should have plowed all its time and effort into increasing the range of legal options open to consumers. If they had done so earlier then things would be much rosier for all concerned right now. It took the industry a long time to embrace these other options, especially streaming services such as Spotify and Pandora, but it finally gave in and accepted the inevitable.

Now, as the figures clearly show, the music industry is getting rewarded for its gamble, with Warner Music Group claiming 25 percent of its digital revenues from streaming services. This works out to around $54 million, roughly 8 percent of Warners’ total revenues for the period. This does include YouTube, but even so the numbers being touted are impressive.

The bottom line is that the way people consume music is changing. Less of us are buying CDs in stores, but a growing number of us are choosing to either purchase whole albums or individual tracks in digital formats, or listening to music legally on demand through subscription-based offerings such as Spotify or Rdio.

And then there is file-sharing, which will always exist no matter how much money and energy is wasted trying to curtail it. Give consumers fair legal options and they will likely take them. Those that don’t aren’t worth worrying about.

Read More

Google’s employees benefit from death

Google has long been known for its very generous employee benefits. The company has from the start gone out of its way to keep its workforce happy and healthy, with the idea being that that happiness and healthiness contributes to productivity and consequently the bottom line. But it has now taken the idea a step further, in fact as far as you can take it.

In an interview with Forbes, Google Chief People Officer (Head of HR) Laszlo Bock revealed that Google now sees its employees OK even in death. If a U.S.-based Google employee dies while working for the company, his or her spouse of partner continues receiving a pay check – for 50% of their annual salary – for a further 10 years.


Furthermore, all stock held by the employee at the time of death is immediately vested, and any surviving children receive $1,000 every month until they reach 19 (23 if a full-time student). All of this comes without any special requirements, so the majority of Google’s workforce qualify as soon as join the company.

The writer of the piece suggests that this doesn’t offer any benefit to the company, but that isn’t strictly true. The biggest and brightest employees are hard to find and even harder to retain, especially in the cut-throat world of tech giants where companies will do everything they can to lure even the most-loyal worker away to pastures new.

In this context the motive for the after-death benefit becomes clear: it’s another way of Google tempting its workforce to stay put for the longterm. Interestingly the older employees are more likely to be swayed by such an offering, so we could see the mean age of Google’s workforce increasing. Either way it’s one hell of a good deal: giving Google another weapon to retain the best and brightest, Google’s employees enviable peace of mind.

Read More

Facebook stock hits new low

When Facebook went public with an IPO in May each share cost $42. Now, each Facebook share is being traded at around the $20 mark. That has to smart.

On May 18 of this year Facebook was listed on the stock exchange with the opening price of $42.05 per share. Over the course of the day the price fluctuated between $38 and $45, eventually settling at just above the IPO price. In the week that followed its IPO the Facebook share price fell to $31, the week after to $27. There then followed a brief resurgence through the end of June and beginning of July before it once again started to drop. CNBC has all the gory details.


And so we come to today, Aug. 2, when the Facebook stock hit a new low of $20 per share. That’s a fall of 47 percent from the IPO price, and many analysts think there is more misery to come for early investors. The question now is how low will the price of Facebook stock fall before it bounces back?

There has been much mocking at the prospect of Facebook soon being worth less than the $44.6 billion Microsoft offered to buy Yahoo for back in 2008. If the stock price hits $16 then Facebook’s market cap will be less than that. Oops. But that is just an aside to the main story, which is if and when you should invest in Facebook.

It all depends how you think the company is going to fare in the longterm. If you think it will flourish in the years to come then that sub-$20 share price could look very appealing. Some analysts claim Facebook will reach IPO levels again around the end of 2013, so if you can hang on that long there could be money to be made.

In the meantime there is more scope for a freefall in the price, with the number of shares in Facebook multiplying as lock-ups on stock sales by company employees begin to lapse. They will do so in August, October, November, and December of this year, before a final one in may 2013.

Read More

Anonymous fights trademark application

And the award for ‘Best Idea Of The Year’ goes to Early Flicker, a company trying to trademark the logo and slogan used by Anonymous.

Anonymous, for those who aren’t aware, is a disparate group of hacktivists which started out fighting the Church of Scientology but has since expanded its operations to support a free and open Internet and fight against large corporations. They’re loved by the people they stand up for, and both hated and feared by those they make trouble for.


Whatever your personal feelings towards Anonymous and their activities, it’s hard not to side with them in their latest fight. According to Forbes, a company called Early Flicker has applied to the Institut National De La Propriété Industrielle (INPI) for the trademark to the Anonymous logo (seen above left) and the slogan, “We are Anonymous, We do not forgive, We do not forget. Expect us.” Which is surely the height of both arrogance and madness.

Early Flicker has no hold over either of these Anonymous properties, and yet it’s trying to claim ownership in order to sell all manner of different products with the well-recognized logo and slogan on. The company is in fact already selling Anonymous-branded clothing, and I guess this trademark application is intended to stop any other company from doing the same in France.

Unsurprisingly this hasn’t gone down too well with Anonymous, which has launched Operation AnonTrademark in retaliation. Anonymous has vowed to shut down any online activities of Early Flicker and get the trademark application halted in its tracks. In a video posted to YouTube it also warned:


“Their [Early Flicker's] arrogance and ignorance of what they have done will not go unpunished. Anonymous will take down any business they have going on the internet and the ninety nine per cent will not stop until the registration has been revoked and a public apology has been made. The name of Anonymous will not be the whore of the world.”

I’m no expert on the rules regarding trademarks but you’d assume that someone seeking ownership over a name or logo would be required to, I don’t know, prove that they have a legal right to do so. This has to be classified as a mistake on all counts, and I fear the punishment meted out to Early Flicker will be harsh.

Read More

Final Fantasy VII re-release disappoints

Final Fantasy VII is back with a vengeance, this time getting a PC re-release that adds several new features. Unfortunately it hasn’t added enough to really make it worth purchasing.

I’m sure I’m not alone amongst the Blorge faithful in absolutely loving Final Fantasy VII. It was one of the games that upon its original release in 1997 proved to me that gaming wasn’t going to be a hobby I gave up on purely because I was entering adulthood (I was 20-years-old at the time). If a game could be this good, tell a compelling story, grip me emotionally, and persuade me to give up 50 hours or more of my life, then why would I give it up?


In the 15 years that have passed since Final Fantasy VII was originally released the games industry has changed a great deal. Even the Final Fantasy franchise has evolved considerably, and not necessarily for the better. But FF7 is one of those games that has stood the test of time very well. Yes, the graphics look horrible, and the lack of voice acting is jarring to modern ears, but it still provides a damn fine experience.

This week saw the PC re-release that was announced in July finally drop. For $10 retro gaming fans can get a digital copy of the game complete with achievements, saves to the cloud, and a character booster that means lazy people can avoid grinding through the levels needed to beat the hardest bosses.

The problem is that the achievements are distinctly lacking in any variety, the visuals haven’t been touched, and the whole thing feels like a wasted opportunity. I still own an original copy of this game for the Playstation (along with Origins, Anthology, VI, VIII, and IX) and I’ll be sticking to that rather than paying out again for something that could have been much better than it has turned out to be.

Those who are interested, however, can head to the official site.

Read More

Microsoft confirms ‘new Xbox’ accidentally

There’s a new Xbox on the way, and that’s not me gazing into my crystal ball, that’s someone from Microsoft dropping the ball.

We all know that both Microsoft and Sony are at least developing – if not fully preparing to launch – new home games consoles in the near future. However, unlike Nintendo, which announced the existence of the Wii U very early in development, both companies are playing their cards very close to their chests. Some thought we’d see a teaser at E3 2012, but that turned out not to be the case. Which means all money is now on E3 2013 for an announcement and unveiling of what looks likely to be the PS4 and Xbox 8.


Assuming the consoles are now having games developed for them, there will be thousands of people with at least knowledge of what to expect from them, including everybody in the loop at both Sony and Microsoft. One of those at the latter has confirmed a new Xbox is on the way, with an obvious slip of the tongue he’ll no doubt live to regret.

In an interview with The Verge, Windows Live General Manager Brian Hall said:


“We’ve had Hotmail and operated Hotmail for about 16 years. We obviously have Exchange, and Outlook, that people use at work. We just decided it was time to do something new and bring the best from each of those and put them together and release it right in time for the new wave of products that we could have coming out with Windows 8, with the new version of Office, with the new Windows Phone and the new Xbox.”

Yes, that’s it, just one small reference at the end of a couple of sentences about new Microsoft products. But that’s all we needed, as this is the first reference made to a new Xbox by a Microsoft employee. There’s little else we can glean from this statement: Windows 8 is being released on Oct. 26, but it’s obvious that the new Xbox will not be out before 2013. Still, it’s on its way, it’s now a matter of when rather than if. As confirmed by Microsoft.
Be Sociable, Share!

Read More

Early iPad prototypes show a tablet is a tablet is a tablet

Early prototype designs for the iPad suggest that all tablets were always destined to look very similar to each other. No offense to Jony Ive but it’s hardly rocket science.

Court documents released this week show some early designs for the iPad, with Apple tinkering away behind the scenes on the product well in advance of it being announced. These are from the Apple vs. Samsung trial which will see the two tech giants battle it out in court over who copied who and which patents have been infringed upon.


I’m actually not all that interested in the case because it’s an absolutely pointless waste of everybody’s time, money, and effort. Both companies would be better served improving the products already on the market or, I don’t designing new ones for us all to spend our hard-earned cash on. But the iPad prototypes do suggest one thing: that a tablet is a tablet is a tablet.

Apple fans will not agree with this sentiment, arguing that the iPad was new, innovative, and a game-changer. That may be so, but it was clearly inspired by other, older products, and as demonstrated previously, Apple undesigned the iPad more than it designed it. This was a retroactive process whereby the extraneous crap was removed to leave the iPad in its purest tablet form.

If you look through the prototypes they all look very similar. Sure, some have rounded edges, some have kickstands, some have two-tone color schemes. But they’re all recognizable as being tablets. Even if someone had never seen an iPad before, when asked to design a touchscreen tablet they would likely create something that looked very similar to the Apple slate. Because there is very little room for maneuver.

There’s a reason most people feel arguing over design patents is pointless, and this is it in a nutshell.

Read More

Amazon readies new Kindle Fire tablets

I guess it was bound to happen in the days following the announcement of the Nexus 7 at Google I/O. However, news that new Kindle Fire tablets could be arriving soon, with both 7- and 10-inch versions abound, will surprise many.

The Kindle Fire first went on sale in November 2011. Critical reviews were mostly positive, and sales exceeded expectations. Despite these factors the Kindle Fire made barely a dent in the side of the Apple iPad. Two very different tablets of course, but many of us felt an attractive and much, much cheaper alternative would lessen enthusiasm for the iPad. This was not the case.


Since then we’ve seen the arrival of the Retina Display-boasting new iPad (call it an iPad 3 and Apple may send a hit squad out), and the unveiling of the Nexus 7, Google’s first branded tablet. It’s a corker too, with hardware far more capable than its price tag would suggest. Now is the time for Amazon to (re)join the party.

According to BGR, Amazon is readying two new Kindle Fire tablets. There is to be a new version of its 7-inch tablet, and also a 10-inch Kindle Fire, which has actually been the subject of rumors even before the original Kindle Fire shipped.

According to sources the new Kindle Fire tablets will have vastly improved build qualities, with metal casings replacing the plasticky feel of the original. Both will feature a microUSB port and possibly HDMI as well. The 10-inch version will also include a front-facing camera. The new Kindle Fire tablets could be arriving sooner rather than later, with CNET expecting to see them before the month is out.

This is an interesting turn of events because it would mean Amazon going head-to-head with both Google and Apple. The 7-inch Kindle Fire would be direct competition to the nexus 7, while the 10-inch Kindle Fire could be seen as a cheaper alternative for those who want a larger tablet but don’t want to spend a fortune acquiring an iPad.

This should be an interesting summer in the increasingly competitive tablet market.

Read More

Thoughts on Microsoft Surface – the post-PC PC

After a prolonged period of hype, which isn’t really becoming of Microsoft, the company revealed its big announcement at a press conference in L.A. This is Surface, a new range of tablets Microsoft is referring to as ‘A New Family of PCs for Windows’.

Surface comes in two distinct flavors: Surface for Windows RT is a light, slimline tablet running Windows RT that’s reliant on apps for productivity; Surface for Windows 8 Pro is heavier and fatter (though still slim), runs Windows 8 Pro and will be capable of running full versions of Microsoft software. In other words the first is a tablet plus, the second is a PC minus.


The opinions of Surface swirling around the Web are mixed to say the least. On the one hand we have advocates such as Jesus Diaz and Josh Topolsky, on the other hand we have haters such as George Ou and MG Siegler. The strange thing is both sides make good points. Which suggests we’re not actually going to know how well Surface will do until it’s out on the market and selling. Or not selling.

Microsoft did a great job with the reveal. It was almost Apple-like in its approach to unveiling this new piece of hardware, a rarity for a company that’s all about the software. The new ad is gorgeous as well. However, the omission of the pricing for both devices is a huge mistake. I wonder whether the hype will last for six months and more without this information being provided.

The Surface tablets themselves look fantastic. They’re aesthetically pleasing, and the kickstand and keyboard cover combination means these could actually bridge the gap between laptop and tablet in a way that only the Asus Eee Pad Transformer Prime has come close to doing so far. With the good comes the bad, and there are still question marks over the ecosystem, the confusion that could arise from releasing two distinct products, and how good the final version of Windows 8 will be.

With the Surface, Microsoft is trying to forge the future. It could be argued that this is the first ‘post-PC PC’. Amazingly they may actually succeed on this occasion.

Read More

Samsung insults the free market after jury issues victory for Apple, $1 billion verdict

A jury this week found that Samsung infringed on Apple iPhone patents and issued a verdict worth more than a $1 billion.

It’s safe to say that a wake up call has been issued for technology companies around the world: Don’t copy, don’t steal, but most importantly — don’t insult the free market.


That’s exactly what Samsung did after the jury issued the verdict. Their statement:

“Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.”

How will preventing the copying of design and user interface lead to fewer choices? Shouldn’t it force others to continue to innovate and provide more choices?

Will it lead to higher prices? Here’s a message to Samsung: We operate in a free market. That means you’re free to compete against the next guy and if you can do it better and sell it at a cheaper price, than you’re going to out-sell and out-compete that guy. Instead of complaining and making outrageous accusations, why don’t you actually go out an innovate a better smartphone?

And patent law is being manipulated? Because according to Samsung, simply following the law and having a jury decide in favor of the law is considered manipulation.

One thing Samsung did get right in their statement is the part about consumers having the right to choices. Samsung is just upset that the consumers choice has been with Apple and will likely continue with Apple.

Again, If they don’t like it, go innovate something better.

To blame the law and claim that innovation is going to suffer as a result of a court trial is absolutely ridiculous.

And my favorite part: “Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.”

So after complaining about how Apple bullied you into a lawsuit and proved that you copied aspects of their iPhone, you still say that you’re going to innovate and offer choices for the consumer.

This is what Apple wanted all along. This is what consumers who just didn’t like the iPhone wanted all along. They don’t want an iPhone copycat, they want something different. Something better.

If anything, let this trial be a wakeup call to all businesses. If you don’t like the success of your competitors, then do something about it. Innovate something better, something less expensive.

But never complain about innovation suffering. Innovation never suffers — lazy companies suffer.

Read More

Microsoft Surface RT to cost $199?

Microsoft Surface, the self-branded Windows 8 tablet with funky keyboard cover, is set to arrive on Oct. 26 right alongside the new operating system itself. But we still have no idea what the final retail price will be, with Microsoft deciding not to reveal such key information when it unveiled Windows Surface at a glitzy, Apple-inspired event in June.

Last month we saw speculation that Microsoft Surface RT would retail for around US$1,000, as reported by a Swedish retailer that appeared to have got the scoop. Not so, as this price turned out to have little basis in reality, instead being nothing more than an (ill-)educated guess. So, Surface won’t be $1,000… is anyone else willing to hazard another guess?


Actually, they are. Except this isn’t being reported as a guess but more as a piece of factual information as sent in to Engadget by an anonymous inside source. That source claims to have been privy to a session at Microsoft’s recent TechReady15 conference at which all the plans for the product’s launch were revealed. And the RRP of Microsoft Surface RT? $199. Only $199. A mere $199. A stinkingly low $199.

Many people are calling BS on this new price, and I can see why. $199 would put Surface RT on a par with the Nexus 7, the Kindle Fire, and (likely) the smaller-screened mini-iPad Apple are guaranteed to announce within the next few months. Such a pricing strategy would be very un-Microsoft-like. But perhaps that’s the point. After all, Microsoft needs to make a big statement about its intention for battling the aforementioned products in the tablet market.

I would love this price to turn out to be correct, but I just cannot see it happening. I suspect a price on a par with the current iPad is more likely, so $499 for Surface RT and a higher price for the full-fledged Surface Pro. I will be keeping all my fingers and toes crossed that I’m wrong though, as at $199 I’d be buying one of these.

Read More

Microsoft unveils new logo, its first in 25 years

Microsoft has unveiled its new corporate logo, the first change made in 25 years. Most people will obviously hate it simply because it’s Microsoft, but as an exercise in branding it actually makes a lot of sense.

Microsoft has had the same corporate logo – nothing more than a stylized version of its name – since 1987. There were three logos in the 12 years leading up to that but none stuck around as long as the one most of us have grown up knowing. The next generation of computer users and tech lovers will know Microsoft in a different way thanks to the unveiling of its new branding.


The name is now presented clearly and simply in the Segoe font Microsoft owns and has used many times before. The F and the T of Microsoft are joined together just as in the last logo, but nothing else has survived the shift.

Added for the first time ever is a symbol sitting alongside the name, and it’s recognizable as the multi-colored pane that has been a part of the Windows logo through various iterations.

This also makes sense of the Windows 8 logo which many people hated upon its unveiling. Out went the four different colors, with the pale blue used on its own instead. That was clearly part of the branding process, as now Windows 8 is shown to be just one part of the Microsoft whole, alongside primarily Office and Xbox.

The bottom line is that Microsoft needs to start evolving if it’s going to not just survive but prosper in the future. Whether we have actually entered a post-PC era or not, Microsoft risks being left behind as the wants and needs of consumers change. It is taking the necessary steps in terms of products, even though some – Windows 8, anyone? – may turn out to be missteps.

This new corporate branding reflects a push into the future without abandoning or dismissing the past.

Read More

Windows 8 Metro is Metro no more

Microsoft has moved to quell an impending lawsuit from a German retailer by changing the name of the Windows UI formerly known as Metro. It just hasn’t yet quite made its mind up over what to change the name to.

Ever since work began on Windows 8 the user interface that sits between the start screen and the old desktop we all know and (mostly) love was known as the Metro UI. No more. With Metro AG issuing a trademark dispute over the whole Metro branding Microsoft has decided to change the name at the last minute. But change the name to what?


Depending on the source you listen to Metro will now be known either as ‘Windows 8 user interface‘ or the ‘Modern UI style‘. Other pundits suggest both of these are just bland terms tiding the company over until it figures out a new catchy name to replace Metro with for the longterm. Whatever the truth is Microsoft is running out of time, with Windows 8 due to be released on Oct. 26, 2012.

I personally wonder why the change is necessary in the first place. Was anyone really ever going to confuse the UI of Microsoft latest operating system with anything produced by a German retailer? I also think it’s a shame, as Metro was a solid name that had managed to work its way into the collective mindset of geeks everywhere. Neither Windows 8 user interface or Modern UI style have the same ring about them.

Microsoft is trying to put a brave face on the whole sorry palaver, claiming Metro was only ever intended to be a part of the industry dialog, with a new name always bound to be sought in time to face mainstream consumers with. But no one in their right mind believes that hokum. Windows 8 is coming and coming fast, we just don’t quite know what its most important feature will be commonly known as.

Read More

Microsoft Surface costs how much?!

A Swedish website has a price listed for Windows Surface, and it isn’t pretty. But is it real? And if so, does it mean Surface is destined to be dead on arrival?

Microsoft unveiled Surface, its new company-branded Windows 8 tablet, at a swanky press event last month. Unfortunately, despite the almost-Apple levels of hyperbole and class, Microsoft failed to mention the price point at which either the Surface Pro or Surface RT versions would launch at. Which has left the door open for speculation.


Surface is actually a very good looking product, being a slimline, fashionable slate accompanied by a funky keyboard cover that, if it works, could prove to be a gamechanger. On top of all that Surface will be running Windows 8, which will bring the full Windows experience to tablets in a way we have never seen before. This, therefore, could be a real challenger to the iPad’s dominance in the tablet market.

There is one caveat: the price has to be right. If the entry-level Surface isn’t priced at around the same level as the iPad then it will struggle to gain any mainstream traction. The lower Microsoft goes the better, but $499 is the absolute maximum for the RT edition.

According to a Webhallen.com (and first spotted by WPCentral) Surface 6990 kr and 14990 kr. That lower figure translates literally into US$1,004, which is double the amount analysts are suggesting Microsoft needs to hit to make Surface a success. Hardware prices in Europe tend to be higher than in the U.S. but I cannot see Microsoft being able to halve the price.

Microsoft hasn’t yet commented on these quoted prices, but it needs to if it wants to stop bad press from killing interest before the product even makes it out the door. It’s time to decide on a price, tell the press and public what that price is, and then stick to it.

Read More

Windows 8 upgrades priced at $39.99

Those consumers wishing to upgrade to Windows 8 need only put $39.99 aside in order to do so, which should up the early adoption rate by quite a margin.

Windows 8 is set to be released in a few months time. No one outside of Microsoft is quite sure when, but this side of 2013 is absolutely guaranteed. Until then us Windows users who haven’t yet turned to the dark side and bought a Mac will continue using XP, Vista, or Windows 7 quite merrily. And then possibly upgrade to the new radically-altered Windows 8 when it finally drops.


Doing so will only cost $39.99, as announced by Microsoft in a Windows Blog blog post by Brandon LeBlanc. From the day Windows 8 is available to the general public until Jan. 31, 2013, anyone currently running XP, Vista, or Windows 7 on their machine will be able to upgrade to Windows 8 Pro for that low price. As long as their machine is capable, of course.

The Windows 8 Upgrade Assistant will check whether your machine is indeed capable of running Windows 8. If it is then you can proceed. Windows 7 users will be able to move everything with them to Windows 8, while Vista and XP users will have to leave some things behind in the transition to the new operating system.

The $39.99 asking price will buy you a Windows 8 download which can then be installed straight away or stored on a bootable USB or DVD for back-up purposes. A packaged DVD version of this upgrade will also be available in stores for $69.99. This promotion will run in 131 markets, which means a lot of people will be able to take advantage of it. The only question left to ponder is whether you actually want to or not. This is much cheaper than the price Microsoft charged for upgrades to Windows 7 during a similar promotion after its launch. The reasoning is very simple: create an immediate Windows 8 userbase, grab a high number of early-adopters to tempt the media with, and get people populating the app-driven Windows Store

Read More