Understanding the Level 3-Comcast spat (FAQ)

Internet backbone provider Level 3 says that cable giant Comcast is threatening the openness of the Internet and Comcast is accusing Level 3 of trying to get a free ride on its network.

Which one is right?

Accusations between the two companies have been flying since the end of the day Monday. Level 3 has accused Comcast of violating Net neutrality principles by insisting that Level 3 pay for sending more traffic over Comcast's network. Level 3 has recently won a contract to deliver video services for Netflix, which is the largest single producer of Internet traffic on the Web in North America.

Comcast argues that Level 3 is trying to use its free peering relationship with Comcast to add twice as much traffic onto Comcast's network without paying for it. Meanwhile, Level 3's content delivery network competitors are forced to pay for the same access Level 3 wants to get for free.

Much of the dispute is focused on business relationships, largely hidden from the average consumer. To help people better understand what's going on, CNET has put together this FAQ.

What is a content delivery network?
A content delivery network or content distribution network (CDN) is a system of servers that is placed throughout the Internet to bring content and data closer to end users. By storing data closer to consumers, Web pages can load faster and streaming movies can be transferred faster than if the data was stored in a central location.

The problem CDNs solve is that they maximize the speed at which content can be delivered into people's homes. CDNs also cut down on the amount of traffic that must travel across Internet backbone networks. This reduces bandwidth costs and saves money while also creating a better experience for end users.

CDN providers, such as Akamai, Limelight, and Amazon CloudFront, have created businesses that send significantly more traffic over another carrier's infrastructure than they receive on their own network. For that reason, they typically purchase services from Internet backbone providers. A source close to Comcast confirmed that Comcast had a commercial arrangement with Akamai to deliver all of its services to Comcast customers, including the Netflix content.

Comcast said in its statement that the dispute with Level 3 is over a peering relationship. What does that mean?
Comcast and Level 3 are services providers who each own their own infrastructure. Comcast is one of the largest broadband providers in the U.S. It connects thousands of homes and businesses directly to the Internet via its local and regional network.

Level 3 is what is called a backbone Internet provider. Traffic from regional and local networks, such as Comcast's broadband network, are aggregated at various points and then connected to Level 3's network. Think of it like the road system in the U.S. Level 3 is a big interstate highway that carries data long distances. At some point, the traffic must leave the interstate highway and get on state and local highways to reach its final destination.

Carriers charge for access to their networks. But if two service providers each own infrastructure, they can create a peering arrangement. If they each carry roughly the same amount of traffic from the other carrier on their network, they can simply swap the traffic for free.

Does money ever get exchanged for these transactions or do they swap the traffic for free?
It depends on the terms of the deal and the nature of the relationship. Networks may charge a fee for using their network, but if each provider is sending equal amounts of traffic onto another carrier's network, then they may simply swap traffic without money changing hands at all.

But when one network sends more traffic to another network, the sender usually pays a metered fee for the traffic it has sent. This makes sense because when more traffic is sent to a network, that network operator must upgrade its network to handle the additional traffic.

Is this the type of relationship that Level 3 and Comcast have had?
Yes, Comcast said in a letter to the FCC today that the amount of traffic the companies sent to each other was roughly equal. Comcast said that Level 3 typically send more traffic to Comcast than Comcast sent to Level 3, but under traditional peering arrangements this was considered roughly equal. And it made sense, since most consumers download more content and media over their broadband connections than they upload.

So is Level 3 a backbone provider or a CDN provider?
The answer is that it's both. Level 3 is one of the largest Internet backbone providers in the world, but it also runs a content delivery network business. Because it owns its own nationwide backbone network, it has an advantage over its competitors, such as Akamai, which do not own any network infrastructure. The big advantage is that Level 3 doesn't have to pay to access its own nationwide backbone that carries traffic to regional networks, such as Comcast's network. But Level 3 does not own the local and regional broadband networks.

Is this where the dispute with Comcast comes into play?
Yes, it is. This is the heart of the disagreement. In that letter Comcast sent to the FCC today, it said that under its former agreement, Comcast and Level 3 exchanged all on-network Internet traffic for free. But Comcast actually paid Level 3 to interconnect its network. Even though the parties exchanged traffic on a 2:1 basis in which Comcast actually terminated twice as much traffic from Level 3 as the company carried from Comcast, the companies considered it an even swap.

Comcast said in its statement yesterday that Level 3's deal with Netflix will double the amount of traffic that Level 3 will send to Comcast's network. The ratio of traffic will soon be 5:1, in which Netflix sends a greater amount of traffic over Comcast's network than Comcast sends over Level 3's network.

What's more, Comcast had been charging Akamai, which previously delivered Netflix's video content. Now that Level 3 has won that business, Comcast is not collecting that fee from Akamai. As such, Comcast argues that it must charge Level 3 the fee to deliver the traffic.

So Level 3 doesn't want to pay Comcast to deliver its traffic even though its competitor, Akamai, was charged for delivering the Netflix content?
That is correct. Level 3 likely won the deal with Netflix because it was able to undercut its competition in terms of pricing. And it feels that since it is a network peering partner with Comcast that it should not have to alter its agreement, even though it is adding a new CDN customer that will consume a lot more bandwidth than other customers using its CDN network.

What does all of this have to do with Net neutrality?
Level 3 claims that Comcast is singling out the Netflix video traffic and attempting to charge a fee for delivering a specific type of traffic to customers on its network. The company argues that it has no other option but to agree to this fee if it wants to deliver Netflix video to customers in Comcast's territory. And so Level 3 claims this is a violation of the Net neutrality principles that the FCC has already established and is currently working to make official regulation. These principles state that network operators should not slow or degrade Web traffic from a competitor in an effort to make its own service more appealing to consumers. Net neutrality supporters have also been pushing the FCC to adopt provisions that would prohibit network operators from charging companies higher fees to deliver high bandwidth content at a higher quality.

What do you think? Is Comcast violating Net neutrality principles or is this merely a peering dispute?
My gut tells me this is more of a peering dispute than a true violation of Net neutrality. And there are several reasons why I think this.

For one, Comcast isn't stupid. I doubt very much Comcast would risk rattling the FCC's cage as it puts the finishing touches on new Net neutrality regulations or as it deliberates over conditions on Comcast's merger with NBC Universal, both of which are happening right now.

Second, Comcast has said that it doesn't care if Level 3 is delivering video from Netflix or high-capacity files from NASA, the fact that Level 3 will be more than doubling the amount of traffic it dumps onto Comcast's network is the problem. Comcast summed it up this way, again in today's letter to the FCC:

"Level 3 is trying to game the process of peering--one that has worked well and consensually, without government interference, for over a decade--in order to gain a unique and unfair advantage for its own expanding CDN service. Level 3's problem apparently arises out of the fact that it recently won a bid to become one of Netflix's primary CDN providers--in competition with the major national CDNs that already send Netflix and other traffic to Comcast's network. In order to undercut its CDN competitors, Level 3 wants to avoid the commercial arrangements other CDN companies use to terminate traffic onto Comcast's and other providers' networks, and instead force Comcast to accept its CDN traffic for free, under a 'peering' relationship. This is not how peering works, here or anywhere in the world. What Level 3 is suddenly pushing--a "new theory" of peering--would throw the traditional, "balanced traffic" peering rulebook out the window, give Level 3 an unfair cost advantage over its competitors, and shift all of the costs from Level 3 and its content customers onto Comcast and its high-speed Internet customers."

Lastly, I find Level 3's assertions somewhat hypocritical. In a press release issued five years ago when Level 3 was in a peering dispute with Cogent, it argued, as Comcast has, for fair and balanced free peering. In that statement, Sureel Choksi, executive vice president of Level 3, said "In order for free peering to be fair to both parties, the cost and benefit that parties contribute and receive should be roughly the same."

Level 3 said that there were a number of factors that determined whether a peering relationship is mutually beneficial. And it determined that the arrangement with Cogent was not fair because it sent far more traffic over Level 3's network than Level 3 sent over Cogent's network.

"It is important to keep in mind that traffic received by Level 3 in a peering relationship must be moved across Level 3's network at considerable expense. Simply put, this means that, without paying, Cogent was using far more of Level 3's network, far more of the time, than the reverse. Following our review, we decided that it was unfair for us to be subsidizing Cogent's business."

It sounds to me like Level 3 is asking Comcast to do something it has refused to do for its peering partners.

So what happens next? Will Comcast customers not be able to watch Netflix movies?
No, Comcast is not blocking Netflix. And it has no intention of blocking Netflix.

"Any rumors about blocking Netflix are false," a Comcast spokeswoman said in an e-mail. "Our customers can and do watch video from any online video provider, including Netflix and dozens of others, on our high-speed Internet service."

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said during a press conference today that he will look into Level 3's claims. As I mentioned before, Comcast has already written a letter to the FCC explaining its position. Level 3 has not lodged any formal complaint at the FCC.

Smaller peering disputes are usually settled in court. And the two parties in dispute usually cut off access to each other. But that's unlikely to happen in this case. Level 3 and Comcast are too dependent on each other for sending massive amounts of Internet traffic for their customers. It would make them both look bad if they refused to provide service to each other. It's more likely the companies will settle their dispute between now and January when the bulk of Netflix's traffic is transferred to the Level 3 network.

Demilitarizing cybersecurity (Q&A)

As if the wars on terror and drugs weren't keeping U.S. officials busy enough, the drum beats of cyberwar are increasing.

There were the online espionage attacks Google said originated in China. Several mysterious activities with Internet traffic related to China. The Stuxnet worm that experts say possibly targeted Iranian nuclear centrifuges. An attack on the WikiLeaks site after it released classified documents damaging to U.S. foreign policy. And don't forget the Internet attack on Estonia from a few years ago.

To deal with the geopolitical dramas that are projected in the online world, the U.S. is using military strategy and mindset to approach cybersecurity, creating a Cyber Command and putting oversight for national cybersecurity under the auspices of the Department of Defense.

But offense isn't always the best defense, and it never is when it comes to Internet security, says Gary McGraw, author and chief technology officer at security consultancy Cigital. More secure software, not cyber warriors, is needed to protect networks and online data, he writes in a recent article, "Cyber Warmongering and Influence Peddling."

CNET talked with McGraw about how the militarization of cybersecurity draws attention from serious threats.

Q: So, Tell me what's wrong with going to DEFCON 1 in cyberspace now?
McGraw: I wrote an article with Ivan Arce, the founder and chief technology officer of Core Security Technologies. He's from Argentina. Every time I talk to him he asks 'what is up with you Americans and cyberwar anyway? Why are you so obsessed with cyberwar?' Because nobody else is talking about it in the rest of the world. I travel a lot internationally and he is right. So we started talking about why that was. One of our main points is that there is a confusing blend of cyberwar stuff, cyber-espionage stuff and cybercrime stuff, and the stories are used to justify whatever political or economic end people may have, instead of trying to disambiguate these three things and talk about what they actually are.

What's the danger with that?
McGraw: The danger is that if we lump everything under 'cyberwar,' then our natural propensity in the United States is to allow the Defense Department to deal with it. The DoD set up a Cyber Command in May. Cyber Command has an overemphasis on offense, on creating cyber-sharpshooters and exploiting systems more quickly than the enemy can exploit them. I don't think that's smart at all. I liken it to the world living in glass houses and Cyber Command is about figuring out ways to throw rocks more accurately and quickly inside of the glass house. We would all be better suited trying to think about our dependence on these systems that are riddled with defects and trying to eliminate the defects, instead.

Is the rhetoric all driven by attracting money? That's a very cynical way of thinking.
McGraw: A lot of people think it is. The military industrial complex in the U.S. is certainly tied very closely to the commercial security industry. That is not surprising, nor is it that bad. The problem is the commercial security industry is only now getting around to understanding security engineering and software security. The emphasis over the past years has been on trying to block the bad people with a firewall and that has failed. The new paradigm is trying to build stuff that's not broken in the first place. That's the right way to go. If we want to work on cybercrime and espionage and war, to solve all three problems at once, the one answer is to build better systems.

You mention that cybercrime and cyber-espionage are more important than cyberwar. Why is that?
McGraw: Because there is a lot of crime, less espionage, and very little cyberwar. (chuckles) And the root cause for capability in all these things is the same. That is dependence on systems that are riddled with security defects. We can address all three of those problems. The most important is cybercrime, which is costing us the most money right now. Here's another way to think about it: everyone is talking about the WikiLeaks stuff, and the impact the latest (confidential files) release is having on foreign policy in the U.S. The question is, would offensive capability for cyberwar help us solve the WikiLeaks problem? The answer is obvious. No. Would an offensive cyberwar capability have helped us solve the Aurora problem where Google's intellectual property got sucked down by the Chinese? The answer is no. What would have helped address those two problems? The answer is defense. That is building stuff properly. Software security. Thinking about things like why on earth would a private (officer) need access to classified diplomatic cables on the SIPRNET (Secret IP Router Network)? Why? If we thought about constructing that system properly and providing access only to those who need it, then things would be much better off.

The term "cyber" makes it seem more scary. We're just talking about Internet, right? Might there be a problem with semantics?
McGraw: There could be. There has been an over emphasis on cyber war in the U.S. The problem with cybersecurity is that there is just as much myth and FUD and hyperbole as there are real stories. It's difficult for policy makers and CEOs and the public to figure out what to believe because the hype has been so great, such as with the Estonia denial-of-service attack from 2007. So that when we talk about Stuxnet it gets dismissed.

So it's the boy who cried wolf problem?

McGraw: Yes.
Stuxnet is real. Is that cyberwar?

McGraw: It seems like a cyberweapon. I think it qualifies as a cyberwar action. My own qualification is that a cyberattack needs to have kinetic impact. That means something physical goes wrong. Stuxnet malicious code did what it could to ruin physical systems in Iran that were controlling centrifuges or that were in fact centrifuges. If you look at the number of centrifuges operating in Iran you see some big drops that are hard to explain. (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad admitted there was a cyberattack on the centrifuges.

So why does the attack on Estonia not qualify?
McGraw: The kinetic impact is important, but also an act of war is the act of a nation-state. The Estonia attacks fail the nation-state actor test. It also fails the real impact test. Sure, their network went down, but whoop dee do! Who cares? If you took that same sort of attack against Google or Amazon they wouldn't even notice. I think people were using that attack--which was carried out by individual cybercriminals in Russia, not by the state--to hype up the cyber war thing. In fact, in my work in Washington [D.C.], the Estonia story keeps coming up, over and over again, as an example of cyberwar.

What is your qualification to discuss cyberwar matters and policy?
McGraw: This year, I've been working more in Washington than I have in past. I've been to the White House, the Pentagon, talked to think tanks. I'm a little bit worried that the discourse is too much about cyberwar. We should try to untangle the war, espionage, and crime aspects and maybe emphasize building better systems and getting ourselves out of the glass house as opposed to trying make a whole new cadre of cyber-sharpshooters as [CIA Director] General Hayden suggests. For policymakers the conception of our field [of security] is muddled.

I'm worried we're not spending on [Internet security] defense at all. There's no way to divide and conquer networks. That is, we can't defend the military network or the SIPRNET but not defend the Internet because we're ignoring 90 percent of the risk. Most of the infrastructure in the U.S., 90 percent of it that's important, is controlled by corporations and private concerns, not by the government. The notion that we can protect military networks and not the rest of it just doesn't make any sense. That's one problem. The other problem is the Air Force has always been about domination in the air and taking away that capability from the enemy early and eradicating infrastructure. This notion of a 'no-fly zone' is kind of interesting. Unfortunately those tactics don't work in cyberspace because there is a completely different physics there. There is no such thing as taking ground or controlling air space in cyberspace. Things move at superhuman speed in cyberspace. So some of these guys who are good military tacticians are having a hard time with cyberwar policy and cyberdefense because of the analogies they're using.

You mentioned in your article that "in the end, somebody must pay for broken security and somebody must reward good security." Are you suggesting that we hold software makers liable for flaws?
McGraw: I don't know what the answer is. We need to change the discourse to be around how do we incentivize people to build better systems that are more secure and how do we disincentive building of insecure systems that are riddled with risk? As long as we can have that conversation then policy makers might be able to come up with right sort of levers to cause things to move in the right direction. We're not suggesting any particular approaches, like liability. We're just trying to change the discourse from being about war to being about security engineering.

Anything else?
McGraw: I think we are at risk and I do think cyberwar is a real problem we have to grapple with. But even though we are at risk, we need to have rational conversations about this. Too much FUD and hyperbole don't do anything to help the situation. The poor guys that are charged with setting policy have a hard time doing that because we're having the wrong conversation at the policy level right now.

IBM chips: Let there be light signals

0diggsdigg

IBM's new processors integrate optical communication technology in a development called silicon photonics.

(Credit: IBM)

IBM has achieved a major milestone in making the dream of silicon photonics, in which computer chips send signals of light rather than electricity, into reality.

At the semiconductor industry conference Semicon in Tokyo today, IBM photonics leader Yurii Vlasov is detailing how IBM has created a chip that integrates many of the necessary elements of optical communication between a processor and other devices. Significantly, the design uses conventional rather than exotic chip manufacturing technology, involves very small components, and essentially permits a fiber-optic communication line to be attached directly to a processor.

And more significantly, it's headed for real-world use, a sign that IBM's work is serious. That initial use is in IBM's relatively exotic Exascale project to build a computer that can perform a quintillion mathematical calculations per second--roughly 1,000 times that of today's fastest supercomputers.

"In three to five years, silicon photonics will be the main enabler for that level of computation," said Solomon Assefa, an IBM research scientist and one of the members of the team that developed the chip. And in the years after that, it'll follow the traditional computing industry trend and spread to more ordinary products, he predicted.

IBM's project is called SNIPER--short for "silicon nanoscale integrated photonic and electronic transceiver"--but the company is labeling it with the slightly less ungainly term of silicon nanophotonics. It's been under way for a decade, an indicator of just how difficult it is to develop.

The technology is a breakthrough and shows Big Blue well ahead of competitors such as Intel and Samsung, said Envisioneering Group research director Richard F. Doherty. Much previous work about optical connections involved much larger devices that were separate from the processor itself, he said.

This image shows how an optical fiber can be connected directly to the chip.

(Credit: IBM)

Specifically, IBM said a transceiver that can send and receive signals measures 0.5 square millimeter, and a single-chip transceiver with a capacity of 1 terabit per second could fit on to a chip measuring 16 square millimeters.

"We expect Intel and Samsung will dust off some optical research and home in on what IBM has now proven," Doherty said.

Assefa is keenly aware of where his competitors stand. "We're many steps ahead of Intel," he said, but one start-up, Luxtera, has silicon photonics products now on the market. In November, it announced silicon photonics links that can transfer data at 25 gigabits per second.

Optical communications, which today are used chiefly for heavy-duty networking tasks such as the core of the Internet, have advantages over the more conventional method of sending electrical signals over wires. For one thing, optical communications use less energy and can span longer distances. For another, sending light down optical fibers enables tremendous data transfer capacity--in part because a technology called wave division multiplexing means that multiple colors of light can be sent simultaneously to pack even more capacity into each communication link.

But optical communication technology is expensive. It's expanding to premium services such as Verizon's Fios and BT's Infinity and to Intel's Light Peak high-end computer connection technology, but costs are still high. What IBM's Sniper project does is bring down the cost by marrying it to the semiconductor chip manufacturing industry.

IBM's technology today consists of a processor with six optical communication links. The chip itself has six transmitters and receivers, each capable of handling eight channels of data through the multiplexing technology. The built in are modulators, which govern how a laser is switched off and on to send signals, though the laser is a separate component. Each modulator can oversee bandwidth of 20 gigabits per second, a major step toward IBM's goal of a chip with an aggregate capacity 50 times that, 1 terabit per second.

For reference, today's conventional Ethernet operates at 1Gbps per second and sometimes at 10Gbps in higher-end servers. A capacity of 1Tbps would be enough to transfer the data of 26 DVDs in a second.

IBM's ultimate goal is a multilayer chip that combines processing, memory, and photonics for optical communication.

(Credit: IBM)

"The limitation to processing now is not really a computation limitation," Assefa said. "The problem is they can't talk to each other fast enough or with higher bandwidth. They waste a lot of power. What you want to do is be able to communicate between processors with much more bandwidth. If you can do that, you can make processors work much faster than they do now."

Building links into silicon makes them cheaper to manufacture and therefore more mainstream. "A single high-performance computing machine will contain a similar number of optical communication channels as currently exist in all parallel optical links worldwide," Vlasov said in his presentation.

The photonics work initially will be used over relatively long distances, connecting separate computers or groups of computers housed in racks. Ultimately, though, IBM expects it to be used within a processor, connecting the independent processing cores, Assefa said.

While IBM has been a pioneer in processor manufacturing and hasn't yielded to more powerful chipmakers such as Intel, its fabrication volume tends to be low by industry standards. It uses those chips in premium products, though, such as its own servers and mainframes, and its research gives it clout when it comes to patent licensing partnerships with rivals. IBM has more than 30 base patents involved with silicon photonics, the company said.

One problem with sending lots of data over electrical wires is that it requires significant electrical power--and much of that is lost to waste heat that holds back processing speeds and requires extensive engineering within computers and data centers to keep things cool. Light-based communication reduces that problem.

"A large part of computer power draw is the high-speed buses and cabling between cards and modules and systems. If even a small number of system go optical, processing efficiency and power savings will both soar," Doherty said.

In addition, high-speed electrical communication produces electromagnetic waves that interfere with neighboring electrical operations, since each tiny wire in a computer can act as an antenna. With optical communications, that interference is reduced, Doherty said, with one benefit being that it's easier to develop low-power chips because there's less need to overpower all the interference.

The next steps for IBM are to focus on efficient, reliable manufacturing of its silicon photonics products and building it into its exascale supercomputer. After that, eventually, it will be a part of a larger industry spreading the light farther.

"The way technology works, usually those [supercomputer] technologies find their way in five to ten years back into the lives of ordinary people," he said. "Down the road i'm sure the tech will find its way into the lives of all of us."

How Google Docs won me over

With a single new feature added to its online word processor yesterday, Google has diminished many concerns I had about taking the cloud-computing plunge a few months ago.

That feature, autocorrect in Google Docs, fixes common typos such as converting "teh" into "the." In and of itself, it's not a game-changer.

But it carried outsized importance for me because it was one of the things I missed most about Microsoft Word and because it gives me faith that Google Docs is headed in the right direction.

As if to validate my new optimism, Google today announced an improvement that's much larger than a single feature: the ability to edit Google Docs from Android phones, iPhones, and iPads. Google Spreadsheets already were editable with some mobile phone browsers.

Google Docs, which has grown considerably since Google's 2006 acquisition of Writely, consists mainly of word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation modules that compete with Microsoft Office's Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. It's become a standard-bearer for the Web applications movement and, with Google selling it in premium form along with Gmail for $50 per user per year in the form of Google Apps, Google's next billion-dollar revenue stream after advertising.

Google has said Google Docs will compete not by matching every Microsoft Office feature but by emphasizing common abilities needed by everyone and by making collaboration a centerpiece rather than an afterthought. That message stuck in my craw, I confess. Although I agree it's transformative to have several people editing the same document at the same time, I think you also need a lot of more features to be truly compelling for more than very lightweight use.

Thus my delight with autocorrect. It signifies that Google realizes it needs better features and is working to make them happen. Much of this is possible from the rebuilt Google Docs foundation that emerged in April. Last year, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told me Google Apps customers sign up for Gmail and Google Calendar, but with improvements, maybe they'll start using Docs in earnest, too.

So here's my assessment of Google Docs from having lived in it for months. My needs may not be yours--I've hardly used Presentations, for example, and I deal much more with raw text than with fancy formatting, revision-tracking, fonts, and printing--so don't assume everything here applies universally.

Why switch?
I use three computers and a mobile phone for work, and Google Docs spans all of them. That's the reason I fully embraced it starting in March, but it's not why I got started.

Before I switched, I'd been dabbling with Google Docs to see what it could offer. I liked the colorful, clean spreadsheet graphs better than what came out of Excel. In a few cases where I needed to take some notes I needed at home while I was at work, I'd use a Google Docs document instead of my previous approach, e-mailing them to myself.

Autocorrect, accessible through Preferences in Google Docs' tools menu, lets you fix common typos and expand abbreviations into long phrases that are cumbersome to type.

(Credit: screenshot by Stephen Shankland/CNET)

I was glad I got started, because in March, when I happened to be far away from any company IT help, my work computer, a Windows XP machine, croaked. A busted fan bearing meant it wouldn't even switch on. My data was safe but inaccessible, but more to the point, I had stories to write.

I had two other machines on hand: a MacBook Pro and Windows 7 laptop. I wasn't sure what my computing future held and was reluctant to commit to a long-term relationship with another hard drive. Google Docs was an easy option to try for a few days while I got things sorted, and it would be easy to export a few files back to my machine after I got things sorted out, I reasoned.

It stuck. I rapidly came to appreciate the ability to hop from one machine to another. At one point, waiting in a queue in a post office, I was able to retrieve address information I'd stored in a document using my phone, too.

Although there are legitimate concerns about the security and reliability of Google's infrastructure, they must be assessed not just in absolute terms but also in relation to the alternative. That one fan bearing showed one pretty glaring weakness.

The good
So what do I like about Google Docs besides cutting the dependence on a single machine?

The reliability, as I mentioned, is one asset. During the transition to the new foundation, I had recurring warnings that I had to reload my documents, but they faded as Google patched it up. Now I find it consistently available. I also appreciate that my data is backed up on Google's servers, which if not infallible are at least engineered to surmount hardware failures as a routine rather than exceptional problem.

Something else that took some getting used to but that I prefer now is real autosave. Every few seconds after I stop typing, the document is automatically saved, with no weird corrupted versions resurrected after a crash.

I don't share the bulk of my documents, but there have been occasions when I jointly wrote a piece with another reporter when it's been useful. My wife and I both wrote our holiday letter at the same time using one document but different computers.

For organizing my files, I vastly prefer Google's idea of labels to the traditional folder hierarchy. If I take notes on a story that involves Google, Apple, Web browsers, and Adobe Systems, I'd have to decide where to file it back in the old days. Now I just mark the story with each of those labels so it's available when I view any of those subsets of my files.

The Google Docs file list page is a useful portal to my data. The most recently changed document is at the top, which often helps me resume work where I left off earlier. The ability to hide documents I'm done with resembles Gmail's useful archive. I occasionally add a star to important documents, but usually the time-based organization produces a page that naturally resembles my to-do list without having to do much more.

And did I mention that I like autocorrect? It's not just useful for fixing common typos. The reason I swear by it is to automate unpleasant or tedious typing chores. If you must write cumbersome phrases like "Massachusetts Institute of Technology" often, you can set Google Docs to type it for you when you type something shorter. I use it to replace the HTML coding, and it was one of the single biggest things I missed about Microsoft Word. Bear in mind, though, that if you add an autocorrect entry in one document, it won't be available in others--or in other instances of that document in separate browser tabs--until you reload those documents.

The bad
Google Docs needs a lot of improvements, though.

My biggest complaint, far and away, is the activation energy needed to get rolling with a new document. Clicking a menu item and waiting for the new tab to load is just so much slower than hitting Ctrl-N in Word. When it's crunch time and I need to start taking notes immediately, it's just too much fussing. Google knows darned well the benefits of alacrity, as shown by its obsession on search speed, but I feel with Gmail's current laggardliness and Google Docs' pokey point-and-click hurdles, Web apps have a lot of catching up to do.

Spellcheck has problems. I should be grateful that a JavaScript-based program running in a browser can even do this at all, but instead I focus on annoying omissions: I most definitely did not misspell "hadn't," "didn't," or "wasn't." Maybe there's a way to crowdsource the addition of new terms to the spell-checking dictionary or at least try to spotlight candidates for inclusion based on how often they appear on the Web overall.

I crave these features from Word: split screen, the "go back" command, and text highlighting with a fast keyboard shortcut.

Other weaknesses: Google Docs' search and replace falls short, for example because I can't search for or replace characters like a carriage return. The pop-up information about hyperlinks gets in the way of text I'm trying to edit. And I find it starts to crawl with big documents with several thousand words.

And Google Docs' "clear formatting" command seems awfully timid about actually clearing away formatting--line spacing and indents, for example. On a related note, I want to be able to paste unformatted text. For now, when I'm using Chrome, I use Ctrl-Shift-V on Windows and Command-Shift-Option-V on Mac OS X to paste without formatting.

Labels are useful, but awkward. Right now I drag documents to the labels in the documents view--a process that's rather laggy, by the way--but I wish there were an ability to add labels directly from the document itself. As it is, I create the document, save it with a title, go back to the documents list and reload it, then apply the labels.

Speaking of the documents list, as long as Google is pilfering code from the Gmail team, why not let me select, star, label, and archive items with keyboard shortcuts?

Network reliance
There was a day when Google was working on offline access to Google Docs and Gmail. With the demise of its Gears project and the as-yet unfinished replacement work with Web standards, though, the idea is on ice for now. Google says most people didn't use it anyway, which is a fair point, but I found it pretty clunky, and I suspect the people who do a lot of work offline weren't touching Google Docs with a ten-foot pole anyway.

But offline work is important for me. There are so many times when I lack a network, even in my glamourous high-tech first-world existence, this omission is really glaring. Here are some I've experienced personally in the last few months: on the train, on the plane, in the car, on vacation, dealing with collapsing conference Wi-Fi or flailing ISPs, reckoning with data-transfer limits on a mobile network using a tethered mobile phone.

So when there's a risk of a dead network, I preemptively do my work either in Word or in Evernote, which has a convenient native application that synchronizes with the cloud-based system. I suspect such an app would be possible for Google Docs with Adobe Systems' AIR foundation, which has a built-in browser based on the same WebKit engine as Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome, but perhaps Google doesn't want to taint the purity of its Web-app marketing message.

Another awkward marriage of native and cloud apps comes when it's time to search. Back when all my data lived on my computer, I could use a local search application to turn up all sorts of data. Google Docs, though, has one search interface, Gmail and Google Calendar add a couple more, and none of them search my thousands of archived documents, presentations, PDFs, or other files on my hard drive.

I expect some of the problems I have are on Google's to-do list. What I find encouraging is the faster pace of improvements since the new Google Docs foundation arrived. Who knows--perhaps someday there will be something more Googley built in--live translation of a document into another language, for example, or predictive text autocompletion using Google Scribe. But even today, on balance, Google Docs has won me over.

The Beatles come to iTunes at last

The entire Beatles' catalogue is now in iTunes.

At long last, the works of the Beatles are available in iTunes.

The digital content is exclusive to iTunes, a representative of The Beatles' record company, EMI, told CNET. The exact length of that deal is unknown, but it will expire some time next year.

As of now, the iconic band's entire catalog can be purchased in Apple's iTunes Store. Each album comes with iTunes LP, which features additional content including lyrics, photos, and album art. A digital version of the Fab Four's entire body of work is also available for download for $149, and that comes with exclusive access to a video of the band's first U.S. concert, "Live at the Washington Coliseum, 1964." Single albums are priced at $12.99, double albums at $19.99. Songs will cost $1.29 each.

This is a personal victory for Apple CEO Steve Jobs, as The Beatles were one of the most prominent holdouts from his online music empire. Apple had tried for years to acquire rights to The Beatles' catalog.

"We love the Beatles and are honored and thrilled to welcome them to iTunes," said Jobs in a press release today. "It has been a long and winding road to get here. Thanks to the Beatles and EMI, we are now realizing a dream we've had since we launched iTunes ten years ago."

Apple hyped up the announcement over the last 24 hours with a splash page on its Web site promising that "tomorrow is just another day. That you'll never forget." After several hours of tech news sites buzzing about what the company could have up its sleeve, The Wall Street Journal reported that Apple would finally announce an agreement to offer The Beatles' music.

In a press release from Apple, and EMI, each of the surviving Beatles members or a representative was quoted about the news.

Paul McCartney: "We're really excited to bring the Beatles' music to iTunes. It's fantastic to see the songs we originally released on vinyl receive as much love in the digital world as they did the first time around."

Ringo Starr: "I am particularly glad to no longer be asked when the Beatles are coming to iTunes. At last, if you want it--you can get it now--The Beatles from Liverpool to now! Peace and Love, Ringo."

Yoko Ono Lennon: "In the joyful spirit of Give Peace A Chance, I think it is so appropriate that we are doing this on John's 70th birthday year."

Olivia Harrison: "The Beatles on iTunes--Bravo!"

The release of the band's music online marks the end of a long journey for both EMI and Apple. The two battled in courtrooms for years over a trademark dispute: Apple Corps, The Beatles' record company, versus Apple Inc.

In 1991, the two updated a 10-year-old agreement regarding how each of them would be allowed to use its trademarks. Apple Inc. (at the time known as Apple Computer Inc.) paid Apple Corps $27 million and agreed not to enter the music distribution business under the Apple name and logo. Apple Corps later said that the computer maker broke that agreement by opening the iTunes Store, and sued in 2003. Apple Computer eventually emerged victorious when a U.K. judge ruled that it was not in violation of the agreement because it was selling prerecorded content, not original music under the logo.

The dispute was officially resolved in 2007, when a new deal replaced the 1991 agreement, which prohibited Apple Inc. from distributing music through physical media such as CDs and cassette tapes.

CNET's Greg Sandoval contributed to this report.

Netflix's secret sauce for acquiring content

If you're a Netflix subscriber, you should be happy with the sounds coming out of Hollywood.

One entertainment executive told me last week that other Web video companies looking for content should use Netflix as a model for how to work with the major studios. He called the company a "good partner," high praise coming from an industry in which few have anything good to say about Internet companies. This bodes well for Netflix's chances of obtaining more streaming content. When it comes to the studios' complaints about Netflix, there's also something positive to be found.

"While there are things in the Netflix system that are clearly cannibalistic [to sales], there are things we can change," Craig Kornblau, president of Universal Pictures' home entertainment unit, said during a conference appearance earlier this month. "They can pay us more, or we can reduce the quality of what we give them."

Kornblau obviously doesn't think that Netflix paid enough for content it licensed in several high-profile deals with the studios this year. That may mean trouble in the future, but Kornblau's statement, coming so soon after Netflix landed the licensing agreements, also suggests that the company's ability to acquire content isn't solely dependent on the size of its checks. Netflix appears to have more to bargain with than just cash.

The hit rental service is now the supreme power in U.S. video rentals. It has put itself in that position by building one of the most loyal followings and strongest brands of any digital-entertainment company. Netflix is respected by consumers for doing away with the much-loathed late fees, offering low prices, and providing one of the best viewer experiences online. Netflix has also stood out among Silicon Valley companies for its willingness to partner with the studios.

"It's not just about writing the big check," Ted Sarandos, Netflix's chief content officer, said in a recent interview with CNET. "A lot of people have written big checks and didn't get what they needed."

It's our goal to be embedded into the studios' business and understand what drives their decision making.

--Ted Sarandos, chief content officer, Netflix

One of the best stories in digital entertainment this year is how Netflix built up its streaming-video library against the odds. It wasn't long ago that pundits predicted that Netflix would be unable to pay the studios' rates and would see its supply of streaming content cut off. The naysayers argued that Netflix would go bankrupt or alienate subscribers by forcing steep price increases on them.

So far, the company has defied the doubters.

Embedded in Hollywood
For tech companies, acquiring rights to film and TV content has proven to be a challenge. For instance, the four major broadcast networks have blocked Google TV from accessing their Web content. To some studio insiders, the Silicon Valley guys were just the latest hustlers to come to town. The Web video companies were either devising software or sites to pirate or port in films and TV shows, or were dismissive of the studios' digital strategies. YouTube employees once famously referred to the video portal created by NBC Universal and News Corp. as the "clown company." It turned out to be Hulu.

A high-handed attitude isn't what Reed Hastings wanted. Netflix's CEO, named "Business Person of the Year" last week by Fortune magazine, handed Sarandos a very different mission in Hollywood.

"Unlike the companies that [tried to strike partnerships with the studios] before, we didn't make the mistake of relegating relationships to agents and lawyers to broker deals," Sarandos said in a recent interview with CNET. "The same way we don't outsource our [intellectual property], we don't outsource our relationships...It's our goal to be embedded into the studios' business and understand what drives their decision making. We do our best to be good partners."

Ted Sarandos, Netflix's content chief.

(Credit: Netflix)

The close Hollywood ties help Netflix managers find ways to help the studios, as well as themselves. One example involves the recent decline in sales of DVD box sets. Many TV shows aren't selling well on DVD, even as the costs of producing one-hour serialized shows go up, Sarandos said. When it comes to syndication, a dramatic series that includes more adult themes, such as Showtime's "Dexter" or Fox's "Lie to me," are traditionally a tough sell. One issue with most serialized shows is that if viewers miss an episode, they fall behind in the story.

Netflix's streaming service is one solution. Users don't have to worry about falling behind. They choose which episode to watch and when.

Netflix also impressed many at the studios by agreeing to help protect DVD sales. Earlier this year, the Los Gatos, Calif.-based company agreed to delay renting some of the studios' newly released DVDs until 28 days after their titles hit store shelves. In return, Netflix received access to more TV shows and films for its streaming service.

Blockbuster and Netflix data
There are other, more practical reasons for strong Netflix-Hollywood ties: Blockbuster is all but gone. The brick-and-mortar retail chain, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September, was a big source of revenue for the studios. And just as DVD sales plummet, Hollywood's attempt to persuade consumers to upgrade film collections to Blu-ray discs has largely failed. The studios know that Netflix, with its 17 million subscribers, can help fill these holes.

More importantly, the studios know the trend in renting movies is to do it online. If there's a better way than Netflix for the studios to stake out prime digital turf, it hasn't presented itself.

And then there's all that customer data. Eric Garland, CEO and co-founder of Big Champagne, a company that tracks digital-media consumption, argues that Netflix's greatest advantage--indeed, one of the things that appeals most to Hollywood--is what it knows about its customers' renting and viewing habits.

"Netflix is cleaning up because they started seeing changes in consumer behavior before consumers knew they changed their behavior," Garland said. During the period before it started offering streaming content on demand, for example, Netflix noticed that its subscribers had already started to slow down the volume of their DVD viewing.

"We were updating the queues, we were creating the lists, but that ping-pong of DVDs going back and forth in the mail had started to slow. You didn't know what that meant. You were busy going 'Ah, I need to watch that DVD, but I don't want to watch it tonight.' You put it back down. What they saw was that you needed better and more immediate access to more titles," Garland said. "That's old news now, but they've been in possession of that for years. So the reason that Netflix is of such strategic value to Hollywood is that they already own the new consumer who doesn't want to bother with the disc."

Correction PT This story incorrectly stated the number of Netflix's subscribers. Netflix currently has 16.9 million subscribers.

Elocity A7 Android 2.2 tablet now available for pre-order

The eLocity A7 packs Tegra 2 with Froyo for under $400

With Android tablet announcements reaching an all-time high, it's nice to see some actually begin taking pre-orders. In this case it's the eLocity A7 tablet which is worth mentioning due to the included NVIDIA Tegra 2 1GHz processor and Android 2.2 OS. Now, just because it's available for pre-order doesn't mean you'll be getting your hands on it right away. We don't know exactly how "pre" matches up to any sort of temporal value at this time. It could be next week, it could be next month (more likely).

Aside from sporting the Tegra 2 and the Android Froyo, the eLocity A7 has a 7-inch capacitive touchscreen, 512MB of DDR2 RAM, 4GB of storage (bleh), 1.3MP Camera, USB 2.0, HDMI (for streaming 1080p capable video), 802.11b/g WiFi, Bluetooth, three axis accelerometer, and a battery rated for five hours of video playback. There are some very obvious weak points (battery life and internal storage) but does a price tag of $369.99 balance it out? Seems like an interesting choice for those wanting a 7-inch capacitive touch Froyo tablet with the sought-after Tegra 2 processor.

Head over to Amazon now and plunk down your digital cash if you feel it's worth it.

Source: besttabletreview

COOL-ER eReader gets second wind with Elonex partnership, promises color E-Ink next year

Elonex's color eReader that was shown at IFA (image from Pocket-lint)

Amidst all the pricing shakeup that happened in July, it had looked like Interead, makers of the COOL-ER line of eReaders, would be one of the casualties. They announced that they would be liquidating their assets in an attempt to repay debt. Many, us included, took this as a sign that another eReader manufacturer had bit the dust, but according to Pocket-lint — who has an exclusive interview with Interead marketing director Phil Wood — COOL-ER has partnered with eBook maker Elonex and are promising even more to come in the next year.

Wood expounded upon Interead's liquidation stating that it was due to two problems: the UK banking system and a major U.S. retailer backing out of a large order of COOL-ER eReaders. Thankfully it looks like Elonex has gobbled them up and are looking to release a co-branded lineup of five new eReaders in the next year. The focus will be on providing affordable, colorful options including a 99-euro color-screened eReader. Elonex is banking on COOL-ER's recognizable name for that.

The main bit of news, however, is around a COOL-ER color E-Ink eReader. Wood said, "If you're dedicated reader, you want e-ink. And, obviously, in the new year, colour e-ink is coming along." He continued to say that they were in talks with the same suppliers as every other eReader manufacturer which could possibly mean Mirasol or even Liquidvista made screens. The Elonex COOL-ER color E-Ink eReader could arrive as early as the end of Q1 of 2011.

Read more of the interview at Pocket-lint.com.

Source: besttabletreview

htc HD7 review

The screen that just keeps on going meets the OS that refuses to fit on a single display. Yes, Microsoft's Windows Phone 7, like Windows Mobile 6.5 and Android before it, is getting treated with a 4.3-inch display from HTC for its launch party. The aptly titled HD7 is, by virtue of Microsoft's stringent hardware requirements, mostly just a stretched-out version of its WP7 contemporaries: it offers the standard 800 x 480 res, 1GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon, 576MB of RAM, and a 5 megapixel autofocus camera with a 720p movie mode. So what sets it apart? HTC will have you believe its Hub enhances the buttery smooth WP7 software, while outside the shell there's a handy kickstand for landscape lounging and you do of course benefit from an enlarged canvas for your finger inputs. Join us after the break to discover how much that matters in day-to-day use, along with the rest of our thoughts on the HTC HD7.

This review is primarily of the HTC HD7 hardware. Check out our full review of Windows Phone 7 for our thoughts on the OS.

HTC HD7 review

Samsung Omnia 7 vs HTC HD7 and 7 Mozart

Hardware

The HD7 isn't shy about proclaiming itself an entertainment machine and its design reflects these aspirations. Besides the kickstand inviting landscape operation, you have two speakers framing the large display, nestled in elegant little crevices at the bottom and top of the phone. Protecting them from harm's way is a metallic band spanning the HD7's entire circumference, which also houses a volume rocker, a two-stage camera button, and your standard-issue power/lock combo button.

On the whole, we like both the look and feel of this handset, but it's not without its flaws. Chief among them is the quality of its construction materials, with the back cover being made from a relatively flimsy plastic, which has a slight, albeit tangible, flex to it and is prone to creaking. It looks durable, mind you -- we don't expect its matte surface to degrade too badly over time -- but the phone's rigidity comes almost entirely from the metallic band around its sides and from the display itself. Not exactly ideal in our eyes. Then there's also the kickstand, which exhibits some lateral wiggling action we're not too fond of and does not sit flush with the phone when retracted. Beyond that, just to get all our bugbears off our chest, the pair of speaker recesses turned out to be absolute dust magnets and cleaning them out wasn't the easiest thing in the world either.

To flip things around and look at the positives, the biggest one for us was the HD7's basic feel in the hand. Its curved back is ergonomic heaven and we really couldn't find any disadvantage in using it as our daily workhorse versus our usual 3.5-inch device. This will of course depend on your own palms' dimensions, but we felt immediately at home with this oversized smartphone, and its pocketability was no less impressive. Additionally, while we may bemoan the battery's cover for being on the cheap side, we have to commend it for being easy to remove and replace, with HTC earning extra brownie points for the little insert it has underneath the battery to make extracting it even more foolproof.

Internals

The US (exclusive to T-Mobile on November 8) and UK (an O2 exclusive, available today) variants of the HD7 will pack 16GB of non-expandable storage whereas most other countries will have to settle for 8GB. You might consider that something of a limitation, and indeed if you have to have every episode of every season of House on your mobile device, maybe you'll feel the squeeze, but T-Mobile is coming to the rescue with Slacker Radio and Netflix apps preinstalled on the US HD7, while the Zune Pass all-you-can-listen music buffet service (coming to Western Europe right around now) can turn the cloud into your music collection guardian.

What we're more concerned about, however, is the Qualcomm QSD8250 chip that resides within the HD7's confines. This was a celebrated 1GHz part back when it graced HTC's own HD2 this time last year, but today... not so much. And speaking of the HD2, it's pretty outrageous that HTC has gone and matched its spec almost entirely. Sure, the externals have been tweaked, the physical buttons have been dismissed in favor of capacitive keys and you've now got a slightly different frame around your jumbo display, but as far as the internal hardware is concerned, it's nearly the same phone. We imagine this was probably out of HTC's hands since Microsoft insists on the particular trio of WP7 buttons and has also been the one to mandate the processor within, but it still leaves geeks like us feeling less than overjoyed. After all, if not for a bit of red tape, we could just as well be reviewing the HD2 right now.

Looking at the HD7 and its Windows Phone 7 OS in isolation, however, we have to commend the final product. Whether we like the route by which Microsoft has gotten here, what we're looking at with all these launch devices is one hell of a smooth user experience. So, in spite of its aged hardware, the HD7 is by no means a performance slouch. Basically, we'd have preferred something beefier inside, but that's just because we like numbers, and we like them to grow higher, but in actual use the HD7 is more than nippy enough.

There was one truly noticeable hardware drawback to this handset, however, and that was the size of its battery. At 1,230mAh, it's on the small side for most smartphones nowadays, but particularly so for one that has to power a backlight spanning a full 4.3-inch display. The LG Optimus 7 comes with a 1,500mAh cell and there's no reason (other than perhaps a budgetary one) for the HD7 not to do the same. We definitely felt this shortcoming during our time with the device, finding ourselves looking for the charger before a full day of intensive use was through, whereas even the lightest of use would necessitate you tethering up by the end of the second day. Not terribly impressive.

A final note is also merited regarding the HD7's front-mounted stereo speakers. Not that it should be any surprise given that this is a mere phone, but their quality was pretty nondescript in our testing. We weren't impressed either by the loudness or by the clarity of the output and would describe them as mildly disappointing, given the hype that HTC has flourished upon them.

Display

Ah, the display. The HD7's meat and potatoes, its reason for being, the meaning to its life, the beating heart of its entire operation. If we haven't made it abundantly clear yet, the display is this phone's defining feature and also the thing that will most likely determine its commercial success. That's aside from the key determinant, of course -- the Windows Phone 7 experience -- but given that the OS has been so tightly regimented by Microsoft, you'll be able to easily jump aboard abother WP7 ship should the HD7 not rock your boat quite how you'd like it to. The trouble with its 4.3-inch panel, however, is that it does indeed both make and break the appeal of the HD7. Allow us to explain.

On the one hand, the enlarged panel really makes your daily smartphone tasks so much easier. Yes, in terms of pixel density it's no better off than the more diminutive phones it's vying against, but the magnification of those pixels was a definitely improvement for us, allowing us to read webpages without necessarily having to zoom in on them every time, and also making navigation and text input appreciably easier. It's worth reiterating, perhaps, that this was simply our experience and others may find the large screen overwhelming and its contents unnecessarily inflated. What we're saying is that this just felt like the ideal size to us, not too large (hello, Streak!) and not too small (Motorola Flipout, anyone?).

In fact, on a couple of occasions we honestly got carried away reading on our commute and simply forgot we were using a phone. It felt more like browsing on our desktop with the added bonus of being able to scroll by flicking our fingers. It was a terrific sensation, even if it only lasted for brief moments, and of course it's not something we can confidently say you'll be able to experience on the smaller devices in the Windows Phone 7 stable. The Samsung Omnia 7 and Dell Venue Pro might come close to that, but the HD7 clearly sits at the top of the pile when it comes to taking your Windows experience on the move without resorting to a tablet or a laptop.

Alas, where HTC lets us down is in the quality of the panel it's chosen. We noticed viewing angles weren't all that hot in our first hands-on experience with the phone and nothing's happened to make us think differently since. It's just not a high quality display by today's standards; it can reach high levels of brightness when you crank it up, but if you care about faithful color reproduction, we'd advise looking elsewhere. It's saddening to see, really, since HTC has a much better display installed in its own 7 Mozart, as you'll see in the video above, and the only conclusion we can reach is that the particular screen in the HD7 represents a conscious choice of quantity over quality. It's a bigger panel, which gives you all the benefits you might expect, but it's also a worse one than any other WP7 phone available today. The choice, as ever, is yours.

Camera

The camera on the HD7 was a weird one for us to get to grips with. On the one hand, focusing is pretty snappy and Windows Phone 7 does allow you to jump straight into the camera app from a locked screen (by holding down the shutter button). But our actual results were somewhat hit and miss. Sometimes, the HD7's camera would nail the white balance in situations where even a DSLR was struggling to guess correctly, but at other times it'd struggle to focus in relatively unchallenging circumstances. Aside from that, we have to take issue with WP7's inability to remember camera (or camcorder) settings. The HD7 defaults, weirdly enough, to shooting 480p video, which you have to switch up yourself... each and every time you use the video app. Maybe we're unenlightened on how to make our settings stick, but sure enough, each time we turned on the camera and wanted to shoot at 720p, we had to manually turn it on. Which was annoying. As to the video output itself, it's quite presentable stuff, although the sensor does tend to search for focus even when we're keeping it steady on an unmoving landscape. All in all, the HD7's camera and video recording seem par for the (somewhat mediocre) smartphone course.

HTC HD7 sample images

Software

Windows Phone 7 interface

For our full thoughts on Windows Phone 7, you'd better head on over to our exhaustive (but hopefully not exhausting) review or check out the video below -- both are awesome. We'll limit ourselves to discussing HTC's Hub additions here briefly. The first thing to note is that HTC adorns the bootup sequence for its Hub with an outrageously extravagant and almost instantly annoying animation that pummels you with oncoming cloud and sun symbols to remind you that yes, there's a weather app coming up in there. Once you get inside, you're faced with a stock updater, that climate-monitoring utility we just mentioned, and some other tidbits like Notes and a Photo Enhancer. HTC promises it'll keep adding more functionality as things go along and we've got no reason to doubt that. For now, we couldn't care less about stocks or the weather, so we decided to play with the other two apps.

Notes is a quirky, stylized take on your usual note-recording app. It gives you a board that you can "pin" little post-its to, which in turn age relative to their, erm, age. We could frankly take it or leave it, there's a character limit on each note so if you're a wordy sort of missive writer, it'll immediately discourage use, while its stylized elements feel somewhat forced and unnecessary. It's cute, and maybe some weird demographic that appreciates animated transitions more than rapid and easy data input will appreciate it more, but it wasn't for us.

Now the Photo Enhancer, that was another story. This image post-processing app doesn't really have any pretensions for the high office of actually enhancing your photos. Oh, sure enough, it has one preset for auto-correcting and enhancing your pics, but it's real title might be something closer to Photo Fiddler. It comes with a bunch of different after-effects you can apply to generate particular artistic conceits atop your images -- from making them look like monochromatic classic, to intentionally over-exposing them, to giving them warm or cold color casts. Honestly, it was a lot more fun than we expected it to be and its basic but varied functionality seems a perfect fit for the device it's riding on. Top marks.

Wrap-up

What can we say that we haven't expressed already? The HD7 is pretty much what you thought it would be. It's that same 4.3-inch blueprint that HTC has exploited to great success with the HD2 and EVO 4G, applied to the brand new Windows Phone 7 operating environment. The first question you'll truly have to answer for yourself is whether or not you want to be aboard the WP7 gravy train. We remain staunch believers that a smartphone is only as good (or as bad) as its software, so decide on your OS first and your particular handset second. If you're still with us, we'd recommend the HD7 as a solid WP7 device choice, but with a few caveats.

The build quality is a step below the finest we've seen, landing the HD7 in the "passable" category, while the display may achieve a high level of brightness, but it goes to waste thanks to its poor contrast and viewing angles. For a device aspiring to woo us with its multimedia features, this, along with middling sound output from its stereo speakers, renders the HD7 a failure if measured purely by the boasts of its promotional materials.

But we judge by our own standards here, and the reason we like the HD7 is that it seems to be just about the perfect size for us. It trades little in the way of added bulk for an awful lot in added real estate and general usability. We know we like to beat the drum about pixels on these pages, but sometimes inches matter just as much. And lets not forget that we're still living in a world where nobody has yet managed to deliver a truly impressive 4.3-inch display, never mind the fanciness of Super AMOLED, so HTC deserves commendation for at the very least trying, and we reckon we might be happy dealing with a less Super panel that just gives us more of what we want. Provided what we want is Windows Phone 7.

Samsung Galaxy S Review

Here is the Samsung Galaxy S Review where we take a look at the latest Android Phone from Samsung with a Huge 4 inch SuperAMOLED Display , 1GHz CPU , 5 MP Camera , HD Video Recording and a lot more.

Intro

Samsung was a company that always took the backseat in the initial years of the previous decade. Their mobile phones were never revolutionary or beyond expectations. They were satisfied with making good handsets with available technology and also happy with their sales.

While on the other hand, most companies tried to bring something revolutionary into the market and improve. Motorola enjoyed success through their RAZR series of phones, Sony Ericsson's Walkman series of phones were a huge hit, Nokia's N95 brought the idea of all in one device, Apple brought a whole new touch screen experience to the table.

Not that Samsung hasn't produced good phones over the years but nothing was able to stand out from the crowd. But recently say around 2-3 years ago, Samsung has started to rise up to the challenge. They are willing to invest, take risks establish a firm position in the smartphone world.

For example they were the first to launch the 8 Megapixel Camera phone, one of the first to launch a 12 Megapixel camera phone, one of  the first to launch a mobile phone with HD Ready Video recording,  Super AMOLED display , Bada OS etc.

They seem to have also gone beyond their usual to market their products, especially with the Galaxy S and Wave.

The Galaxy S is Samsung's latest device with Google's Android OS. Let us take a look whether the Galaxy S is worth all the hype.

Box Contents

The Galaxy S comes in a sleek black rectangular box. The package contents include:

• Samsung Galaxy S
• Battery
• User Guide
• AC Charger
• Headphones
• USB Cable
• Leather Pouch

Nothing exciting or out of the ordinary but still has all the essentials to get you going.

Design and Build Quality

The Samsung Galaxy S is a monoblock touchscreen phone and measures in at 122.4*64.2*9.9mm. A glance at the measurements and you know this phone is sleek. At 9.9mm it fits in easily even into the tightest of pockets. While the handset is wider and taller than most touchscreens, it is not too large for a phone with a 4" screen. It's dimensions are perfect according to us. The phone weighs in at 119 grams which is quite light considering all the stuff fitted into the phone.

The main reason for it being so light is that there are no metal parts used for the phone. Everything is glossy plastic. The battery cover, the front surface etc. But the build quality of the phone is not compromised due to the use of plastic. The phone is as sturdy as a rock; there are no creaks or squeaks. The battery cover is a bit flimsy but does not become a concern once it is on the handset.

The phone is basically black in colour. The battery cover however has a unique dotted pattern in blue. This gives the phone a trendy look however it's done in a way that it's not too flashy. So while it attracts youngsters, it does not put away the older audiences. The phone is a fingerprint magnet as in the case of any touchscreen phone. The glossy back also attracts a lot of fingerprints. The phone is quite a looker and should please most customers. There have been rumours about a white version of the Galaxy S making its way into the markets. We think it will look quite good in white as well.

Video Review available in 720p HD

Screen

The screen is definitely the best thing about the Galaxy S. The 4" Super AMOLED screen with capacitive technology is a treat just to look at. You could keep looking at video or pictures on it all day and still not feel bored. It displays upto 16 million colours and has a resolution of 480x800 pixels. The sheer contrast and brightness of the screen will amaze you. Even at minimum brightness, everything looks great. The only other screen that can be compared is the retina display of the Apple iPhone 4. All the other screens just can't compete.

An accelerometer takes care of the auto-rotations. Multi-touch inputs are supported. The proximity sensor turns the display on/off during calls. The sensitivity of the screen is brilliant and the slightest of touches are recognised. A stylus wont work on the screen because it uses capacitive technology.

The sunlight legibility is very good thanks to the Super AMOLED technology due to the reduced glare and increase in brightness.. The viewing angles are also great.

Keys and Controls

Being a touchscreen phone, the Galaxy S has minimal hardware buttons. On the front, the three keys on the bottom are the touch sensitive menu and back/return keys which are on either side of the Home button. All three buttons have good feedback and sensitivity.

The home button also doubles as the application/task switcher key upon holding and pressing. On the right side of the device is the power button/screen lock key. The one thing missing on the right side is the camera shutter key and this is one disadvantage about the Galaxy S.

The volume up/down rocker button has been moved to the left side of the device to make way for the power/screen lock key. We would have preferred to have the volume rocker key on the right side and the power/screen lock key on top but this way works too. Although it might be a little confusing at first.

We feel the volume keys could have been slightly more raised rather than making it flush into the casing.

The 3.5mm Jack and the micro-USB port are situated on top. The micro-USB port is protected by a neat sliding plastic cover while the 3.5mm jack remains uncovered.

Calls

The reception on the Galaxy S is brilliant. No issues with the coverage was noticed. The earpiece has good audio quality with very little or minimal distortion. Loudness to is sufficient for most cases but can be a bit feeble in very noisy surroundings such as places with loud music etc.

The keypad used for dialling is large and quite user friendly. Smart dial helps you to make calls easily by giving you suggestions according to your input just like search boxes do. The loudspeaker is loud enough indoors but might not be enough outdoors and the ringing volume too might be drained out in very noisy surroundings. But for everyday use it should be enough.

The proximity sensor turns off the display when you hold it next to your ear thus eliminating inputs by mistake and also help to save battery life. The phonebook has practically unlimited capacity and is great. You can view contacts from phone memory, SIM card and Google contacts. You can easily search through your list of contacts using the alphabet scroll on the right, similar to the one found in the music player. You can add info to every contact such as a picture, various phone numbers, website, birthdays etc.

Messaging

The messaging application organises your messages into threads which are separated on the basis of the person to whom you send or receive the text from. We feel the thread system keeps messages more organised and makes it easier to search for messages.

Messages can be entered using the virtual QWERTY keyboard which is available both in portrait as well as landscape modes. Swype helps you to type quicker by eliminating the need to take your fingers off the screen. The keys are large enough and most of the time very less errors occur while typing even for people with big fingers.

Connectivity and Memory

As with most smartphones available today, the Galaxy S is equipped with every connectivity feature in the book. The vast connectivity options include GPRS, Wi-Fi, EDGE, 3G, HSDPA, micro-USB and Bluetooth 3.0. It is one of the first phones to sport the new version of Bluetooth which gives faster transfer rates and more coverage while consuming lesser battery life. The micro-USB transfer rates are very fast and files of big capacities were copied easily without hesitations.

There are two models of the Galaxy S which provide either 8GB or 16GB of internal memory. The memory can be expanded further by an additional 32GB using the micro-SD card slot. The phone also has 512MB of RAM and 2GB of ROM.

We had some trouble in getting the phone to work over BSNL 3G but we hope it's an issue only with our unit.

Music

The Galaxy S does extremely well in the music department both in terms of hardware as well as software. The loudspeaker on the device is brilliant in terms of the quality of output. There is little distortion even at maximum volume. But the loudness isn't at the top of the charts. The only let down is that location of the speaker.

You can connect your own headphones without any adaptors thanks to the 3.5mm jack situated on the top. The audio through the jack is spectacular in both quality as well as loudness. You also get various other tweaks and options such as the 5.1 surround effect, the equalizers and sound effects.

The music player is also brilliant. It is not the usual one that comes on other Android devices but a version that has been tweaked by Samsung and it will take your breath away. It not just has the awesome eye candy but also helps to ease the process of searching for music etc.

It is not possible to explain the features with just words so please take a look at the pictures and videos of the Galaxy S music player or if possible try one out for yourself to understand the awesomeness.

Video

Samsung is the current king of video playback. The Galaxy S supports every format that you put into it be it mp4, wmv, DivX, XviD, mkv etc. Although bigger mkv files might not be recognised at times. It is the only Android powered handset to support so many formats and together with it's massive 4" Super AMOLED screen, you could keep watching videos on it forever.

We even managed to play HD Ready 1280*720 pixels videos on the phone and it should come as no surprise given the fact that it has HD Ready Video Recording. The phone could be used as a dedicated media player too considering the great battery life. HDMI support would have been cool but Samsung has left it to the hackers.

Update: Samsung has released a microUSB to HDMI Adapter for the Galaxy S in the USA for $50 . Thx Kalpik !

Imaging and Video Recording

The Galaxy S is equipped with a 5 Megapixel camera with Auto-focus, Touch-focus, smile and face detection and Geo-tagging. Surprisingly the camera does not come with a flash, not even an LED flash. This is one of the very few drawbacks of the device. If it did have an LED flash, the device would have been nearly perfect.

While we are fine with the resolution of the camera, the image quality is poorer than we expected. The lack of a flash aggravates the situation. The images taken with the phone are mostly underexposed, noisy and quality is average or above average at best. It does not compete with the top 5 Megapixel performers. Night time photography is out of the question. But during daytime, it does the job.

Camera Samples

The camera does not have a lens cover so the lens is exposed to scratches, smudges and fingerprints. But that is not the worst part considering the lack of flash and also lack of a camera shutter key. The only way to take photos is by using the onscreen camera shutter key.

You tap on the area where you want the camera to focus, after it focuses, tap the camera icon and the picture is taken. The focusing time is quite good and so is the shutter speed but here again its not among the best.

Video recording on the other hand is quite good. It offers HD Ready 1280*720 pixels video recording at 30 fps (Frames per second).  The video quality is one of the best that can be found on handsets currently .  Other handsets offering 720p Video recording are Apple iPhone 4 and Motorola Milestone XT720

Battery Life

The Galaxy S is equipped with a massive 1500 mAh Battery.  Samsung claims it to have a standby time of 750 hours using 2G and 576 hours using 3G. Talk time is rated at 13 hours 30 minutes on 2G and 6 hours 30 minutes on 3G.

In reality too the Galaxy S has great battery life. It exceeded our expectations. You could get 2 days of battery life easily even with heavy usage. We tried everything from music, videos, camera, applications, web browsing etc when we got it and the battery still lasted around 1 and half days which is very good for current high-end phones.

OS and UI

The phone runs on Android 2.1 OS with a Samsung  Touch Wiz 3.0 UI. The default Android Live Wallpapers are available and there are also a few from Samsung. The 7 Home screens are customizable with Widgets – Samsung and Android. You can choose from up to 4 Fonts. We liked the Default Font the most. You can download access apps from Samsung Apps and the Android  market.

Browser

The browser is similar to the stock Android browser with minor tweaks. You can browse up to 8 Windows at a time. Flash support is missing but is expected to come soon. There is Tap-to-zoom and Multi-touch, although not a smooth as on the iPhone it is certainly usable. Pages load pretty fast and the huge display makes reading a pleasurable experience

Conclusion

Samsung Galaxy S has turned out to be what we feel is the best Android phone in the market right now. It has everything you could ask for. Its good as a business phone, a multimedia phone etc. It does have a few drawbacks but maybe just one major drawback and no phone is perfect anyway. The only department where it needs quite a big improvement is imaging. It rocks in every other department.

Anyway we feel that this phone will be worth every cent you spend and you'll love it.

Pros

• Amazing Screen
• Great Audio Quality
• Great Video Playback
• Good Battery Life
• Good Day light Camera
• Good Video Recording
• SWYPE  Input
• WiFi Hotspot
• ThinkFree Office Suite

Cons

• Speaker could have been better.
• No Camera Flash
• No Dedicated Camera Shutter Key
• No Camera Lens Cover
• No Flash support in Browser
• Weak GPS