> Skyhook’s software enables cell towers, GPS technologies > and WiFi location databases to talk to each other to help pinpoint the location > of a mobile device, such as a smartphone. > > Google makes similar technology for its location-based > services such as Google Maps and Google Latitude. > > The search engine also makes the > technology available to makers of phones based on Google’s Android operating > system. Google believes location-based technologies will fortify its mobile online > advertising opportunities. > > In the interference suit, filed in Massachusetts Superior > Court, Skyhook claimed Google costs it tens of millions of dollars by trying to > cut in on its contract with Motorola, which makes smartphones that leverage > location services. > > Motorola, which makes and sells smartphones based on > Google’s Android operating system, agreed to use Skyhook’s XPS location > technology in April. > > When Google Vice President of Engineering Andy Rubin learned > of this, according to the suit, he called Motorola Co-CEO Sanjay Jha to impose > a “stop ship” order, preventing Motorola from shipping Android > wireless devices featuring Skyhook’s XPS software. > > Rubin claimed that using XPS in Android phones would make > them incompatible. Motorola ended up shipping its Motorola Droid X smartphone > in mid-July using Google’s location software instead of the Skyhook XPS technology. How’s that “Don’t be Evil” thing going, Google?

> The consumer buying advice group [announced](http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2010/09/apple-iphone4-free-bumper-cases-program-ending-finishing-dropped-calls-antenna-design-issue-problem-iphone-4-cases-giveaway.html) Monday on its official blog that it continues not to recommend the iPhone 4. Apple’s decision to discontinue the iPhone 4 free case program was seen as “less consumer-friendly.” > > “Putting the onus on *any* owners of a product to obtain a remedy to a design flaw is not acceptable to us,” wrote *Consumer Reports*. I’ve questioned Consumer Reports’ motives on this issue before, but at this point I don’t think it’s a question any longer. They have shown their true colors and have lost credibility, as far as I’m concerned.

Note that Apple is still giving a free bumper to anyone who asks for one; the only difference is that now you have to specifically ask for one. And the reason for this is that most people don’t need the bumper, because most people either don’t have the antenna issue or are buying other cases on their own. So why would Apple still give away millions of cases to people who don’t want or need them?

The entire antenna kerfuffle has proven to have cost Apple very few iPhone 4 sales, and there are no signs of long-term reputation damage to the company. The only loser here is Consumer Reports, who is still flogging this story for reasons that defy comprehension.

> On Sept. 13, 2000, Apple released its Mac OS X Public Beta, a limited-time trial run of the ultra-modern, groundbreaking operating system that would replace the old Mac OS. Priced at $30 for a CD distributed via Apple’s online store, the beta gave the general public their first taste of an operating system that would go on to win popular acclaim and attract scores of Windows users to the Macintosh. I remember it was a Saturday when I got my FedEx delivery of the Public Beta. I didn’t pay for express shipping, but Apple had upgraded my order, anyway, along with everyone else’s.

I had recently moved to California from the my home town of Philadelphia, and I was using a PowerBook Wall Street. The FedEx guy asked me “What is it with the Apple deliveries today; this is the fifth one I’ve done already.” I knew I had moved to the right part of the country.

Like most Mac heads who was sticking it out with Apple through the “beleaguered” years, I was very excited about the prospects of OS X. Unlike many Mac fans, I almost immediately jumped on the benefits of the new OS, despite its MANY shortcomings early on.

The Public Beta ran like crap on my years-old PowerBook. I just barely made the cutoff for compatibility, and it showed. But I didn’t care. Aqua was so wildly different from the restrained look of OS 9. The Dock was a great new tool. Column View was awesome. I couldn’t begin to imagine going back to the Classic Mac OS, though I’d be forced to for a few years while software companies got their programs in order.

It was bad enough listening to all the anti-Mac Microsoft zealots telling me that my Mac was a piece of crap. Now I had to listen to fellow Apple fans bash OS X because “OS 9 was so much better.” But Apple showed no signs of capitulating. We were being shown the future, and that was that.

I’ve never been afraid of technological change, and I give Apple credit for doing then what it continues to do now, which is to move the ball forward, no matter how unpopular that can sometimes be. OS X was a HUGE gamble; developers as well as users were threatening to jump ship for good, and many were making good on those threats. But Apple went ahead and shipped OS X anyway, and the last decade has proven them right.

OS X was supposed to be a new “OS for the next decade.” I have a feeling it will be around much longer than that. From the iPhone to the new Apple TV, to the iPad, I think OS X has proven it is modern and adaptable enough to suit Apple for a long time to come.

> Though limiting responses from just one urban area means there could be some bias towards a particular carrier, the respondents were spread across the four major carriers If the goal of the media is to get me to no longer trust polling of any kind, they’re starting to pretty well succeed.

From Gene Munster’s crack data collection methods, we now know that out of 258 people in Minnesota, 20 percent of them didn’t buy an iPhone 4 because of the antenna. Wow. 51.6 lost sales to Apple. That means what, exactly, in the greater scheme of things? I’m supposed to think that people in Minnesota necessarily represent the rest of the country, or the world, for that matter?

Also, 60 percent of the respondents spontaneously mentioned that they’re unhappy that the iPhone is not available on Verizon. They weren’t asked about that issue, they just brought it up. Which means at least 60 percent of this extremely small sample of people were Verizon customers, by the way.

Why would a T-Mobile subscriber want the iPhone to be on Verizon?

That means that despite claiming that the respondents were “spread across the four major carriers”, more than half of them must have been Verizon customers. That’s not exactly a spread. 60% for one carrier, 40% for the other three combined.

I have no doubt that the conclusion made by Ars—not having the iPhone on Verizon is costing Apple more sales than “antennagate”—is true. But we don’t need a really crappy poll to prove that one. That’s pretty much common sense.

Either get real evidence to back up your claims, or publish stories like these as blog entries, so we can know when you are just stating an opinion. Don’t try to fool me into thinking that these polls are anything other than complete nonsense.

> A new release from Web traffic firm Net Applications has revealed that iOS share [overtook Linux](http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustom=iOS,Linux&sample=36) in July, when it represented 1.06 percent of all Web traffic, verus the 0.93 share of Linux. Apple’s mobile platform grew even more in August, when it represented 1.13 percent, compared to a shrinking share for Linux, down to 0.85 percent. So much for Open always beats closed. Apple’s 3-year old mobile platform is outperforming Linux’s decades-old desktop platform.

By the way, “Open beats Closed” is a canard. It’s never been true of any platform. Ever. Windows was not an open platform. Linux has never been commercially successful. My guess is this is why Google is making more and more closed deals with Verizon and others lately.