What I want in a Mobile Phone and a Tablet...

I sit here watching companies develop "new" mobile phones and tablets that people "demand."  I want something a bit different..

Mobile Phone & Tablet

I need a phone, and I don't need a tablet, so lets start here...

First, I want a device that ... makes calls.  The phone must make calls every time I dial if I have a signal.  So I want the "innards" used to be efficient, powerful, and useful.  I don't the manufacturer to use any chip that has been suggested to be "a problem."  Issues with the Galaxy Nexus on Verizon is just one reason (See here).

Second, I want a battery that lets me do anything I want to do if I need to do it on the phone.  The Motorola Razr Maxx is the perfect battery device.  The 3300mAh capacity of the MAXX battery should be a minimum for use, and the thin nature of the Razr MAXX shows manufacturers can accomplish a "thin" design and provide a huge battery life.  So, I'd like to see, at a minimum, a 3300 mAh battery...

Third, I want a nice screen...

• Mobile Phone: I want my a screen with  mobile phone to have a screen between 4.5 inches and 4.8 inches as measured diagonally across the screen with resolution of at least a 720 X 1280. I don't have large hands, but the Galaxy Nexus and the SGS III fit my hand and give me a large screen.  While I won't watch many movies on my phone, I will browse the web, use maps, and use the phone to read-all helped by a larger screen.  I think 5" gets a bit too big.   would prefer to have at least 316 ppi-the Galaxy Nexus has 316 and the new iPhone 4s has 320.  A screen ration of 3:4 is fine, but I don't think I'd mind a widescreen (9:16) either.

• Tablet: I want my tablet screen to be between 7 and 8 inches as measured diagonally across the screen with a resolution of at least 800 X 1280.  I'd prefer to have a higher resolution, and I know the 3rd generation iPad has a ppi of 264.  The Nexus 7 has a ppi of 216.  I am not using my tablet as a television or for a scientific display where I have to have enough pixels to not miss anything-I am not using my tablet to do brain surgery...  Are you?

Fourth, I'd like to see 32GB of storage memory to be standard.  Memory is cheap today, and I recall the 64K of memory would "never be used" when it was introduced with the Apple //e back in 1983.  Standard desktops and laptops come with up to 1TB these days...

Fifth, I'd like to have at least 4 GB of RAM.  Again, RAM is cheap, and I'd like to have the option of having lots of memory. I know this isn't likely to happen as 2GB was recently used in the Samsung SGS III.  One can dream...

Sixth, I'd prefer to be able to add or remove items.  Specifically, I'd like to be able to replace a battery or switch removable storage (e.g., mirco-SD).  Why do I need to do this if I have such a large battery or if the phone comes with 32 GB of memory?  I don't want to be limited if I need something I don't have on my current device.  If I am camping, I may want a second or third battery.  If I am moving data, I might want the ability to switch music, movies, etc. without having to hook the phone up to a computer.

Seventh, I'd like mobile operating system creators (Apple with iOS, Google with Android, Firefox with Firefox OS, Nokia with Meego, Blackberry OS 10, ...) to disable monitoring.  I don't want all of my usage data, my location, my personal data (contacts, movie & music lists, etc.) to be sent to anyone.  This would also save battery life.  This is where RIM/Blackberry could really hit it out of the ballpark with the new OS...

Eighth, the GPU needs to be capable.  I don't need a SLI Nvidia or a dual-chip ATI.  I do want my videos and games to play smooth with no lag or stutter caused by a chip straining to draw triangles, etc. on the screen. I don't care if it is Nvidia, Mali, or Timbucktoo... I just want it to work, and work well...

How does that sound?  Have I missed anything?  Do let me know...

If you are a manufacturer and can make a way for my tablet to use my phones internet connection like the blackberry devices, do let me know so I don't have to pay my provider extra money to use my phones mobile connection with my tablet.  I'm just saying...

Verizon and my changing account details.

Or, how Natasha told Boris he wasn't using the phone he thought he was using...

I attempted to make a call today, and got an error message similar to:

"Your plan does not include long-distance or international calls.  Please dial *611..."

I assure you, I have long-distance.  I assure you I pay my >$200/month bill on time every month.  Verizon, I assure you I am using the phone I think I am using.  I assure Verizon you have Gremlins in your IT department...

Verizon Tech Support starts telling me I have "done something" to confuse the network so that my phone doesn't work.  Funny, I made 4 calls today with no problem...

Here is what they say:

1.  The IMEI in their system is not a number that belongs to any phone I own or pay for on my monthly bill;
2.  The phone they think I am using was not a phone I was using (it was shipped to Samsung for "repair");
3.  Other "data/details" regarding my device differ from what is in their system...; &
4.  Likely, I'll need to get a new SIM to fix the issue.

At that point, I am frustrated.  I breathe...

I say the Galaxy Nexus isn't being used because it has been at Samsung's repair facility for about three weeks.

"Oh," she says.  Samsung probably messed this up...

I wonder how Samsung gets data into Verizon's system without Verizon showing their system data has changed...  I wait, patiently, for a low-watt bulb to light up...

Instead, I say the phone just got back today, has not been turned on, has no battery in the device, has no SIM card, and hasn't been powered on since, at least, Monday when the device was shipped from Samsung to me.  Unless the UPS drivers are "hooking up" as they fly/drive...

I continue...:

1.  The phone worked fine earlier today (even 1 hour ago);
2.  The Galaxy Nexus is not a phone I've used since I returned the 4th replacement Galaxy Nexus back to them since none of the Galaxy Nexus phones I've received from Verizon work as phones (See http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=24019, if you need background data);
3.  I have done nothing since I made my last call-no app installed, no music played, nothing...;
4.  The SIM is not the issue...;
5.  Verizon needs to investigate since my account has been changed and their own system says no change has occurred...

She, after some logical discussion, agrees and calls IT so that a new "trouble ticket" is opened.  I now have 2 trouble tickets opened with Verizon engineers...

I am "pre-approved" to switch out the Galaxy Nexus for the Samsung Galaxy III, and now I find out @supercurio, an Android dev, is stating on Twitter that the Verizon Samsung Galaxy III bootloader is locked and that he may blacklist his apps from Verizon devices.

Oh, wonderful...  Verizon has no other "top-of-the-line" phone.  If my Galaxy Nexus still has the issue after being "repaired," what phone do I pick?

What say you?

Apple and the Purification Directive...

For years, I have stated that Apple is ever-so slowly becoming that which they railed against in their 1984 Commercial.  In that famous commercial, the narrator stated:

Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology - where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests purveying contradictory truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail! 

                                                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_(advertisement)

The text presented above was narrated in the 1984 Apple commercial.  Doesn't that text sound like Apple, their corporate public relations, and the apple fanboys, I mean fans?  I don't mean to say it sounds like the average Apple user...

Where does that appear today?  It almost appears as if Apple is suing everyone... Okay, generally HTC, Samsung, Google, and Motorola. Apple has sued over the "slide-to-unlock' feature, but I have posted (years ago on my blog at wordpress.pocosin.com that I am currently moving) that Neonode (http://www.neonode.com/) has used the slide-to-unlock feature before...  In fact, Neonode recently was awarded a US Patent for the technology/feature (US Patent No. 8,095,879).  Apple's suit against HTC was thrown out, and the judge decided several Apple patents were not valid (See here).
I know Apple wants and should protect their intellectual property.  However, should we point out that Apple got their idea for their notification bar from Android?  Shall I say that Apple got the idea of their whole mobile UI from Treo devices?
>

Go look at this Treo 650 Commercial uploaded to YouTube on November 15, 2005.  Very Apple-like, if you will.  The icons are all in rows and columns, and you use one and back out to use others.  Music played in the background while you could browse, etc.  How is this not what Apple's mobile UI is all about?  Sure, Apple had years to improve the graphics and hardware from this device, but the Treo was and still is fantastic.

Here is that video:



People have actually started boycotting Apple over their aggressive lawsuit behavior.  Joe Wilcox has a great posting here about why he is boycotting Apple.  I can't say that I disagree with his reasoning either.  Jobs was a great salesman, but I wish the Woz had more input at Apple.

It would be interesting to see how Samsung, HTC, and Google could come up with another commercial to create a new revolution - this time against Apple.  As Thomas Jefferson once stated:

I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

     - Letter to James Madison (30 January 1781) referring to Shays' Rebellion

What say you?

Justice Roberts ... Time Travel...

Everyone has a bellybutton, sorry, an opinion as to why Justice Roberts ruled as he did regarding the Affordable Care Act (aka, Obamacare).  Here is another potential reason...

He was seeing four current justices (Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) who are willing to say the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to force people to engage in activities so long as Congress can regulate those activities by passing laws.

Roberts sees Scalia aging and, here comes the conspiracy theory..., may know of some health issue with him or another conservative Justice.  What would happen if Obama is re-elected and gets to appoint another "liberal" Justice?  Suddenly, the Court might rule that Congress has the power to force citizens to engage in activities (the 'eat the vegetable" example).  What is Roberts to do?

The 4th Circuit already held the ACA's "penalty" was a "tax" and said the 4th Circuit could not hear the case due to the Anti-Injunction Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Anti-Injunction_Act).

As part of the Internal Revenue Code, the AIA provides that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person."  I.R.C. Section 7421(a). The Declaratory Judgement Act authorizes a federal court to issue a declaratory judgment "except with respect to Federal taxes." 28 U.S.C. Section 2201(a). In Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 732 n.7 (1974), the Court held that "the federal tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act is at least as broad as the Anti-Injunction Act." Accordingly, our holding as to the Anti-Injunction Act applies equally to plaintiff' request for declaratory relief. The parties concede, as they must, that when applicable, the AIA divests federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has explicitly so held. See Enochs v. WIlliams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 5 (1952). By its terms, the AIA bars suits seeking to restrain the assessment or collection of a tax. Thus, the AIA forbids only pre-enforcement actions brought before the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegee, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), has assessed or collected an exaction. A taxpayer can always pay an assessment, seek a refund directly from the IRS, and then bring a refund action in federal court. See United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., 553 U.S. 1, 4-5 (2008).

This decision means the 4th Circuit does not even get to the merits of the law or whether to decide the law's constitutionality.  Rather, they say Virginia has no standing to sue until someone actually has to pay the tax and who then applies for a refund from the IRS (basically).

So, Roberts can call it a tax since the taxing authority is broad...  The Federal Government has used similar tactics against states for years (for instance, "reduce speed limit to 55, and we will give you road money").

If he can and does call it a tax, why, oh why, does he decide to rule on it?

1.  Justice Roberts fears a conservative Justice dying or retiring (what does he know?).  If Obama is re-elected and places another "liberal" Justice on the Court, the Commerce Clause may be decided as allowing an individual mandate-basically forcing citizens to do some activity just because the activity may be regulated by Congressional Action and/or the Commerce Clause (the reasoning depends on the Justices).

2.  Justice Roberts fears ruling the ACA is a tax will put it off at least 2 years due to the AIA-sometime in 2014 (when the tax is applied). What might Justice Roberts know about the conservative Justices that we don't know?

3.  By ruling the ACA is valid under the taxing authority, Roberts gets the liberal Justices to jump on board and agree to his limiting of the power of the Commerce Clause (!) even while supporting Congress's ability to tax (an important Federal power).

4.  Roberts will be on the Court for a long time, and his ruling in support of the ACA ends some "outrage" over the "bipartisan" public-view some have of the Court.

5.  In the long term, people may realize his quick switch severely limits Congress passing legislation based on the Commerce Clause-protecting his position on such legislation as the CWA as described in Rapanos.

6.  His ruling may give him an ability to negotiate a more "balanced" Court in the future.  Remember, this is his Court, and he doesn't want his legacy or the Court's legacy to be tarnished by partisanship or politics.

So....  Does that make any sense to anyone?  Yeah, ... thin.  Very thin...

Either way, have a great 4th of July and take a small break to read the Constitution-it really is short!