New Technology Reviews!.: Marshall

Gary Marshall: Microsoft to Google: stop copying us!

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/microsoft-windows-logo-200-200.jpg"> Fans of irony rejoice: Microsoft wants Google <a href="">investigated for anti-competitive behaviour</A>. Had the news come out a day later we'd have chortled heartily, but of course this is no April Fool. There are two questions here. One, why is an American firm asking European regulators to investigate another American firm? And two, does Microsoft have a case here? The first one's easy. As Microsoft knows all too well, European regulators tend to take a tougher line than US ones: for example it was EU, not US, regulators who forced Microsoft to offer a ballot screen of different Windows browsers, and it was EU, not US, regulators who fined Microsoft huge amounts of cash and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case">ordered it to play nice</A> with other networking software. The second one depends on whether Microsoft's telling the truth. If it is, then Google's behaving in much the same way Microsoft behaved before the EU got involved. Microsoft isn't just saying that Google is too big in search, although in Europe it is, its near-100% market share meaning that when Europeans search, they Google. Microsoft is saying that Google's playing dirty. Dirty flicks Google has long argued that competition is simple: if someone makes a better search engine, people will dump Google and flock to it. But what if Google could break the internet in such a way that you couldn't make a better search engine? What if Google could access data that other search engines couldn't? According to Microsoft, that's exactly what Google's doing. Google isn't just a search engine. It's an enormous content provider, too. Just look at YouTube, or the books Google has been merrily scanning. According to Microsoft, Google gets better access to that content than anybody else. "It has put a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results," <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/30/adding-our-voice-to-concerns-about-search-in-europe.aspx">Microsoft says</A>. Microsoft also claims that Google gives preferential treatment to its pals. Android and iPhones get full access to YouTube's features; Windows Phone doesn't. Microsoft says it's got the app, but it can't release it without Google's permission - "permission Google has refused to provide." Does that sound like Google? The open, fair dealing Google? Nope. But it does sound awfully like <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_15/b4223041200216.htm">this Google</A>, the one BusinessWeek says is getting awfully strict about its supposedly open Honeycomb OS. You want Honeycomb? You'd better play by Google's rules, and that means no Bing and no features Google disapproves of. Microsoft, then, is accusing Google of doing a Microsoft, of rigging the game so that Google always wins. Maybe that's unfair, and maybe the allegations are entirely without merit. But I doubt it. As every playground philosopher knows, it takes one to know one - and if anyone knows what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour, it's Microsoft.

Gary Marshall: Microsoft to Google: stop copying us!

Fans of irony rejoice: Microsoft wants Google investigated for anti-competitive behaviour . Had the news come out a day later we'd have ...

Gary Marshall: More expensive access: can ISPs make it stick?

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/computing/internet-and-broadband/images/family-using-broadband-computer-200-200.jpg"> We've long assumed that data is data no matter where it comes from. It turns out that we're wrong. Earlier this week, boffins at MIT analysed different kinds of data and discovered something extraordinary: data packets of identical size don't necessarily have the same mass. The analysis is ongoing, but so far it seems that some kinds of data have more mass than others. The mass of a Skype data packet is roughly twice that of a YouTube packet; YouTube in turn has around ten times the mass of an otherwise identical data packet containing email rather than video. As a rule of thumb, the more compressed data is the more mass the resulting packets will have. My memories of O Level physics are pretty shaky, but even I know that the more mass something has, the more force you need to move it around the place - and I reckon it's a safe bet that the people who move those packets around the Internet, ISPs, will reflect that in their pricing. It's just a matter of time before you're paying not per megabyte or gigabyte, but per service: email may be free, but YouTube will cost you - and you can forget about lag-free gaming if you're not willing to pay for it. Mass effects I am, of course, talking out of my backside - but unfortunately not everything I've written above is a load of rubbish. I'm lying about MIT and mass, but I'm telling the truth about tiered pricing. In the US, two firms' ideas for tiered mobile data prices made their way <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/carriers-net-neutrality-tiers/">to Wired.com</A>, while <a href="http://gigaom.com/2010/12/14/mobile-operators-want-to-charge-based-on-time-and-apps/">GigaOm reports</A> that European operators want to charge more for specific types of applications at specific times of day. On the face of it, it's no big deal: if one mobile operator wants to charge more for YouTube, simply choose one that doesn't. But per-service pricing is more insidious than that. By making this service expensive and that service cheap, ISPs can distort the market. Is there any reason why uploading photos to Facebook should cost more than uploading to Flickr or sending the same shots by email? Should iPlayer cost more than Sky Player? Gmail more than email? I can understand the argument that you should pay for the amount of data you use - I'm online all day and hammer my connection; there's no way my elderly, occasional-browser neighbours should pay anything close to what I pay for broadband - and I understand that limits to mobile capacity might mean paying more for guaranteed speeds at peak times in busy areas. That's fair enough. What's not fair is for ISPs to make stuff up, to arbitrarily decide that one Facebook is worth three Twitters, a quarter of a YouTube and a bit of Bebo. Because as we all know, data is data no matter where it comes from.

Gary Marshall: More expensive access: can ISPs make it stick?

We've long assumed that data is data no matter where it comes from. It turns out that we're wrong. Earlier this week, boffins at MI...

Gary Marshall: ISPs weigh up more expensive access

Gary Marshall: ISPs weigh up more expensive access

We've long assumed that data is data no matter where it comes from. It turns out that we're wrong. Earlier this week, boffins at MI...

Gary Marshall: Why banning porn won't protect children

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/computing/internet-and-broadband/images/adsl-broadband-cable-200-200.jpg"> Maybe it's because I'm the father of a wee girl, but my reaction to the government's <a href="">ISP porn-blocking plans</A> wasn't an immediate cry of "Nanny state! Nanny state!" There's some awful stuff out there, and I don't think kids should see it any more than I think The Human Centipede should be shown on cBeebies. I think I'm pretty consistent on this. I don't think seven-year-olds should play Call of Duty: Black Ops, and I don't think Frankie Boyle is the best choice of entertainer for your four-year-old's birthday party. If reports are correct, the government wants ISPs to adopt a scheme rather like the ones mobile phone networks already have. My mobile phone operator, Orange, has an adult content filter. I didn't know it was there until I tried to access that notorious cradle of filth, Boing Boing. To see the blog post I'd requested, I had to call Orange and ask for the adult content filter to be lifted. It wasn't a big deal. The girl in the call centre didn't ask why I wanted the bar removed, and if she thought I was calling from inside a bin bag full of ball gags she didn't let on. So there you go: a porn filter is no biggie. Maybe that's true on mobile, where you don't generally share your phone and you probably PIN-lock it too. Shared connections are different. A firewall for filth won't work, and it could easily be a force for ill. It's all pointless The first and most obvious problem is that sites will find ways around it, and sites that shouldn't be blocked will be. The second problem is that it sets a precedent. If ISPs filter legal pornography – they already filter the illegal stuff – then what other legal things can we get them to block? Sites that include bittorrent links? Places where people plan anti-government protests? Places offering advice about drugs, or sex, or anything else tabloids and lobby groups might disapprove of? And of course, there's the biggest problem of all, the hole in the digital dyke nobody can plug. Other parents. As a parent, I'm well aware that it's my responsibility to keep my kids away from filth. The problem is that I can't ensure that you keep your kids away from it. At the height of the GTA IV controversy, I was on a radio phone-in show when a bloke called in with a Ban This Sick Filth rant. "I think it's terrible that my grandson plays this stuff," the man said. How old was the kid? "Seven." Who'd bought him GTA IV? "Me." How do you filter idiocy like that? Research into kids' experiences of online porn find that most of the stuff younger kids see is shown to them, or sent to them, by somebody else – usually other kids. If one parent doesn't filter, if one parent couldn't care less what his or her little darlings do online, then sooner or later those little darlings are going to share what they see; if one child finds a way to get round the filter, that information will spread faster than nits. I can censor my computer. How do I censor your kids?

Gary Marshall: Why banning porn won't protect children

Maybe it's because I'm the father of a wee girl, but my reaction to the government's ISP porn-blocking plans wasn't an imme...

Gary Marshall: After Wikileaks, what will Amazon remove next?

<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&tag=latesttecompu-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&search-alias=aps&field-keywords=mission%20mx5" target="_blank"></a><img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/TechRadar/Gadgets/New%20Amazon%20Kindle%203/main%20kindle%203-200-200.jpg" /> </div>Last year, Amazon was <a href="http://draft.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3630952467398438450">caught</a> remotely deleting copies of George Orwell's 1984 from Kindles - and this week it's deleting even more controversial content. The firm cheerfully deleted erotic stories from people's Kindle archives, and it cheerfully booted Wikileaks off its hosting service. 
It's a strange message for a key cloud computing provider to be giving out: you can rely on us, until you can't! We'll take care of your stuff, or maybe delete it! 
So what's going on? In the case of Kindles, people who've bought incest-themed fiction are finding it disappearing - and as Ars Technica <a href="http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/12/amazons-latest-kindle-deletion-erotic-incest-themed-fiction.ars">reports</a>, some Amazon reps are then berating customers for their choice of reading matter if they dare to complain. 
It's an interesting turnaround for a firm that just weeks ago was resisting calls for <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11731928">censorship of much worse material</a>, and it appears to be a mistake: while distasteful to many, incest-themed fiction isn't illegal. 
But it illustrates a bigger concern: why do Kindles need a remote kill switch in the first place? Bookshop staff can't come into your house and take books back from your shelves. Why should Amazon be able to do the electronic equivalent? 
Disappearing on a whim 
And then there's Wikileaks. Amazon flatly denies that it booted the site off its servers following pressure by the US government, although few people believe that. In a <a href="http://aws.amazon.com/message/65348/">statement</a> the firm essentially says that it doesn't approve of what Wikileaks is doing. 
It argues that Wikileaks doesn't own the data it's publishing, and that publishing the data is dangerous - but do you think Amazon would be so zap-happy if it were, say, the New York Times publishing the same information from the same servers? 
It's an interesting contrast to Google's cloud-happy presentation last week, where CEO Eric Schmidt talked about a constantly-connected world where everything you need would live on someone else's servers. I don't recall him waxing lyrical about remote deletion of content you already own, or governments having a quiet word to make things they don't approve of disappear. 
The problem with the cloud is that it's owned and operated by faraway firms whose T&Cs give them the power to do pretty much what they like - so if they decide you shouldn't be reading about getting it on with Auntie Mabel they can reach into your device and delete it; if they decide they don't want to upset a politician or a tabloid they can make controversial content vanish. 
The cloud isn't ours. It's theirs.

Gary Marshall: After Wikileaks, what will Amazon remove next?

Last year, Amazon was caught remotely deleting copies of George Orwell's 1984 from Kindles - and this week it's deleting even m...

Gary Marshall: Will other operators follow Three to offer unlimited data?

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/images/3-three-logo-200-200.jpg"> You can't accuse Three of following the herd: while pretty much ever other mobile network operator is capping your monthly data allowance or trying to convince you that "unlimited" actually means "severely restricted", <a href="">Three has promised unlimited data</A> to anyone on its The One Plan. Let's be cynical for a moment. It's quite an easy promise for Three to make: few smartphone users hit the data caps anyway, and the cost of delivering data to the few who do will be swamped by the income from the new sign-ups this announcement will no doubt deliver. It's not likely to put too much strain on Three's network, either: with around 10% of the UK mobile market it doesn't have the sheer weight of numbers that often swamps rivals' data services. It doesn't apply abroad, so like every other network you'll get stiffed if you use your smartphone on holiday. It's for personal use, not business users. And while tethering is supported, Three is careful to stress that the plan is for smartphone use - so you might still encounter a cap. You might also argue that unlimited data makes up for the lack of bundled Wi-Fi that you get with similar plans from O2, Vodafone and Orange. Then again, as <a href="http://cobweb.businesscollaborator.com/hmhb/">Half Man Half Biscuit</A> once sang, it's clichéd to be cynical at Christmas. It's a refreshing bit of clarity in an industry that often seems hell-bent on confusing people, and if I were thinking of buying an iPhone, Android or other smartphone Three would be looking very attractive today. What about the other operators? Will other operators follow suit? Probably not. Three's going in the opposite direction from the rest of the mobile industry. Smartphone usage has exploded, and demand for data has gone through the roof. The networks should have seen that coming - we're onto the fourth iPhone, and the third major release of Android is imminent; data-guzzling mobiles are hardly a new phenomenon now - but if you've ever struggled to get workable 3G in a city centre you'll know that things are already creaking. And our demand for data shows no sign of slowing down. There are two ways for the mobile networks to address that. They could invest heavily in new capacity, ensuring that smartphone users can get fast access to as much data as they could ever want. Or they could keep things more or less as they are and either cut you off or charge you extortionate sums for exceeding your monthly allowance. Here's a clue: if it weren't for new EU rules on "bill shock", mobile operators would still <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/feb/21/broadband-dongle-roaming-bill-shock">be charging £31,500</A> for downloading a TV programme when you're on holiday. This is not, it's safe to say, an industry famed for putting customers first. If the other operators decide to follow Three's lead and get rid of their monthly data caps without small print or weasel words, I'll eat my iPhone.

Gary Marshall: Will other operators follow Three to offer unlimited data?

You can't accuse Three of following the herd: while pretty much ever other mobile network operator is capping your monthly data allowan...

Gary Marshall: Chrome OS: what's the point?

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/computing/software/operating-systems/images/Chrome_OS/chrome-cr48_crop-200-200.jpg"> There's an old saying in marketing: sell the sizzle, not the sausage. Google's <a href="">Chrome OS presentation</A> reminded me of that. We spent ages watching Google grind up some testicles, bits of bone, chopped sawdust and the odd factory worker's finger before shoving them into a big machine, but nobody spoke about how tasty sausages are or fried up a few tasty links. We saw the sausage. Where's the sizzle? There was a telling bit in the post-launch Q&A, where the Google team were asked why someone should use a New York Times web app in Chrome when they could just go to the New York Times website. There was humming. There was hawing. I was half-expecting someone to say "Damn, we hadn't thought of that. Cancel the project!" with security goons rushing in to bring the session to a premature halt. That didn't happen, but it really was a good question. Chrome OS is undoubtedly clever and Google's giveaway of lots and lots of Chrome notebooks is very nice, but what exactly is it the answer to? It's here. Now what? I suspect the problem is the iPad and the rise of the tablets. Most questions to which the answer could be "Chrome notebook" can also be answered "iPad" or "Android tablet". What boots faster than a traditional PC (the answer to that one also includes "MacBook Air" and "Anything with solid state storage")? What runs web apps from an App Store? What sleeps and wakes instantly? What's very secure and very unlikely to get viruses? What's really portable? What has great battery life? What can access the enterprise systems from a secure yet friendly interface? Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? You get the idea. Even the Web Store looks like a very slightly tweaked iTunes. It's easy to make predictions that blow up in your face - remember "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame" about the iPod? - but while there are obvious benefits to enterprise customers, I'm struggling to see how this is going to appeal to consumers. Mobile phone subsidies will make it as cheap as chips if you look beyond the pricey data contract, I'm sure, but the networks subsidise netbooks, normal laptops and iPads, too. I really can't see why you'd want a Chrome OS notebook when you could buy a normal notebook and run the Chrome browser on it - or skip notebooks altogether and go with a tablet instead. Maybe it was just an underwhelming presentation and Google's got a marketing plan that's going to blow everyone's socks off. I do hope so, because more tech, more competition is always good. But I can't help thinking that Google's reinventing the netbook just as everybody who wants a netbook has bought one, and just as everyone who might have thought about buying one has either bought or started saving for a tablet. If I'm right, Google isn't shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted; it's erecting a precision tooled, state of the art stable door in an empty field.

Gary Marshall: Chrome OS: what's the point?

There's an old saying in marketing: sell the sizzle, not the sausage. Google's Chrome OS presentation reminded me of that. We spen...

Gary Marshall: Happy Birthday Xbox 360: so good I'll buy it again

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/home-entertainment/gaming/games-consoles/images/xbox-360-three-red-lights-200-200.jpg"> If you're in Europe, the Xbox 360 is five today. That means it's five years since many of us picked up a copy of Perfect Dark Zero and said "this sucks!" It got off to a bumpy start, but I love my Xbox. I missed it when it needed surgery to remove the Red Ring of Death, and I missed it even more when a hand injury and subsequent hand surgery meant I wasn't allowed to touch it for months. No sooner had the doctor said it was OK to play games again and I was installing Lost Planet 2. With hindsight, that one was a mistake. Noise Annoys It's not perfect. My one's on its way out, with startup freezes becoming more and more common. My wife can't stand the hooting of its fans, a noise that's still terribly annoying despite 2008's New Xbox Experience bringing the overdue ability to install games to the hard disk. The storage space is pathetic, because - yes! - I install games to the hard disk. Its looks haven't aged well, something the latest models address (along with the noise, I'm told). The video marketplace or Zune Tellybox or whatever it's been rebranded as this week still sucks. And the lack of iPlayer is crazy, Microsoft cutting off its nose to spite its face by refusing to let the BBC give us its sterling streaming service for free. Despite all of these things, I still love it. It doesn't feel like a console nearing the end of its life; rather, it feels like a console developers know what they're doing with. When I used to play PC games, I often - rightly - wished I had better hardware to play them on, but I still don't feel that with my Xbox: games such as the gloriously demented Vanquish look superb, go like the clappers and don't appear to be bringing my Xbox near breaking point. Unplugged Dust Gatherer It's interesting to compare the Xbox to the Wii, another console that used to live under the telly. After a brief burst of Wii Sports when I first got it, the Wii was demoted to Unplugged Dust Gatherer, resurrected briefly for a bit of Dead Space Extraction before ending up on Gumtree. I reckon my total Wii play time barely reached the tens of hours; with my Xbox it's thousands, and I've used it to watch countless videos too. The only bit of kit I spend more time on is the laptop I use for work. My Xbox 360 made me what I am today - fat, with ruined hands. So it's probably just as well that instead of rushing out a new kind of Xbox, Microsoft has released Kinect instead. I'm pretty excited about that. Not only is there the possibility that I'll actually get off my lazy backside, but as the dad of a three-year-old I can't wait to bring games such as Kinectimals into the house and get my wee girl into gaming at an impressionable age. The only reason I haven't got it already is because I'm saving up to buy one of the black Xboxes. There's a recommendation for you: it's so good I'm buying it all over again.

Gary Marshall: Happy Birthday Xbox 360: so good I'll buy it again

If you're in Europe, the Xbox 360 is five today. That means it's five years since many of us picked up a copy of Perfect Dark Zero a...

Gary Marshall: Why can no one make an iPad killer?

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/computing/mobile-computing/Tablets%20and%20touchscreens/AndroidTablets/Next-tablet-200-200.jpg"> If you've ever seen a tribute band you'll know that no matter how accurate the impression, there's something missing. You can buy the same guitars as your idols, wear the same skinny jeans and get your hair cut just so, but that doesn't make you Led Zeppelin, or U2, or even Dumpy's Rusty Nuts. It's a bit like that with so-called iPad killers. The Galaxy Tab looked like a contender, but it <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/hands-on-samsung-galaxy-tab-review-713987">turned out to be</A> clunky, laggy and unsure whether it wanted to be a phone, a tablet or both. <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/portable-devices/portable-media/mysterious-android-tablet-available-from-next-720008">Next's</A> cheapo tablet turned out to be – surprise! – a pile of crap. PC World <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/toshiba-folio-100-tablet-dropped-by-dixons-908386">dropped the Toshiba Folio</A> because there were so many returns customers appeared to be renting, not buying. JooJoo? <a href="http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/laptops-portable-pcs/laptops-and-netbooks/joojoo-joojoo-704775/review">Boo-hoo, more like</A>. And no matter how brilliant the <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/pc/hands-on-acer-iconia-review-910369">Iconia</A> turns out to be, you'll be able to buy three iPads (and by the time it comes out, that could mean three <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/ipad-2-rumours-what-you-need-to-know-900232">iPad 2</A>s) for the same money. Why is it so hard to make a credible iPad alternative? You're doing it wrong The short answer is that the manufacturers appear to be looking at the wrong things. They're like musicians who think buying a Gibson Les Paul will turn them into Jimmy Page, or that being a big gobby pain in the arse makes them Bono. What makes the iPad special isn't the hardware. It's the software. We've been through this already with the iPhone. Early attempts to copy it were disastrous, because the approach wasn't "let's sit down with a blank sheet of paper and work out what a touch-based operating system should do". It was "let's make our phone look like an iPhone". That's exactly what's happening with tablets. Apple has spent years thinking about what tablets should do, and it's built an operating system from scratch to make the tablet experience as pleasant as possible. That's a lot of work – so why not just cobble something together instead? The Next tablet is an extreme example of the problem. Do you think anyone at Next really believes that their 10" tablet is the "great alternative to your home computer" the blurb says it is? It's not even a great alternative to a bit of paper with 'TEH INTARNET' written on it. Not up to scratch But even the big-name kit isn't up to scratch. Google has said that Android isn't ready for tablets yet, but firms are chucking Android tablets out the door anyway. Even Windows 7's biggest fans have to admit that stuffing a desktop operating system into an iPad-style form factor is just silly, but Windows 7 tablets are incoming. Toshiba's Folio disaster suggests that at least some tablets are being rushed to market with unseemly haste. That's great news for Apple. If iPad killers are nothing of the sort, if we're being asked to believe that writing 'Seabiscuit' on the side of a donkey makes it a racehorse, then Windows and Android tablets' reputation will suffer. It's better to keep your powder dry and build something awesome than ship something sub-standard. If rivals can learn anything from Apple, that's it. Put it this way. Who would you rather see live – Led Zeppelin, or <a href="http://www.letszeppelin.co.uk/">Lets Zeppelin</A>?

Gary Marshall: Why can no one make an iPad killer?

If you've ever seen a tribute band you'll know that no matter how accurate the impression, there's something missing. You can bu...

Marshall headphones "Major" and "Minor" images released

<a name="6965166147971833263"></A> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGG6BX9XCo6uNQIraYcS1uRRHQkTtcsdOu0KqRJSELQWFbDAhWBIvJyg-N8TCVp9o1mmIPhYrRqi06RFbRIrhydXQOQQe15i9qNBBGa4_pi-xnunNl45hmq_1Zg1TygmhUuYBZ2gZMsrk/s1600/marshall-headphones.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="243" src="http://technologyforum.x10.mx/image//marshall-headphones.jpg" width="400"></A> We have been teased with their boxes previously and now, they've <a href="">unboxed</A> them, literally, for our visual consumption. The headphones are available as either "Major" for $100 and "Minor" for $50. We're still to know how they fare but from the looks alone, they're gorgeous. More images after the cut.<a name="more"></A> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXb3goyPfIsbaDTmDjpYd3jko4U2up2ocCfRh9xpEK_sv3QQQX0mWl94WJBOdGW5ltRDBbqDZgh2iFtMFEgi6yLJsHOe4w3QpLHeuq5DUVweLPqYMFCJ10UCUr1sw7m25bk_AbTlUyX7g/s1600/marshall-major1.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://technologyforum.x10.mx/image//marshall-major1.jpg" width="347"></A><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2K_-7pJOdZ_UXE9bkyVlUPx5XN30rR6FOodKnq5mfkZpDYS0TEATiypXsDgestDV_2zNMr2Bs3X70UzGLXuEXJDAEtg8-kW1wcWJcLuuLKnJ_csexWli5n_vne1KSijDidd90cIdyMTk/s1600/marshall-major2.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="321" src="http://technologyforum.x10.mx/image//marshall-major2.jpg" width="400"></A><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEt0YqSXRVA_M6poTBJuUhyFabByfea-gP-hViNeo1RzodTQmt0Ra3Ab5Ls2MHj9UxM69xZ3eo7jP5VyzNELK9fwb95li-QXwJtu8ikHcgaEY1jt3pht2rOEJkHfr1O-K64iMEe0LNa8c/s1600/marshall-minor1.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://technologyforum.x10.mx/image//marshall-minor1.jpg" width="356"></A><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgt8xUnkFcj6uzJY2PNgnjTix2FmfJK46Ulj0Tln3tb7maZKoQgvEpepgMSv__Urs7qzSC5uQIgIIVkIZMu4GYF4-j5xbBT38sVVi9nZTnSfxpLLSzEoMA5GVnzsvdBJ0TC0GnRmfpiJAU/s1600/marshall-minor2.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="275" src="http://technologyforum.x10.mx/image//marshall-minor2.jpg" width="400"></A>

Marshall headphones "Major" and "Minor" images released

We have been teased with their boxes previously and now, they've unboxed them, literally, for our visual consumption. The headphones ar...

Gary Marshall: Twitter trials are no joke

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/computing/internet-and-broadband/images/twitter-fail-whale-200-200.jpg"> I would like to punch David Cameron in the face. I want to drop a tractor on Carol Vorderman. I want to cover Nick Griffin in jam and throw him into a room full of angry bees. I want to fire Glenn Beck from a cannon face first into Mount Rushmore. If I'd posted that on Twitter, I might have been arrested. In the real world we know about context. We know that people often say things they think are hilarious and that everyone else is appalled by. And we know the difference between someone posting "I'd like to smack Adrian Chiles with a plank to see which one's more wooden" and posting somebody's address and telling people to go there and hurt them. Not on Twitter, though. A throwaway comment about blowing up an airport loses you your job and <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/twitter-joke-trial-appeal-comes-back-with-guilty-verdict-907516">gets you dragged through the courts.</A> An unfunny joke is interpreted as a threat of violence <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6AA3JM20101111">and its author is arrested</A>. I'm no fan of internet abuse, whether it's the default "you suck!" response of online commenters or the more serious, more scary and - thankfully - more rare abuse from the sick, the thick, the bad and the bullies. But the prosecution of Paul Chambers is a travesty, and the reaction to Gareth Compton's stupidity is a massive overreaction. Dangerous developments These are dangerous developments, and not just for the Twitter users concerned. If you can be arrested for saying something unpleasant, if obvious attempts at comic hyperbole can get you prosecuted, then Charlie Brooker, Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr had better get out of the country fast. The laws we have on malicious communications are there for a good reason. Some people use online anonymity to say <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11650593">terrible, hurtful things</A>, to harass, to victimise, or to incite violence. Of course that's unacceptable. But that's not what we've got here. We've got people being arrested because someone else didn't find their jokes funny - jokes that in any other context wouldn't have raised an eyebrow. Gareth Compton's tweet was offensive, but it wasn't threatening. Paul Chambers' bomb joke was ill-judged, perhaps, but he said it to his friends. He wasn't phoning in bomb threats to the airport switchboard and there was clearly no malice in what he posted - and yet he has been prosecuted under a law designed to crack down on malicious messages, his life ruined for no good reason. To involve the police isn't just a sense of humour failure; it's crying wolf in a new and chilling way - and it's wasting resources that would be better spent on the people who use the Internet to hurt and harass. If the Communications Act can be used to ruin lives over innocuous tweets, then that law is an ass.

Gary Marshall: Twitter trials are no joke

I would like to punch David Cameron in the face. I want to drop a tractor on Carol Vorderman. I want to cover Nick Griffin in jam and throw ...

Gary Marshall: Nokia needs to fix Symbian or dump it

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//Review%20images/TechRadar/Mobile%20phones/Nokia/C6/pr/nokia_C6_front_flip_white_4x3-200-200.jpg"> Back in September, we reported that Sony Ericsson and Samsung were dumping the Symbian operating system in favour of Android. "Symbian isn't dead," <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/why-nokia-now-needs-to-embrace-android-719679">we said</A>, "but it's gone a funny grey colour." That grey colour's gone even funnier today, because Nokia's <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/nokia-takes-over-symbian-development-906533">grabbing Symbian back</A> from the Symbian Foundation. So is the firm about to invest yet more time in flogging a horse that's only good for glue, or is it up to something more interesting? I hope it's the latter. The demise of the Symbian foundation is no surprise. With key partners deserting, Nokia was the only big phone firm left - so having an extra layer of bureaucracy between Nokia and Symbian doesn't make sense. Retaking control means that Nokia can do what's needed and send Symbian to boot camp. Symbian is well liked by developers and powers all kinds of feature phones, but it isn't getting punters excited in the smartphone arena. In that respect it's rather like the now-defunct Windows Mobile, and if Nokia wants Symbian to be a serious platform for smartphones then it needs to do what Microsoft did: invest enormous amounts of time and talent to make it a genuine contender again. Attitude change To make that happen, Nokia needs to change its attitude: it's long been a hardware company, but smartphones are about software - and Nokia's software isn't as good as rival mobile OSes. As <a href="about:[http://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/nokia-c7-905015/review">our Nokia C7 review</A> put it: "We aren't sure Nokia has done enough to make its revamped OS special. It still has nested menus that would make HTC and Apple cringe, and our review handset crashed a couple of times… Symbian^3 just doesn't feel like it has the sparkle or ease of use to take on the leaders, we're afraid." That needs to change. While Nokia remains the world's biggest phone firm, its market share is slipping and Android will move into the feature phone market where Symbian currently thrives. Analysts at Gartner <a href="http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1434613">predict</A> that Nokia's global market share will fall to 30.2% by 2014, while Android's will rise to 29.6% and iOS to 14.9%. Nokia's other OS, Meego, is expected to do low single figures. It's hard not to blame Symbian for Nokia's fading fortunes. Partners don't want it, the US isn't even sure what it is, and in review after <a href="http://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/nokia-n8-692448/review">review</A> it takes the shine off otherwise amazing handsets. Nokia needs to fix it or dump it. When you're competing with iOS and Android you need a racehorse, not a donkey.

Gary Marshall: Nokia needs to fix Symbian or dump it

Back in September, we reported that Sony Ericsson and Samsung were dumping the Symbian operating system in favour of Android. "Symbian ...

Gary Marshall: David Cameron's high-tech hype

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//images/generic-internet-200-200.jpg"/>It's easy to mock the <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/pm-outlines-vision-for-hi-tech-valley-in-east-end-905747">government's plans for Silicon Marshes</a>, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. Here's a quick round-up of what's happening. East London will become a high-tech haven, with businesses getting a helping hand from Google, Facebook and other tech titans. The government will review intellectual property laws to make them nicer, and there will be a visa programme enabling firms to bring in talented folks from other countries without worrying about immigration caps.On paper it all sounds very impressive, if a bit naive - with the best will in the world, Shoreditch won't ever be Silicon Valley's mini-me as long as the UK remains one of the most highly taxed and most expensive countries on the planet - but when you look at it in a bit more detail there are some worrying questions. London-centricFirst up, why London? The UK's a big place, but there's nothing in the high-tech plans for the rest of the country. I'm sure that's gone down well in Dundee, where the beleaguered games industry won tax breaks from Labour that were promptly cancelled by the ConDem coalition.Secondly, intellectual property laws. In opposition, Nick Clegg <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/lib-dems-will-call-for-repeal-of-digital-economy-act-683988">railed against the Digital Economy Act</a>, arguing that "it was too heavily weighted in favour of the big corporations". Clegg promised to abolish it and the Tories to amend it; the second they gained power they changed their minds. Now, it seems, we're going to review our laws to make them more Google-friendly - including, it seems, our patent laws. The prospect of US-style software patents is a chilling one, with big firms using them to stifle competition and patent trolls effectively running legal extortion rackets. <a href="http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/10/android-caught-in-crossfire-of-patents.html">This post</a> on the patent mayhem surrounding Android should give you an idea of how crazy the US system has become.Thirdly, there's the involvement of Facebook and Google. There's something disturbing about seeing the two online giants so close to government, because our government appears <a href="http://www.out-law.com/page-11518">particularly bad at getting them to stick to the law</a>.A hub and a homeStill, it's nice that Google will create "an Innovation Hub in East London" and that Facebook "has agreed to create a permanent home in East London for their successful Developer Garage programme". Do you know what would be even nicer? If Google and Facebook paid tax properly. Both firms use - legal - tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying the taxes they should, with Google <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html">managing an effective tax rate of just 2.4%</a>. By channelling its UK revenues through Ireland, <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6122329.ece">Google avoids an estimated £110 million per year in UK tax</a>. Facebook is building a similar system of avoidance.Google and Facebook aren't the only ones happy to help the UK's high-tech sector. David Cameron announced that "Vodafone has committed to bring its Vodafone Ventures investment fund to the capital". That's the same Vodafone whose shops are currently being picketed over claims of massive tax avoidance. Campaigners say that an "unbelievable cave-in" by the taxman let the firm <a href="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=514832&in_page_id=2">avoid paying a six billion-pound tax bill</a>, although Vodafone denies the allegations.Is it just me, or is there something horribly unethical about all of this? Having Google and Facebook throw Shoreditch a few crumbs while avoiding hundreds of millions, even billions of pounds in tax is a bit like someone stealing your dinner and then offering you a half-chewed chip. Games industry group TIGA <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/nov/04/video-games-developers-david-cameron">reckons</a> that tax breaks for the videogames industry would create 3,500 jobs and bring in £200m for the treasury over five years. If they're right, just imagine how many jobs could be created if the government's high tech heroes actually paid what they should.<img border="0" height="1" src="http://rss.feedsportal.com/c/669/f/9809/s/f5f17f1/mf.gif" width="1"/><div class='mf-related'>

Gary Marshall: David Cameron's high-tech hype

It's easy to mock the government's plans for Silicon Marshes , but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. Here's a quick round...

Gary Marshall: Hey, ConDems! Leave our ISPs alone!

<img src="http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//images/broadband-exchange-200-200.jpg"/>Remember the kerfuffle over the Digital Economy Bill, now Act, where the Lib Dems made a lot of noise about how evil it was and the Tories said they'd fix it? No sooner were they in power than their objections magically disappeared, leaving ISPs facing the prospect not just of becoming copyright cops <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/sep/14/illegal-downloads-music-industry">but paying for the privilege</a>. And that's not the only Coalition issue Net users should be concerned about. Plans to monitor all our online activity are back on the agenda, and to top that the government wants ISPs to become censors too.Censors? Communications minister Ed Vaizey reckons the Internet needs <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11669314">a mediation service</a> for disputed web content, citing an example where Google Street View showed the location of a women's refuge and didn't respond to complaints. "The fact that no meeting or dialogue could take place worries me greatly," Vaizey said.What worries me is that Vaizey's idea doesn't make sense.My ISP doesn't store Google Street View data; Google does. My ISP doesn't tend to store the offensive or inaccurate content that's posted elsewhere, either. Facebook does, or WordPress.com does, or Blogger.com does, or faraway forums do.If UK ISPs don't host it, they can't remove it.Ah, but Vaizey has thought of that. He wants the Government to broker "a conversation with the Internet industry… to discuss whether there is any way to remove access to that information."Not "remove that information". Remove access to that information. Censorship = a slippery slopeRather than, say, <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/28/ico_google_halfon/">reining in Google</a> or telling Facebook to get a grip - something the European Commission thinks the UK doesn't do properly, which is why we're being taken to court by the Commission for failing to comply with EU privacy rules - the government wants our ISPs to start censoring.I can't stress this enough: we're not talking about illegal information here. We're talking about information that allegedly breaches somebody's privacy, or that "is inaccurate". Bye, Facebook! See ya, Wikipedia!We've been warning about this for years: getting ISPs to monitor content is a slippery slope, and as soon as you dump the carrier immunity argument - that is, the argument that ISPs provide dumb pipes and they're no more responsible for what we put through those pipes than BT is for what we say on the phone - then more and more people will demand they monitor more and more things. Don't believe me? In 1999, ISPs became liable for users' defamatory postings after the Godfrey vs Demon court case. In 2002, the EU e-Commerce Directive made them liable for copyright infringement if they failed to act when informed of its presence on their servers. In 2006, the Terrorism Act added "terrorist statements or articles" to the list. This year's Digital Economy Act added enforcement to ISPs' duties. Now, we're looking at privacy protection and enforcing online accuracy. What's next? Blasphemy?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<img border="0" height="1" src="http://rss.feedsportal.com/c/669/f/9809/s/f46df8f/mf.gif" width="1"/><div class='mf-related'> This post was made using the <a href="http://www.webmagnates.org/auto-blogging-software.html" title="auto-blogging software">Auto Blogging Software</a> from <a href="http://www.webmagnates.org">WebMagnates.org</a> This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Gary Marshall: Hey, ConDems! Leave our ISPs alone!

Remember the kerfuffle over the Digital Economy Bill, now Act, where the Lib Dems made a lot of noise about how evil it was and the Tories ...