Rick Singh: Apple

Showing posts with label Apple. Show all posts

Monday, February 6, 2017

HOW TO KEEP AMAZON ECHO AND GOOGLE HOME FROM RESPONDING TO YOUR TV

Voice assistants such as the Amazon Echo and Google Home are pretty smart, but they’re not yet sharp enough to understand the difference between TV and reality. A Google commercial during yesterday’s Super Bowl prompted Home to play whale noises, flip the hallway lights on, and recite a substitute for cardamom. As a series of actors barked “OK Google” commands on TV, the devices started doing what they were asked to do. Android phones with Google Assistant may have done the same thing. Google Home wasn’t haunted. It was just doing its job.

Any owner of a Google Home or Amazon Echo knows that certain TV commercials prompt unwanted activity. Representatives from both Google and Amazon told us that their television advertisements use altered audio to minimize the chances of a Home or an Echo responding to an ad. Google noted the company is working on a way to make its devices ignore commercials altogether. However, some speakers are still springing awake in some homes when the ads play on the television. Thankfully, there are some ways to keep your smart speaker from listening.

There’s a Switch for That

The best way to ensure your TV doesn’t hijack your helper is to use the physical switch on the back of each assistant that turns off the microphone. This is something you need to do manually every time you’re sitting down to watch a sporting event, or some other live TV show bound to include commercials you can’t skip. It’s not a perfect solution, because you have to remember to turn the assistant’s microphone back on when the event is over.

Change Alexa’s Wake Word

For the time being, that microphone-off switch is the only way to stop Google Home from responding to your TV’s whims. Home responds to two “wake phrases,” and both of them are always active: “OK Google,” and “Hey Google.” Whenever it hears either of those phrases, it starts recording a query and processing a response.

With Alexa, you can use an alternative wake word to lessen the chance of accidental assistance. You can’t set the wake word to anything you want, but you can limit it to a non-Alexa option.

Go to the Settings menu in your Amazon Alexa app.
Pick the device you want to manage.
In the “General” section, tap the “Wake Word” entry.
Choose between “Alexa,” “Amazon,” “Echo,” or “Computer.”

Unfortunately, of the four options Amazon allows as a wake word, “Alexa” is probably the least likely to trigger accidental wake-ups. “Computer” is cool, but it’s a word you’ll likely say a lot in normal conversation, and it will likely disrupt your next Star Trek binge session. “Echo” and “Amazon” are also commonly used words in everyday chatter. But if you change it to one of those, at least those Amazon ads won’t commandeer your Echo.

There are third-party Alexa devices coming to market soon, such as LG’s Hub robot, which will purportedly let you customize wake words and even respond to the voices of different individual humans.

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Google’s Super Bowl ad accidentally set off a lot of Google Homes

Early during tonight’s game, Google’s ad for the Google Home aired on millions of TVs. We’ve actually seen the ad before: loving families at home meeting, hugging, and being welcomed by the Google Assistant. Someone says “Okay, Google,” and those familiar, colorful lights pop up.

But then my Google Home perked up, confused. “Sorry,” it said. “Something went wrong.” I laughed, because that wasn’t supposed to happen. I wasn’t the only one.

This isn’t the first time television has set off people’s home assistants. A month ago, a TV broadcast accidentally triggered a whole bunch of Amazon Echos.

Poor Dave... At some point, some enterprising TV writer or ad jerk is gonna plant an “Okay, Google” into some on TV with intent and force everyone to listen to Nickelback. Mark my words. This is a massive troll waiting to happen.

US Judge Breaks Precedent, Orders Google To Give Foreign Emails To FBI

Google was betting on a January 24 ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that it would not rehear the Justice Department's arguments for why it needed access to user data from Microsoft's servers located in Ireland. Many believed that decision might create some legal guidance for cases like this one in which the laws on the books are considered outdated and insufficient.

The legal language of "possessory interest", for example, is often used to define temporary ownership over real estate. Attempting to determine ownership over abstract property in the form of data isn't easy with the current legal system.

In the ruling against Google, Judge Rueter is arguing that even though "the retrieval of the electronic data by Google from its multiple data centres abroad has the potential for an invasion of privacy, the actual infringement of privacy occurs at the time of disclosure in the United States." It's unclear if that decision means that evidence from a foreign server would be a violation of privacy if disclosed in a US court of law.

Clarity is what tech companies and privacy advocates have been pushing for over the years. Both the Microsoft and Google cases relied on warrants issued under the Stored Communications Act from 1986. A lot has changed about the flow of information since then and in a globalized world, tech giants have to work with competing international privacy laws. If Judge Rueter's opinion stands, it could put the US in violation of international treaties.

Google argued that because it stores pieces of emails on different servers in order to streamline its network performance, it might not even know where the information that's being requested is actually stored. The search giant released a statement today saying, "The magistrate in this case departed from precedent, and we plan to appeal the decision. We will continue to push back on overbroad warrants."

These types of cases will either have to make their way to the Supreme Court or Congress will have to act. With the chaotic state of the US government at the moment, it's impossible to say how either of those options might work out.

Saturday, February 4, 2017

How Snap stacks up against Facebook and Twitter

The initial-public-offering filing by Snap Inc. has generated a lot of attention, as one of the largest technology IPOs in years and an offering that could value the company at up to $25 billion.

Because of its social messaging app, Snapchat, and large valuation, the companySNAP, +0.00% has drawn comparisons to the IPOs of Facebook and Twitter. And during its road show, Snap reportedly said it was the next Facebook, not Twitter, according to the Wall Street Journal, but after it revealed large net losses, investors and analysts are not so sure.

“It is concerning, because people got burned with Twitter,” said Santosh Rao, head of research at Manhattan Venture Partners.

Since going the first day of trading, May 18, 2012, shares of Facebook Inc.FB, +0.11% have more than tripled, gaining 243%. Shares of Twitter Inc.TWTR, -0.96% have fallen 61% since the company’s first day of trading on Nov. 7, 2013.

At the time it went public, Facebook was about 8 years old. Twitter was 7 years old on its IPO date. Snap is 5.

0:00 / 0:00

For what it’s worth, Snap in its prospectus appears to be trying to avoid comparisons by declaring that it is a camera company and not another social-media network. That may be merited. The company is centered on image-based communication, said Chi-Hua Chien, founder of Goodwater Capital, but that still invites comparisons to Facebook’s Instagram.

Given the different metrics preferred by each company, different earnings schedules and the difference in their ages, it’s hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison. We used the latest data available for each company, as well as numbers from Twitter and Facebook just before they went public, to show a rough comparison.

Here's how they stack up:

Daily active users

• For the three months ended Dec. 31, 2016, Snap reported 158 million daily active users, a 3% increase from the previous quarter, whose comparable DAU figure was 153 million. Investors are concerned that user growth could be slowing as the company had a 7% increase from the second to third quarter.

• For its fourth quarter, ended in December 2016, Facebook reported 1.23 billion DAUs, up from 1.18 billion in the previous quarter, marking an increase of 4.2%. In the last quarter before it went public, ended March 31, 2012, Facebook had 526 million DAUs, up from 483 million in the previous quarter, an 8.9% increase.

• Twitter does not break out DAU numbers, but a Bloomberg report calculated 136 million daily active users as of June 2016. In the third quarter, which ended in September, the most recent quarter for which Twitter has reported earnings, the company said DAUs were up 7% on a year-over-year basis, compared with an increase of 5% in the second quarter.

Net income

• Facebook reported net income of $4.57 billion in the fourth quarter, up from $3.12 billion in the third quarter. In the quarter before it went public, Facebook was profitable and recorded net income of $205 million, down from $302 million in the previous quarter.

• Snap reported a net loss of $169.9 million in the fourth quarter, wider than its loss of $124.2 million in the previous quarter.

• Twitter reported a net loss of $103 million in the third quarter, narrower than its loss of $107 million in the second quarter. Twitter was operating at a loss before going public, recording a net loss of $64.6 million in the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013, wider than its loss of $42.2 million in the prior quarter.

Revenue

• Facebook is king in terms of social-media revenue, with $8.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2016, up from $7.01 billion in the third quarter. Facebook reported worldwide average revenue per user of $4.83 for the fourth quarter of 2016. In the quarter before it went public, Facebook recorded total revenue of $1.06 billion and revenue per user of $1.21.

• Snap recorded revenue of $165.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2016, up from $128.2 million a year before. It reported revenue per user of $1.05 for the fourth quarter of 2016.

• Twitter reported third-quarter revenue of $616 million in 2016, up from $602 million in the previous quarter. It does not break out average revenue per user. In the last quarter before it went public, ended Sept. 30, 2013, Twitter recorded revenue of $168.6 million.

Google is reportedly removing Google Now Launcher from the Play Store

Google has offered the option to install its own Google Now-based app launcher on any Android device since August 2014, but it appears that’s about to change. According to a leaked email sent to Android Police, Google is planning on removing the Google Now Launcher from the Play Store by the end of Q1 2017, and will stop approving new devices that try to ship with the Google Now Launcher on March 1st.

Google Now Launcher was primarily designed for Google Nexus line of reference devices, but was best known for being a quick and trusted way to cover up ugly Android skins from manufacturers and replace them with Google’s clean, consistent Material Design language. While the leaked email notes that Google will still be supporting the app through updates, it will no longer be offered through the Play Store.

It’s possible that with Google killing the Now Launcher, the company could be expanding the new Pixel Launcher that it also develops for other devices — currently, it’s exclusive only to Google’s recent Pixel and Pixel XL. As of now though, users will have to turn to other third-party solutions like Nova Launcher to re-skin their Android devices going forward.

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Google Tops Apple as the World’s Most Valuable Brand

Google is now the world's most valuable brand, according to a new study, snagging the No.1 spot from Apple which has been the incumbent since 2011.

The annual ranking from Brand Finance says Google's monetary value increased to $109.5 billion last year, representing a 24% increase overall. By contrast, Apple's monetary value fell from $145.9 billion in the previous year to $107.1 billion, according to the study. The decrease allowed Google to snag the top spot by about $2.4 billion.

The news of its No.2 spot comes as "Apple has failed to maintain its technological advantage and has repeatedly disillusioned its advocates with tweaks when material changes were expected," the study's authors wrote, who further explained that tech-giant has "over-exploited the goodwill" of its customers, namely because of its failure to generate significant revenues from products like the Apple Watch, and its inability to "demonstrate that genuinely innovative technologies desired by consumers are in the pipeline."

As for Google, the company "remains largely unchallenged in its core search business, which is the mainstay of its advertising income,” Brand Finance wrote in the report. Though Google has largely benefited from increased revenues (parent company Alphabet recently reported better-than-expected fourth-quarter revenue) its brand strength score is also a factor in its success. According to the study, Google's brand strength score was up by two points, indicating "underlying brand equity." In other words, the better the brand equity is for a tech business, the more likely it is to retain customers, or "even command a price premium that its products and services might not be worth," Brand Finance reports.

Out of the 500 brands analyzed, Amazon was deemed third most valuable, at $106.4 billion. Snagging the No. 4 spot was AT&T at $87 billion, which was followed by No.5 Microsoft at $76.3 billion and No.6 Samsung at $66.2 billion. Verizon was No. 7 at $65.9 billion. Walmart, Facebook, and ICBC snagged the last three spots in the top ten, at $62.2 billion, $61.9 billion, and $47.8 billion, respectively.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Most Facebook hacks are done by friends, finds UBC survey

Want to keep your privacy protected? Keep your eyes on your friends.

A study conducted by Wali Ahmed Usmani, a master’s student at University of British Columbia found that those who you trust the most are the most likely to hack their way into your Facebook account.

The study, which was conducted between from February and March of 2016, looked to find out how common attacks on privacy are, who is most likely to be victimized, who is most likely to attack, why these attacks happen, what the damage is, and how one could possibly protect themselves.

1,308 adult Facebook users, 59% male and 41% female from the United States filled out surveys that included questions asking if they had someone use a device of theirs to access their own Facebook account without their permission, and if they had ever used someone else’s device to access that person’s Facebook account without permission.

“It’s clearly a widespread practice. Facebook private messages, pictures or videos are easy targets when the account owner is already logged on and has left their computer or mobile open for viewing,” said Usmani to ubc.ca.

The survey found that 24% of the group had accessed someone’s personal Facebook account without that person’s permission, and 21% had their Facebook’s violated. Reasons for the insider attacks ranged from practical jokes to invading privacy and reading a person’s messages, or in some circumstances malicious attacks on peoples’ friends using that person’s identity, or even deleting everything off their accounts. A lot of those who told their stores reported a lasting feeling of mistrust, ruined relationships, and embarrassment.

“A sizable fraction of Facebook users seem to have been involved in instances of social insider attacks. The high prevalence of attacks demonstrates a need for effective mechanisms to detect and report these attacks to account owners,” reads the report.

There are multiple ways to protect yourself from outside attacks, such as adding an authenticator, changing passwords often, and ensuring you don’t tell anyone your information. But the inside attacks are a much different animal, the only sure defense is to log out of your Facebook after every use on your devices.

Others made sure to make sure their devices were locked after use and making sure no one know the passwords for their devices.

But having to re-enter my Facebook password every time I wanted to simply scroll through my news feed for a bit (which I do very often throughout the day) or just send a few quick messages would get very tiresome. Researchers involved with the study suggested a passive log that would show how long was spent browsing personal messages and other related information. This would help to discourage people with the possibility of getting caught.

“Jealous snoops generally plan their action and focus on personal messages, accessing the account for 15 minutes or longer and the consequences are significant: in many cases, snooping effectively ended the relationship.” said computer science professor Ivan Beschastnikh, who was a co-author of the report.

Saturday, January 21, 2017

LG G6 will have Google Assistant built-in, rumor says

Samsung's Galaxy S8 has long been rumored to feature a revamped virtual assistant called Bixby, and LG's G6 can't afford not to play the AI game. A new rumor out of both companies' home country of South Korea now claims that LG has done something that's pretty surprising in the Android world.

Instead of building its own sub-par virtual assistant, LG has apparently turned to Google for help. As such, the G6 will come with the Google Assistant built-in. Previously, the Google Assistant was exclusive to Google's own Pixel and Pixel XL smartphones (at least in the form that's integrated into the Android system, since it also lives in the Allo chat app and the Google Home device).

The Google Assistant is also an integral part of the upcoming Android Wear 2.0 release, which will be running on the LG Watch Sport and Watch Style, the first wearables to have the new OS version on board. These were co-developed with Google in a program not dissimilar to what the Nexus line used to be for smartphones. The two smartwatches will be unveiled on February 9, it's been rumored.

The LG G6 will be made official on February 26 at MWC in Barcelona. It's reportedly going to become available in early March, beating the Galaxy S8 to the market by about a month.

Friday, January 20, 2017

Apple sues Qualcomm over unfair licensing terms

Apple's latest lawsuit target? Qualcomm.

The iPhone maker on Friday filed suit against Qualcomm, alleging the wireless chipmaker didn't give fair licensing terms for its processor technology. Apple also said Qualcomm sought to punish it for cooperating in a South Korean investigation into Qualcomm's licensing practices by withholding a $1 billion rebate.

Apple wants a court to lower the amount it pays Qualcomm in licensing fees, as well as order the return of the $1 billion. The company said in its suit that Qualcomm should be paid royalties based on the value of its particular contribution, not for contributions from other patent holders. Currently, Qualcomm's royalties are based off the selling price of a phone, rather than what portion Qualcomm's technology enabled.

"For many years Qualcomm has unfairly insisted on charging royalties for technologies they have nothing to do with," Apple said in a statement. "The more Apple innovates with unique features such as TouchID, advanced displays, and cameras, to name just a few, the more money Qualcomm collects for no reason and the more expensive it becomes for Apple to fund these innovations."

Qualcomm, meanwhile, fired back at Apple's allegations, calling them "baseless." Don Rosenberg, Qualcomm executive vice president and general counsel, said in a statement:

Apple has intentionally mischaracterized our agreements and negotiations, as well as the enormity and value of the technology we have invented, contributed and shared with all mobile device makers through our licensing program. Apple has been actively encouraging regulatory attacks on Qualcomm's business in various jurisdictions around the world, as reflected in the recent [South Korean Fair Trade Commission] decision and FTC complaint, by misrepresenting facts and withholding information. We welcome the opportunity to have these meritless claims heard in court where we will be entitled to full discovery of Apple's practices and a robust examination of the merits.

Qualcomm is the world's biggest provider of mobile chips, and it created some of the essential standards for connecting phones to cellular networks. The company derives a significant portion of its revenue from licensing that technology to other chipmakers. Apple designs the processors in its iPhones and iPads, but it buys chips from Qualcomm to connect to 4G LTE and other cellular networks. Under Qualcomm's licensing structure, Apple pays it a fee for its chips and another fee for the intellectual property included in those chips. Most components suppliers bundle the IP cost in with the chip sales price.

For the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus introduced this year, Apple also started buying 4G LTE chips from another supplier, Intel. Because Intel's chips use some of Qualcomm's essential technology, Apple pays Qualcomm a licensing fee for those processors, as well, which is based off the total value of the iPhone ($650) versus the value of the Intel chip (closer to $20).

Apple says Qualcomm's practices are unfair, as are the clauses in Qualcomm's licensing terms that prevent Apple from seeking out other suppliers or participating in government inquiries into Qualcomm's practices.

In its heavily redacted complaint (PDF), the FTC said the patents Qualcomm held are standard-essential patents -- technology that is essential to the industry and must be licensed to competitors under fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms (FRAND). But the complaint alleges that Qualcomm consistently refused to license some standard-essential patents to rival chipmakers, in violation of its FRAND commitments.

Qualcomm said in response to the FTC complaint earlier this week that it "has never withheld or threatened to withhold chip supply in order to obtain agreement to unfair or unreasonable licensing terms."

10 tips every iPhone 7 owner should know

Apple, meanwhile, has been involved in plenty of litigation of its own. The company faced off against Samsung at the Supreme Court in October over a design patent case. Ironically, at issue in that suit was whether Samsung had to pay damages based on the entire value of its infringing phones or only on the portion that infringed. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that damages don't have to be based on an entire device and sent the case back to the lower court.

Apple on Friday said Qualcomm charges it "at least five times more in payments than all the other cellular patent licensors we have agreements with combined." The company added that Qualcomm recently withheld nearly $1 billion in payments from Apple "as retaliation for responding truthfully to law enforcement agencies investigating them."

"Apple believes deeply in innovation and we have always been willing to pay fair and reasonable rates for patents we use," the company said in its statement. "We are extremely disappointed in the way Qualcomm is conducting its business with us and unfortunately after years of disagreement over what constitutes a fair and reasonable royalty we have no choice left but to turn to the courts."

Apple filed the lawsuit in federal district court in the Southern District of California, Qualcomm's backyard instead of Apple's home in Northern California. The company has asked for a jury trial.

Updated at 1:15 p.m. PT with additional details and Apple's comment.