Internet.org, the brainchild of Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, has the ambitious goal of “connecting the next 5 billion” Internet users by focusing on the emerging economies — the lower tiers of mobile users whose primary means of getting online is via mobile devices.

With a goal of having a presence in 100 countries within 2015, Internet.org sets foot in Southeast Asia through PLDT (NYSE:PHI), which operates the Philippines’ biggest mobile and fixed line network by subscriber base. According to estimates, only 38% of the country’s population had Internet access as of mid 2014. Meanwhile, mobile penetration rate has surpassed 100%, although only a minority are on smartphones.

Facebook’s effort to connect the otherwise underserved sectors of society is done in partnership with public and private organizations in its target countries. Internet.org vice president Chris Evans said in a keynote at the recently-concluded Mobile World Congress in Barcelona that the effort will essentially provide basic Internet services like access to educational and health information. But it also aims to be a feeder to other mobile services, as well, envisioning to “see more people coming online, buying data and voice and SMS bundles.”

Internet.org launched initially in countries like Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Colombia, Ghana and India. The Philippines launch marks the first Southeast Asian country that carries free basic Internet access through the initiative.

Through Internet.org, users can access a curated set of websites, currently numbering 24, which include sites like Wikipedia for news, Inquirer for news, Accuweather for meteorology and Jobstreet for job hunting (the list of services differs by market). As expected, the service will also provide free access to social networking staples Facebook and Facebook Messenger.

Access will be available to users within PLDT’s mobile brands, which includes SMART, Sun Cellular and Talk n’ Text. The biggest mobile network by subscriber base, the group counts about 71.2 million prepaid subscribers, which comprise about 90% of its cellular business.

Prior to the local Internet.org launch, PLDT already initiated its “Internet for All” campaign, which provided free access to mobile users, with 50MB daily allocation. While this is decidedly a small amount for most, it was deemed enough for basic access like instant messaging and light social networking.

“Smart’s partnership with Facebook is a big boost to our ‘Internet for All’ campaign, an advocacy we have been strongly pushing for,” says Smart president and CEO Napoleon L. Nazareno. “By launching Internet.org app with Facebook in the Philippines, we are making useful information within reach of millions of Filipinos.”

Earler this month, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg shared some statistics on Internet.org, saying about 7 million people used the Internet for the first time through the service. In addition, the carriers involved also saw an upsurge in data subscriptions and usage of basic services, an indication that Internet.org does not only serve to enhance access to the underserved, but it also contributes positively to carriers’ business. Other companies, such as Nokia, are also finding ways to enable Internet access with inexpensive Internet-enabled devices for the emerging markets.

The post Internet.org Launches in SEAsia With Free Access to Essential Online Services appeared first on VR World.

As higher-speed broadband coverage increases in coverage, specifications and scope, the actual logistics of managing connectivity becomes more complicated. For instance, interference in between network cells often results in degraded signal quality, frequent handoffs and a generally poorer network experience.

Cloud Radio, one of ZTE’s (SHE: 000063) entries to the GSMA’s Global Mobile Awards at this year’s Mobile World Congress, addresses this by enabling dynamic collaboration across cells based on the real-time location of users, so that there will be no performance degradation when crossing cluster borders.

“Especially for customers located on the border areas between cells, and where wireless performance is weaker especially for LTE, Cloud Radio will lead to a more uniform, consistent and predictable user experience across the overall network, increasing customer loyalty,” says ZTE in its entry.

Higher bandwidth, higher requirements

According to the company, 4G networks require 10 times more bandwidth than 3G networks, and LTE is deployed in high spectrum bands, so sites are dense in order to ensure signal quality. This causes greater interference compared with GSM and WCDMA. Also, OFDMA-based LTE (a modulation technology used in LTE and WiMax networks) does not have an inter-cell interference-suppression mechanism.

Cloud Radio was actually launched at MWC two years ago, with the promise of reducing the effects of interference between cells. The technology uses two mechanisms: a cloud scheduler and a cloud coordinator.

The central scheduler collects real-time information about interference, load, user distribution and interference location, and will determine the optimal resource allocation. Base stations then schedule their transmissions at a per-user level upon receiving these instructions. “This makes the bandwidth requirements constant regardless of the amount of sites that are simultaneously coordinated, making the performance across the network much more stable and consistent.”

The cloud coordinator dynamically measures the backhauling characteristics for each combination of eNodeBs — the hardware connected to the mobile phone network that communicates directly with mobile handsets — intelligently determining the best set of technologies to use. It essentially turns harmful interference into useful signal via inter-site coordinated multi-point reception and transmission (CoMP). The aim is to ensure latencies at most 4 ms, which is otherwise easily achievable with conventional IP RAN and Ethernet Microwaves.

The technology improves performance in cell border areas (which is 30% of all cases, says ZTE), up to 90% in downlink and 115% in uplink throughput.

ZTE Cloud Radio provices a cheaper alternative

According to ZTE, the most significant benefit of this technology is that it does not require network operators to invest in additional hardware expansion in the eNodeB. Existing IP transmission networks can meet the requirements of Cloud Radio without modification, so operators can make inter-site coordination possible with the lowest cost. In addition, Cloud Radio can be fulfilled on existing R8/R9 terminals. Given these, Cloud Radio helps in future-proofing network facilities, such as the transition from 4G to 5G.

To date, Cloud Radio is deployed across Chinese operators China Mobile and China Telecom, Hong Kong’s CSL, Wind Telecom in the Dominical Republic, and Cosmote in Romania, among others. ZTE says the technology is best suited for large urban cities, where population is dense and cells are close in between.

The technology was a finalist in the Best Mobile Technology Breakthrough category, which Airvana’s OneCell won.

The post ZTE Cloud Radio Improves LTE Performance Amid Cell Edge Interference appeared first on VR World.

Mobile World Congress is all about mobility-enhancing technologies. But while much of the technology media is focused on the consumer-facing technologies and devices during the event, MWC also celebrates innovations in the underlying tech that supports our devices and networks. As part of MWC 2015, this author was tasked to be among the panel of judges for the Best Mobile Technology Breakthrough category.

Entries in this field mostly consist of vendors and solution providers with devices or embedded technologies that improve performance, connectivity and platform convergence meant for mobile use.

One of the finalists is Airvana OneCell, which is an LTE small cell system meant for both enterprise and consumer-facing applications, which mobile operators can use to augment their capabilities in servicing customers in urban and indoor settings.

Airvana’s technology is borne out of the need to have strong wireless signals even inside buildings. One limitation of LTE — and wireless signals in general — is that signal strength is significantly reduced with obstructions. Building foundations act like a cage, after all, where radio signals are good at bouncing within the structure, but not necessarily across from inside-to-outside and vice-versa.

“Outdoor macro cell towers cannot fully penetrate building walls to deliver quality LTE service indoors, and upgrading legacy distributed antenna systems (DAS) for LTE is prohibitively expensive,” says Airvana. An alternative would be standalone small cells, but this is not effective in large enterprise settings, because these create many “cell borders.” In addition, these are not easy nor cost-efficient to deploy.

“These borders create large areas of interference between cells that result in low throughput, poor VoLTE quality, frequent handovers, complex RF planning, and macro interference challenges. Furthermore, they have static capacity, limited upgradeability, and support only a single operator.”

A cross-carrier solution

Airvana’s OneCell solution addresses the challenge of delivering consistent, high-speed LTE services for multiple operators, but without the cost and complexity of a DAS. Basically considered as a “cloud RAN”, the solution involves a single baseband controller, with radio points distributed throughout a building or establishment. These radio points act as a single cell, which results in zero cell borders, border interference and handovers — which mean better energy-efficiency for the connected mobile devices.

Industry experts consider cloud RAN as a disruptive technology because of two benefits: centralization and virtualization. Centralizing the baseband means significantly cheaper operational expenses — operators in South Korea, China and Japan have demonstrated 30% to 50% OPEX reduction with the use of such technologies. Meanwhile, virtualization of network functions will reduce capital expenditure, particularly the need to build standalone cell towers or micro-cell sites.

An added benefit of OneCell’s solution is that the nodes connect with each other via regular ethernet connection, and each radio point runs on power-over-ethernet, further reducing the complexity of deployment. According to a study by Real Wireless, deployment of OneCell is 69% less expensive than a traditional DAS. Material savings from the passive infrastructure can reach 90%, while simplified cabling means labor savings of 75% to 90%.

And a bigger benefit for enterprises: convergence across carriers. “Large enterprises and public spaces are typically multi-operator environments, and OneCell is designed to cost-effectively support multiple wireless providers with a single infrastructure,” says Airvana. “Architecture is designed to allow operators to take advantage of upcoming LTE capabilities, such as carrier aggregation, Coordinated Multipoint (CoMP) and distributed Multi-User MIMO (MU-MIMO) via software upgrades, without replacing any installed equipment.”

Full signal bars

Scalability and cost efficiency are the most relevant benefits for enterprises and other establishments that require indoor wireless broadband connectivity. Meanwhile, for consumers, it means excellent connectivity even within buildings, for a “five signal bar experience.”

“There’s a clear interest among operators in serving indoor enterprise environments with scalable, distributed solutions that are also cost-effective,” says Ed Gubbins, senior analyst at Current Analysis. The potential market for OneCell’s technology is 1 billion users, as the Chelmsford, MA-based firm has dealings with mobile operators from Europe, Asia and North America.

The direction here is clear: the combination of centralized and distributed architectures provided by technologies like the OneCell are a boon to those seeking scalable and cost-efficient means to improve quality of service for mobile broadband users.

The post MWC 2015: Airvana OneCell Enables Stronger Indoor LTE appeared first on VR World.

Smartwatch maker Pebble has set a new crowdfunding record, raising at least $1 million in the first 49 minutes of launching its latest Pebble Time. Kickstarter originally cited 34 minutes, but this has since been corrected.

Pebble Time actually reached its funding goal of $500,000 in 17 minutes, and has, so far, raised $6.8 million in less than a day of launch. To compare, the first Pebble smartwatch reached $1 million in 27 hours. Even the Veronica Mars film, considered to be a fan favorite, took at least 4 hours to raise a million.

Update: As of 10:00 PM National Standard Time (Taiwan), or about 24 hours after the Pebble Time project launched on Kickstarter, the crowdfunding campaign has raised $8.7 million in pledges from at least 40,000 backers. That’s about $362,500 per hour or $6,041 per minute on average.

Focus on the Timeline

The new device builds upon the success of the original Pebble smartwatch, adding in a few key features aimed at improving the user experience. In particular, Pebble Time brings a new focus into the timeline. “You already plan your day around time, so it makes sense for your Pebble to be organized around the same principle,” the team says. So the watch’s operating system now lays out notifications according to chronology, rather than separated in distinct apps.

The buttons now take on a “past, present and future” functionality. The center button brings you the current time (and any current notifications). The upper button lets you review previous notifications. The bottom button lets you scroll through upcoming events.

Pebble Time retains the use of e-paper, enabling the watch to have a 7-day battery life. The new device features a color display, however. It is also 20% thinner than its predecessor. And within this thinner package is a microphone, which lets users dictate responses to text messages and emails and save voice notes.

Backers can pre-order Pebble time for $159 through the completed Early Bird promo, and currently goes for $179 apiece. The company also has other options for bundles of two, three, five, 10 and 30 watches (the latter for “distributors”).

Why crowdfund?

Pebble is not exactly cash-strapped, having received $25.7 million in three rounds from investors that include CRV, ACE & Company, Tim Draper, Draper & Associates, Paul Buchheit, Mark Friedgan and Y Combinator. Pebble Technology says it is going back to its roots, “where it all started,” in launching the new product on Kickstarter. “The Kickstarter community and our early adopters believed in us before anyone else even knew we existed. You blew us away with your support and kicked off a worldwide movement!”

The underlying reasons may be deeper than this, however. It does make business sense. For one, Kickstarter has been Pebble’s most successful sales channel so far, apart from sales on its own website. The first Pebble crowdfunding campaign raised $10.26 million from almost 69,000 backers.

Secondly, pre-selling on Kickstarter means better margins for Pebble Tech. Kickstarter only gets 5% of proceeds. Payment processor Stripe gets 5%, too. This means only a 10% margin from this retail channel. Selling goods on brick-and-mortar retail channels would mean a margin of 35 to 50%, which will severely dilute Pebble’s profitability.

Meanwhile, selling on established e-commerce services like Amazon might result in reasonable margins, but it means Pebble will have no control over when it receives the money. Kickstarter lets backers pay up-front, which means more working capital for any startup, compared with having to source funds elsewhere and then marketing goods once it is already produced.

A crowdfunding bubble?

Still, 30,000 backers are not such a big market, especially considering that many of these are early adopters — people willing to pay just for the privilege of being considered on the bleeding edge. The more mainstream consumers are likely to buy products either at established retail outlets (tactile experience in buying watches, is after all, powerful), or through e-commerce giants like Amazon.

If anything, launching on Kickstarter enables the company to position itself as an underdog — especially compared with technology giants like Apple and Samsung, and it is probably hoped that doing so will endear the company to technology users hoping to see an indie effort succeed amid such competition.

For now, Pebble will have to enjoy the advantage of being able to get the funds with the exchange of a promise to build the product and ship months afterward. It’s a good way of raising capital, without necessarily being bogged down by the common investor concerns on equity and control.

The post Pebble Time Crowdfunds $1M in 49 Minutes, $6.8M in a Day appeared first on VR World.

The Gionee Elife E7 series is not exactly a new device, as the mid-sized flagship E7 mini was announced by the Chinese manufacturer in late 2013 and launched in Asia in mid 2014. However, the E7 mini is still on the company’s current lineup, along with the Elife S5.1 — the “world’s thinnest smartphone” — which perhaps signifies the firm’s approach to its product cycles. Even the aging Elife E7 is undergoing some sort of renaissance with a significant price drop, retailing at around $180, which is around 37% of its original price.

The E7 mini is supposedly a smaller version of the Elife E7, which had been Gionee’s flagship smartphone until it was supplanted by the waif-thin S5.5 and S5.1 handsets. However, a unique — or at least uncommon — characteristic is its swivelling camera, which gives some flexibility in terms of photo capturing angles and selfie-photography.

Gionee’s PR sent us a unit to review late 2014, and while this writer had been mostly exposed to, and preoccupied with, reviewing Windows Phones, I started appreciating some of Android’s benefits and nuances with this review.

Specifications

The Gionee Elife E7 mini is not exactly a specs monster, especially given its age, although it’s still a formidable smartphone that can handle Android capably.

• Chipset: Mediatek MT6592 Octa-core 1.7GHz Cortex A7
• GPU: Mali 450MP4
• RAM: 1GB
• Storage: 16GB, no microSD support
• Display: 4.7-inch 720×1080 px at ~312 ppi, IGZO capacitive touchscreen
• Camera: 13-megapixel rotating lens with LED flash
• Battery: Non-removable 2,200 mAh
• Network technology: GSM, HSPA

The Elife E7 mini’s main handicap is its use of an older Android version. The device ships with 4.2.2 Jelly Bean — customized with its own Amigo UI 2.0 — which means users will miss out on the performance and UI advantages latter versions offer.

The E7 mini, by the way, comes in a dual-SIM setup, meaning you can simultaneously run on two different networks or mobile accounts. I find this very useful when roaming abroad — I can simply purchase a cheap prepaid SIM for cheaper local data, calls and SMS.

Hardware Design and Build Quality

Build quality is one of the Elife E7 mini’s strong suits. The device has a unibody design, with the entire casing molded out of a single piece of polycarbonate. This comes with advantages and disadvantages: the battery is not user replaceable, and the only way to open up the device is to pry out the screen. However, it also means the phone is sturdier, and will not tend to creak under pressure or break apart when dropped. Even the micro-SIM slot, which holds both SIM1 and SIM2, is only accessible through a tray, which requires a pin to eject.

The only point of wear and tear is the swivelling camera. Now, there are advantages and disadvantages to this. First, a moving camera means you can take both regular shots and selfies using the same resolution lens. This is a big plus, compared to most other devices that have smaller-resolution fixed-focus front cameras. It also enables taking photos more discreetly (if the lens were swivelled into a position that does not make it obvious you’re taking pictures).

As for buttons and port placement, I appreciate how both the power/suspend and volume rockers are all on the right side. I know it can confuse most users coming from Samsung or Apple devices, but from someone used to Windows Phones, it seems more natural. Given the space the swivelling camera requires at the top, both micro-USB and 3.5mm audio ports are located at the bottom of the device.

What I don’t like here is how Gionee uses a sticker for the device’s certification labels. Yes, the unibody design precludes opening up the case, but these labels could have been incorporated more discreetly (the Lumia 930 has its labels engraved at the bottom of the metal frame, for example).

The post Gionee Elife E7 Mini: Well-Built Midrange Smartphone appeared first on VR World.

India-based software and services giant Infosys (NYSE:INFY, BOM:500209) has announced the acquisition of enterprise automation startup Panaya, in a deal that values the US-based startup at $200 million. This investment is in line with the strategic thrusts of Infosys’ new CEO, Vishal Sikka, who aims to incorporate better use of automation and artificial intelligence in accomplishing repetitive tasks for client-based projects.

At its core, Panaya is a SaaS platform that enables enterprises to automate the testing process for managing their enterprise resources planning (ERP) software updates — Oracle EBS, SAP and SalesForce — particularly tracking potential pain points and coding issues, then making recommendations for fixes. However, the potential is greater. “The acquisition of Panaya is a key step in renewing and differentiating our service lines,” says Sikka in announcing the acquisition. “This will help amplify the potential of our people, freeing us from the drudgery of many repetitive tasks, so we may focus more on the important, strategic challenges faced by our clients.”

A $42.5 billion company, Infosys has been facing challenges in growing its business in the wake of Sikka’s ascent as CEO and managing director, after stepping down from his post as head of technology at German enterprise software giant SAP. The firm faces management churn and high attrition rates among its 160,000 staff globally, even as it is the second-largest IT outsourcer in India. The Panaya acquisition is thus more of an intellectual property acquisition than one of customer or data. By incorporating enterprise automation, Infosys can potentially improve the efficiency of its business services that range from banking, finance, manufacturing and other industries.

Prior to acquisition, Panaya has raised $59 million in at least six funding rounds, so far, with a $20 million Series E round announced in January 2015. For its part, Infosys has expressed interest in acquiring Europe-based technology firms to bolster its presence in the region, which is considered to be a difficult market for the Bangalore-based company, with high language and cultural barriers.

The post Infosys Banks on AI with Acquisition of Enterprise Automation Startup Panaya appeared first on VR World.

City traffic has become so bad these days that it has become impractical to drive a big SUV with boat-like handling characteristics. It’s much easier to zip around town in a subcompact or small hatchback, after all. The fact that fuel prices falling to record lows due to the drop in oil prices is just icing on the cake, especially if your daily commute to work involves inching through parking lot-like traffic jams.

For Hyundai, its small cars are the top sellers in Asian markets like India and the Philippines, where the Korean company’s Eon and i10 lines are common sights on the street. Even as the more formidable Starex, Sta. Fe, Tucson, Elantra and Accent are also popular, nothing beats a low price tag, especially in emerging markets.

But even then, small does not necessarily mean cheap. Our review model for this automotive feature is the 2015 Hyundai Grand i10, a subcompact hatchback directly competing with the Suzuki/Maruti Swift, and recent market entrants, the new Mitsubishi Mirage and Toyota Wigo. Price-wise, however, the Grand i10 is a bit on the steep side, which means the choice might come between this subcompact hatch or a bigger — although lower trim — subcompact sedan. Even Hyundai’s own Accent has a lower starting price than the top-spec Grand i10.

Hyundai often attaches the “Grand” moniker to significantly-upgraded models, and for the i10, this marks the car’s second generation, first launched in late 2013. The Grand i10 is 100 mm longer than its predecessor, and the top-spec variant also offers features and amenities that one might find more at home on more expensive and larger vehicles, such as safety and electronics packages.

Specifications

Our review model is the top-of-the-line L variant, powered by a 1.2 liter Kappa motor delivering a maximum power of 87 ps @ 6,000 RPM and torque of 12.2 nm @ 4,000 RPM, with 0-100 Kph acceleration rated at 15 seconds. Motor-driven power steering makes turning light, with a tight turning radius. LxWxH is 3,765 mm x 1,660 mm x 1,505 mm, with a wheelbase of 2,425 mm. Cargo space is measured at 1,202 liters.

The Grand i10’s Kappa motor comes in a mostly aluminum construction to minimize weight, resulting in the car’s having a curb weight of 941 to 998 Kg. In the Philippine market, the Grand i10’s starting price is PhP 538,000 (US$ 12,155) for the base model, climbing up to PhP 688,000 (US$ 15,544) for the top-spec model. The difference comes mainly in the following:

• 1.2 L vs. 1.0 L displacement
• Alloy wheels vs. Steel with full wheelcap
• Electrically-actuated folding side mirrors
• Rear parking assist (Camera- and radar-assistance)

Note that Hyundai actually had to reprice the Grand i10, perhaps to better compete against the 3-cylinder Toyota Wigo and Mitsubishi Mirage, which have taken over Manila streets of late.

Design, comfort and amenities

The Hyundai Grand i10 has more than the usual small-car amenities that you would wonder why these don’t already come standard even on bigger cars. The touchscreen LCD makes navigating the entertainment system a breeze. Shift to Reverse and you get a rear-view camera. You even get push-to-start ignition.

Inside the cabin, space is what you would expect from a subcompact hatch — it will surely feel a bit claustrophobic if you’re more used to bigger sedans or SUVs. However, the ride is comfortable enough, with adequate NVH insulation and a supple suspension. Comparing the Grand i10 with the Honda Jazz, which we reviewed a few months back, I can say that the Grand i10 is surprisingly more comfortable.

I’m not too fond of the resistive nature of the 7-inch touchscreen, however, as it is sometimes inaccurate and would require repeated presses to register a touch. With the popularity of capacitive displays even on cheap tablets today, I wonder why Hyundai has to settle with a resistive screen. The lack of audio controls on the steering wheel can also be concerning, especially since Hyundai has already put in this level of kit on the Grand i10.

Unlike the Honda Jazz, the Grand i10’s seating design is more conventional, with the fuel tank situated right below the rear passenger bench. The rear backrest folds in full (no split), but it doesn’t fold flat. This can be quite limiting in terms of carrying big cargo like boxes or furniture. Legroom is comparable to most subcompact sedans — it’s evident that Hyundai put in the extra length into extending the rear passenger space.

Audio quality is acceptable, and you can plug in your phone or USB thumbdrive for MP3 playback. The car’s head unit also supports Bluetooth audio, enabling music playback from your smartphone and handsfree communication while driving.

The Grand i10 also comes standard with a navigation system. While apps like Waze and Google Maps are already formidable alternatives to a car-bound GPS navigation system, it’s good to know that Hyundai has incorporated a feature once reserved for more premium models (even the Nissan Altima that VR World reviewed in November did not have this feature).

The post Hyundai Grand i10: The Little Car That Could appeared first on VR World.

With over a million apps each on the Apple App Store and on Google Play, marketing one’s app must be tough business for any developer. With the multitude of copycat apps that essentially have similar functionalities, app developers will be lucky to have their offerings included in top and featured lists, whether in terms of downloads, ratings, reviews or revenues. How does one reach the tipping point, in which great traction — and organic revenue potential — will shortly come thereafter?

It seems developers are finding ways to game the system, in what can be considered shady practices or at least grey areas in building up the profile of one’s app. In a recent tweet, Hong Kong-based TapCase developer Simon Pang shares what appears to be a lady doing ratings and reviews on an array of tablets. Pang writes how “this is how App Store ratings work.”

This is how App Store ratings work. Welcome to the reality. pic.twitter.com/0MyHmTeqwE

— simonpang (@simonpang) February 2, 2015

Barry Mead of Fireproof Games tweets that “‘respected’ major developers use systems like these daily.”

This being Twitter, of course, there is no verification yet as to the original source of the image, and whether the photographed activity is, indeed, a pay-to-review or pay-to-rate service. However, it has shed some light into such practices that skew app store ratings, popularity, downloads and eventually revenues for these developers.

Wall Street Journal‘s Lisa Fleisher plans to dig deeper into the issue. But without prejudice to Fleisher’s journalistic work, we can already arrive at several questions and critiques with respect to how major app ecosystems are run.

Is it against policy? What is being done?

One might wonder whether Apple is aware of how developers are gaming its app discovery system. It’s reminiscent of how developers will jack up their app prices from $0.99 to $999 (the maximum that the App Store supports), and then having someone buy a copy of the app. Even as Apple gets a 30% share of the money, the app then gets a boost on the top paid apps list, after which the developer can revert the price back to $0.99. In essence, moneyed developers can shell out cash and then lose 30% of this value, but then get a potentially more popular (and revenue generating) application in return.

If pay-to-review farms are mass-producing ratings and reviews in exchange for pay, then it’s grossly unfair to developers who rely on organic reviews and ratings by actual users. Ratings affect discoverability and revenue potential. Developers can easily recoup their investment once they start getting millions of daily downloads.

Apple’s developer terms of service says this: “If you attempt to cheat the system (for example, by trying to trick the review process, steal data from users, copy another developer’s work, or manipulate the ratings) your Apps will be removed from the store and you will be expelled from the developer program.”

Google Play also has this to say in its developer program policies: “Developers must not attempt to change the placement of any Product in the Store, or manipulate any product ratings or reviews by unauthorized means such as fraudulent installs, paid or fake reviews or ratings, or by offering incentives to rate products.”

But “tricking the review process” and “manipulating the ratings” are quite broad terminology. Does it specifically ban paying someone to do manual reviews? Or does it only ban bots? Does it have a geographic dimension? And what does Apple do to apps that employed such practices, but then gained legitimate and organic ratings, reviews and downloads later on?

At least Google’s terminology explicitly calls out paid and fake reviews and ratings. The question is whether the app store ecosystems are actually doing concrete steps in going after violators.

Gaming and economics

This reminds me of the way people have gamed the big systems before. To wit:

• In the heyday of pay-per-click advertising, clickfraud was a big deal. But it did not prevent publishers from hiring third parties to do manual clicking to jack up revenue — or sometimes even to kill off competitors’ campaigns or screw with their ad budgets.
• Content farms used to be a popular way to earn millions. These companies paid measly cents for writers to churn out rehashed, SEO-friendly, but questionable quality articles, and then earn from the ad placements. This was a viable business model until Google pulled the plug with various search algorithm updates that ended up hurting both content farms and valid publications.
• While trading virtual goods with real money may be against the policies of most games, it has not stopped companies from doing “gold farming” activities — something that has implications not only within the dynamics of MMORPGs, but also development economics, as well (e.g., buyers tend to be from developed countries, while players who play to sell items come from emerging economies).
• Today, viral sites have the habit of ripping off content from other sources (in which the originating source is rarely credited), adding clickbait headlines for the benefit of social sharing, and earning from advertisements. Facebook has recently attempted to curtail these practices through algorithm changes, but viral junk still remains in our newsfeeds.

The common denominator among these examples is money. Where there is potential money involved, then people will tend to find ways to game the system for their economic advantage. Never mind user experience, content quality or business ethics.

Given that “respected major developers” are said to be doing this, can we still trust app store ratings and discovery mechanisms?

Feature image credit: Bloomua / Shutterstock.com

The post Gaming the App Store: Modern Day Clickfraud? appeared first on VR World.

Developers of wearable technology have been gaining inroads into consumer end-markets, with the likes of virtual reality glasses, smart watches, fitness bands and other such devices becoming increasingly available and affordable. While the likes of the upcoming Microsoft HoloLens and AppleWatch bode well for consumer-facing products, the bigger potential is for platform and hardware makers that stand to gain from the boom in this space, just like how Qualcomm experienced a renaissance with the rise of ARM-based computing in mobile devices. One such startup that will stand to gain with the rise of wearable computing is Tel Aviv-based LifeBEAM, which designs and builds wearable instruments for measuring human performance.

Aerospace tech made accessible

LifeBEAM’s main products are hats and helmets with built-in heart rate and performance trackers. The novelty is with the fact that the technology behind these devices originated from the aerospace industry, in particular fighter pilot helmets. The startup is actually founded by former Israeli air force pilots who aimed to incorporate military technology into consumer products. Trackers embedded on these headgear help reduce the discomfort and weight associated with cyclists’ and runners’ having to wear chest straps for electro-cardiogram needs.

The startup launched its first product through a crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo in 2013, and marginally exceeded its goal by 29%. The company also provides its bio-sensing technologies to other brands and partners. In November, it was announced that Samsung has picked LifeBEAM’s technology as one of the sensors that will power its Simband, which is the Korean company’s reference design for upcoming health-tracking wearables.

Finding the right form factors

For LifeBEAM, it’s a big deal to find the right form factors to build its technology into. “Our challenge is to keep finding ways to integrate our bio sensing technology into real products that users want,” says Omri Yoffe, LifeBEAM founder, in an interview with VR World. “This keeps us at the front line as a company who understands both the barriers and opportunities in these different wearable form factors and possible products and content to be created out of them.”

According to Yoffe, there are certain industries that more easily warm to wearable technologies, although it may not be fair to identify any single industry that is dominant. For the  company, leading consumer brands are a good place to start when looking for trends in this industry. “The emerging wave of wearable technologies popular in the last year or so apply to consumer lifestyle, safety and security, enterprises, health and such industries,” he says. “There are different barriers to entry and key factors, such as policy, privacy and pricing, at play.”

Finding the right applications

Yoffe says there will always be early adopters and that “the most natural place to start with should be the leading consumer brands that will look for feasible ways of implementing wearable technology into their current and future products and services.” He adds that “the goal is to provide more value to the users and consumers.”

According to Yoffe, health and fitness remain to be at the forefront of wearables, because of the relevance of bio- and motion-sensing technologies to this industry. “Looking at 2014 and seeing the main trends for 2015, there is no doubt that the well-being and fitness markets are currently pioneering vehicles for wearable technology adoption, because these provide the target users a real and valuable way to track their personal wellness and well-being.” he says. “This is done in a relatively seamless and convenient, but still fashionable way,” he adds.

A focus on user experience

There are still challenges, however. For LifeBEAM, these include optimizing devices for the component sizes, connectivity, convenience and wearability. “Smart textile production also involves questions about washability and pricing,” Yoffe says, adding that even power consumption and the “lack of new disruptive and mature charging technologies” can also be an issue that builders of wearable tech need to address.

But going beyond devices and sensors, the wearable technology needs to take into account user experience. “We need ways to provide users a simplified, unified and insightful feedback mechanism, without the need for extra effort in terms of both wearing a designated wearable form factor (such as wrist bands) and the need to drill down into lots of saturated data and statistics.”

Beyond glasses and watches

The future is not necessarily about watches and glasses. Yoffe says that segmentation borders between two major groups. First is wearable and sensing tech embedded into clothing and apparel. “Wearable sensing solutions are invisibly implemented into all sorts of wearable gear apparel, with focus on low power consumption and wireless connectivity to a display-enabled device and/or the cloud.”

The second group involves purpose-built devices. “These are consumer electronics — watches, earbuds, phones and maybe a bit of smart glasses — participating as the user’s data aggregation, display and communication ‘hub’ to be able to simplify data collection and pitch the data to the user in real time.”

At this point, the job of companies that produce wearable tech is to make this technology more accessible to the end user — in essence making it invisible so it becomes more easily integrated into our lives, Yoffe says. “We need more focus on the UX and the ability to provide the end user an insightful, meaningful, simplified and unified feedback about his daily activity and personal well-being, and less focus on the raw bio-sensing parameters the and other more techy parts.”

The post LifeBEAM: User Experience Should be Focus of Wearable Tech appeared first on VR World.

When Microsoft launched the Lumia 535, its first branded smartphone after absorbing Nokia’s mobile and services division, the strategy had become clear: that the company will start focusing on the low-end in its quest to gain market share in the smartphone industry. This has been further cemented with the announcement of the Lumia 435 and 532, budget Windows Phone 8.1 smartphones clearly targeted at the masses — the devices are even priced lower. After all, a core focus for the company is “connecting the next billion people to the Internet.”

Outside of smartphones, Microsoft also has the Nokia 215 up its sleeve — a sub-$30 feature phone that will enable access to apps like Facebook Messenger and Opera Mini. This is clearly aimed at emerging markets, where the priority is to connect people through mobile Internet, even if it’s through a small screen and slow transfer speeds.

Priced at about $120 unlocked, the Microsoft Lumia 535 seems to strike a balance between the low-end and mid-range. Microsoft markets it as having a “555” strategy, offering a 5-inch touchscreen display, 5-megapixel main camera and 5-megapixel wide-angle front camera for selfies.

As with most entry-level devices, it’s not exactly stellar in terms of specs and design. But being a Windows Phone, performance is decent even this low in the price and spec range. A clear advantage over the Lumia 530 and 520 it replaces in this segment are the bigger screen and better camera. While the user experience is decent, I do have some gripes with the screen being washed out — something common in this price range for Lumia devices. With this pricing, there has to be some compromise in component quality.

Specs

The Microsoft Lumia 535 is powered by a quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 200 Cortex A7 clocked at 1.2 GHz. Display is powered by an Adreno 302 GPU, outputting 540×960 pixels onto a 5-inch screen. This results in a PPI of approximately 222. The devices comes with 8GB of flash storage, with the system eating up about half. Good news for photo and music junkies: the device supports miroSD cards up to 128GB. Storage is augmented by 15GB of OneDrive storage — Microsoft account holders who have activated auto backup in September 2014 will have up to 30GB free.

The 535 thankfully has 1GB of RAM, which should improve app performance over previous entry-level devices. Even the “affordable flagship” Lumia 830 ships with 1GB, so raw performance can be comparable, memory-wise.

The Lumia 535 comes with a 1,905 mAh removable battery, which is rated at 552 hours standby and 11 or 13 hours talk time (2G and 3G, respectively). In real-world scenarios, however, I would usually get about 55 hours standby time on this device, with a few calls, news reading and and Skype chats.

Our review device is the Dual SIM variant, which means you can use two SIM cards simultaneously — a great way to reduce device clutter in your purse or pocket, or at least get more than one active line on the phone, whether from the same or different networks. It’s a handy feature whilst roaming — you can keep your current number and also use a local prepaid SIM to save on data, SMS and call costs.

Comparing it with the Lumia 530 it replaces, the 535 is certainly an improvement, although the devices sport basically the same procssor. You can see VR World‘s review of the Lumia 530 from a few months back.

Design and User Experience

The 535 sports the familiar Lumia design — polycarbonate removable back cover that comes in bright colors. The phone comes in orange, green, black and white, with the latter two coming in matte, while the more colorful ones in shiny finish. Our review unit was orange, and while the shiny plastic can be a fingerprint magnet, it’s also provides better grip, which should help reduce accidental drops.

Button layout should also be familiar to longtime Lumia users, with all keys at the right side of the phone: volume rocker at the top and sleep/power button at the middle. Sorry, no dedicated camera button here. Microsoft has done away with the dedicated capacitive softkeys, with on-screen soft keys that can be hidden and shown with a swiping-up motion. This can take some getting used to, especially for those more familiar with fixed capacitive touch keys.

Screen is a bit washed out in direct sunlight

The 3.5 mm audio jack is at the center top, while the USB port is at the center bottom. Pretty standard stuff, unlike the Lumia 830 we earlier reviewed, which had the USB port at the top.

The box comes with Microsoft-branded earphones, Microsoft-branded wall charger and a USB cable. Everything looked suspiciously the same as Nokia’s bundled accessories, only they now carry Microsoft branding.

The post Microsoft Lumia 535: Budget Smartphone Done Right appeared first on VR World.

Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) has reported its best fiscal quarter ever, with revenue and profit figures surpassing analyst expectations. The numbers speak for themselves, both in nominal terms and with respect to year-on-year growth. In fact, this is the most profitable quarter in corporate history, surpassing the quarterly earnings records of Gazprom, Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil, which were previously in the top three.

For the first fiscal quarter of 2015 (ending December 31, 2014), Apple reports a quarterly profit of $18 billion from revenue of $74.6 billion, a year-on-year revenue growth of 29.5% and profit growth of 27.2%. In this fiscal quarter, diluted earnings per share (EPS) of $3.06, a 47.8% increase from last year’s $2.07 diluted EPS. This surpasses analyst expectations of $2.60 earnings per share.

Guidance for second fiscal quarter indicates that Apple is likely to earn $52 to $55 billion in revenue. The company has announced cash dividends of $0.47 per share, payable in February.

In this quarterly report, we can glean a few things about Apple’s business so far. In gist, the company performs well during holiday seasons. The iPhone has been the biggest driver of revenue for the company in this quarter, so far, even amid the iPhone 6 having a slow start. The iPad, however, has performed dismally. And in a surprising twist, China has become a big driver of growth for the company, even with some initial hiccups in the launch and sales of the iPhone 6.

iPhone in the stocking. Apple’s best quarters prior to this one had been the first quarters of fiscal years 2012, 2013 and 2014, which fall in the months of October through December. This suggests that, as expected, holiday sales are a big revenue driver.  For Q1 FY2015, Apple sold 74.5 million iPhones, up from 51 million in the same period last year — a 46% year-on-year growth.  This is the first full fiscal quarter after Apple launched the iPhone 6 and 6 plus, and even with some initial concerns about the whether the bigger form factor of the plus will sell, as well as supply issues at the start of the iPhone 6’s product cycle, sales figures for Apple’s smartphones will suggest that it’s a runaway hit.

Will the iPad be sustainable? The short answer is “yes” — at least Apple CEO Tim Cook thinks so. For this quarter, iPad sales actually fell 21% year-on-year, which may be an indication that the company’s latest tablet lineup has weakened, even as the prices for previous-generation iPad Air and iPad Mini models have been reduced. One school of thought will say that iPad sales are being cannibalized by the iPhone 6 Plus on the low-end and the MacBook air on the higher-end. However, Cook is still optimistic about the product line, and that these sales figures are still within expected range. Cook admits that “the upgrade cycle is longer” compared to smartphones, speaking during investor guidance. “I believe that over long arc of time that the iPad is the great business, I also have visibility obviously of what’s in the pipeline and feel very, very good about that,” he adds.

Scaling the great wall. Apart from record-breaking revenues and profits in the past quarter, Apple is also seeing promise in a market that had been considered difficult for western firms to break into: China. Today’s largest economy is also the fastest-growing market for Apple’s goods. Revenue for this market amounts to $16.1 billion, comprising 21% of the company’s earnings during the period. This is a 70% growth from the same quarter in Fiscal Year 2014, and a 157% quarter-on-quarter growth.

This means Apple was able to bounce back after a disappointing iPhone 6 launch, in which the product was severely delayed in the market. Another feather on Apple’s cap: the iPhone has taken top spot in smartphone shipments in China, according to Canalys, even beating Xiaomi.

Watch out for April. Since taking over the reins, there has always been question whether Tim Cook will live up to his predecessor’s legacy. It was, after all, during the second tenure of Steve Jobs as chief executive when Apple bounced back with the iMac, then followed up by other revolutionary products like the iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air and the like. This record quarter is testament to Cook’s ability as a strategist, even as Apple has only been continuing existing product lines, so far.

This April, however, Apple expects to launch its first wearable, the Apple Watch. “The creativity and software innovation going on around Apple Watch is incredibly exciting and we can’t wait for our customers to experience them when Apple Watch becomes available,” says Cook. It may be argued that Apple is already coming late in the smartwatch game. But perhaps the quality of the platform and ecosystem will be the main differentiator, just as the apps and the App Store had been a game changer in the smartphone industry in 2007. “The number of developers that are writing apps more for it are impressive and we’re seeing some incredible innovation coming out there,” Cook adds.

Will 2015 be Tim Cook’s year? With an expanding business, impressive cash stockpile and an ambitious foray into the wearables market, it looks like an exciting year ahead for Apple.

The post Apple’s Q1 FY2015: Most Profitable Quarter in Corporate History appeared first on VR World.

It’s no question that social networking has had a significant impact in the way people communicate today. While email had been the killer app of the Internet in the mid-1990s, and thereafter search and then user-generated content, we live in an era in which connectedness plays a highly significant role in both online and real-world economies.

Such is the case with Facebook (NASDAQ:FB), which recently claimed it has generated $227 billion in economic impact globally in 2014, with 4.5 million jobs attributed to activity arising from Facebook use. This is, of course, distinct from the actual business that the company reports on its own. The economic impact is cited as activity borne out of using Facebook as a platform for commerce, or at least as an enabler of business and business activities.

This figure is reported by a Deloitte study commissioned by Facebook itself. Indicators included the value of “Likes”, and the business generated by events organized through the platform, among others. The study even made a correlation between Facebook activity and smartphone sales. In fact, Deloitte attributes a sixth of the value of smartphone sales worldwide in 2014 to users’ desire for mobile access to the social network. “[I]t is assumed that 16% of the value from unique devices purchased in the given year which are used to access Facebook may be attributable to Facebook,” the study says.

Correlation vs. causality

Economists do agree that Facebook — and social networking in general — do have a positive economic impact to some extent. However, it is argued that the $227 billion figure may be overstated. Attributing smartphone sales figures to Facebook usage alone may likewise be unfair. There is a difference between correlation and causality, of course. While Deloitte (or Facebook) might argue that people want to buy smartphones to access Facebook, the reverse could also be the case — that more people are able to access Facebook due to the prevalence of cheap smartphones and data plans.

Causality is a point of contention here. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Stanford economist Roger Noll attributes Facebook’s meteoric rise as an effect of the growth in Internet usage, and not a cause. “Facebook is an effect, not a cause, of the growth of Internet access and use,” he says. Still, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg says the social network is one of the primary reasons people buy smartphones today, citing that Facebook access is “one of the main drivers of why people buy phones, particularly in the developing world.”

There is no question that Facebook is now a viable platform for B2C and even B2B marketing for anyone from small businesses to large enterprises. Businesses pay for sponsored listings. Facebook pays for wages, utilities and services. Facebook-owned startups and companies account for their own activities. Individuals get to use the platform to market their small businesses. Employers use Facebook to check out job applicants. It’s quite complicated to peg a value to all the business and economic activity arising from the social network itself.

Value added?

One thing that Facebook and Deloitte forgot to account for is the productivity loss that can be attributed to unnecessary Facebook and social network usage in the work setting. How many aggregate man-hours are lost from sharing viral cat videos, incessant selfie-posting, and falling victim to clickbait headlines and personal chats on company time? How much bandwidth do companies unnecessarily consume (and often pay for) with such activity? How many students waste valuable time stalking exes instead of studying for potentially better grades and subsequently improved earning potential in future? By some rough estimate, productivity loss can be estimated at around $28 billion annually. This is an un-scientific estimate, but the logic follows — there are both benefits and losses.

If anything, then the net economic impact of Facebook may be closer to neutral than the hundreds of billions a year that the company claims. There is increase in consumption and activity, but one might question the value added of these activities. Are we using Facebook to build things, or are we wasting our time on trivial pursuits through the platform?

The post Facebook Claims $227B Global Economic Impact, but Doubts Prevail appeared first on VR World.

Earlier this week, the BTC to US dollar exchange rate dipped below $200, a level unprecedented since the value of the cryptocurrency rose past $1,000 as an effect of its popularity as a fast and cheap means of online fund exchange. By January 15, the BTC:USD exchange was at about $170, thereafter hovering to around $200.

This is about an 82% drop in value since the currency’s peak of $1,130 in 2014, and about 76% drop in value since the same time in January 2014, during which BTC was at $850. Just mid-Devember, Bitcoin was trading at about $350, however, which means the drop was not as drastic month-on-month.

Bitcoin is sensitive to both positive and negative news about cryptocurrencies, and this drop has coincided with the opening statements of the criminal case against Ross Ulbricht, the alleged founder behind dark website Silk Road. In the same case, Mt. Gox founder Mark Karpeles has been implicated as having possible links to being Silk Road’s “Dread Pirate Roberts”.

Such severe fluctuations in Bitcoin’s value have mired the image of the cryptocurrency as unstable, and therefore inadequate as a form of monetary exchange. While fluctuations have been used by speculators as a means to gain from any rise in value, a decline in the price of BTC often results in negative repercussions, not only for those who hold on to Bitcoin in the hopes of the value appreciating, but also for the community surrounding the cryptocurrency, too.

Feeling the crunch

Startups and individuals that have invested in the cryptocurrency are feeling the crunch, however. Bitcon mining startup CEX.IO, for example, has temporarily suspended mining operations, citing that this is “the result of cloud mining costs exceeding mining profit.”

Bitcoin is not the only currency that is currently being hit hard with wide fluctuations. The Russian Ruble, for example, lost value in the wake of the Ukraine-related crisis, as well as embargoes imposed in relation to the issue. Even the Swiss Franc has sharply gained 20% in only a few days time due to the Swiss central bank’s lifting of the currency’s cap against the Euro.

This fluctuation has badly affected exporters and several hedge funds heavily invested into the Franc. Everest Capital’s Global Fund, which had about $830 million in assets as of end-2014, lost almost all its money with the Franc’s rise. FXCM reported having $225 million in “negative equity balances” from clients, necessitating a $300 million emergency loan to cover its losses. And this is all because of a supposedly stable currency suddenly gaining.

The future of Bitcoin

While the Bitcoin crash has spelled doom for some, others are unfazed. Jerry Brito has written on Wired, for example, that the price of Bitcoin does not matter at this time, as it is still in its early stages as a technology. He goes to cites parallels between Bitcoin and the Web, which suffered setbacks in its infancy, with the only difference being that Bitcoin comes with a dollar value attached to it. With a longer time-frame to consider, he says, short-term rallies and crashes should not mar Bitcoin’s potential as a technology, not just as a cryptocurrency.

For some, the inherent value of Bitcoin is not its tradable dollar value, but as a fast and inexpensive means of exchange. NewsBTC‘s Trevor Alpeter, for instance, has concerns with the price drops in the short term. However, he cites the possibility of better regulatory environment and support for Bitcoin, as well as an better acceptance among the venture capital community as potential drivers for growth in the long term. It’s the underlying technology that will ultimately spell long-term success for the cryptocurrency.

This has been demonstrated with how some startups have experimented with sidechains, considered to be a protocol for powering next-generation Internet services, and potentially unifying alternative cryptocurrencies, the so-called alt-coins.

Is this a sign of things to come for both financial markets and the cryptocurrency community? Perhaps these are unexpected shocks, but, at least for Bitcoin, there is hope that things will normalize in the end.

The post Bitcoin Dips Below $200, a Sign of Things to Come? appeared first on VR World.

Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) has announced the Lumia 435 and 532, two sub-$100 smartphones aimed at enabling Internet access for first-time smartphone users, especially in the emerging markets. The two devices will be powered by the latest Windows Phone 8.1 Denim, promising decent performance even at low price points.

Both devices will have a 4-inch 800×480 pixel screen, 1 GB of RAM and 8 GB of internal storage. While similar in form factor and in some specs, the two devices have their differences.  The Lumia 435 will feature a dual-core Snapdragon 201 chip and 2 megapixel camera and. The 532 will have a quad-core version of the same SoC, a 5 megapixel camera and support for the famed Glance screen feature. Both devices will come in single-SIM and dual-SIM configurations, with the latter being a popular feature in emerging markets.

The Lumia 435 will be priced at around $80, while the 532 will be around $95. According to Microsoft, the devices will be available in key markets in Europe, APAC and EMEA in February. As with most of Microsoft’s latest entry-level offerings, the devices are not likely to be marketed in the U.S.

This is not the first time Microsoft has announced a device meant to be accessible to the masses. The first Microsoft-branded Lumia — after its acquisition of Nokia’s mobile and services division — was the Lumia 535, a $120 device that touted as offering a “5-5-5″ experience: 5 megapixel main camera, 5 megapixel wide-angle selfie-friendly front camera, and a 5-inch screen. Microsoft also announced the Nokia 215, a sub-$30 Internet-capable feature phone.

A smartphone in every home

In its early days, Microsoft’s vision was to “a computer on every desk and in every home.” While the company has succeeded in making the desktop accessible to the masses, mobile devices are more dominant today. The Redmond company’s focus has shifted quite drastically: “to create a family of devices and services for individuals and businesses that empower people around the globe at home, at work and on the go, for the activities they value most.” While this might be a mouthful, the company’s strategy for mobile devices is quite simple. It wants to focus on “connecting the next billion people to the Internet.”

This strategy is evident with how Microsoft has started focusing on low-end Internet-capable devices. While flagship devices have highlighted the Lumia platform especially in Nokia’s heyday, Microsoft is adamant at releasing devices priced within reach of the masses. While the market has been flooded with likewise cheaply-priced Android devices, the advantage of Windows Phone would be the platform’s focus on providing an almost consistent level of usability, with even low-spec’d devices offering decent performance. Windows Phones also come rich with Microsoft’s productivity offerings like Office, OneDrive and Skype.

The question now is whether Microsoft will be successful in this strategy, especially with developer and app support being the main concern with the Windows Phone platform. A rich app ecosystem has made Android a runaway success for Google. Apple touts the quality of apps on its own ecosystem, as well as tight hardware-software integration as among its main selling points. Windows Phone does have its own fanbase, but at about 3.5% market share, Microsoft will, indeed, have to focus on the next billion, in order to shore up numbers for the platform.

The post Microsoft’s Most Affordable Lumia Smartphones: On to the Next Billion? appeared first on VR World.

We have seen quite a number of hardware and other creative projects launched at International CES that were backed by crowdfunding campaigns and other crowd-led initiatives. While crowdfunding does have its critics, it has become a viable source of market validation for startups and a means for jumpstarting an otherwise difficult-to-fund idea.

Who would have known that crowdsourcing is not exactly a new concept, however? In an interview with Priti Ambani, Global Media Director at Crowdsourcing Week, we learn that crowdsourcing is a social concept that is “probably as old as the human race.” Take for instance the collaborative economy of cooperatives formed by people with common causes as early as the 1930s. And who would forget the open source software initiative started in the 1980s? If anything, crowdsourcing is an effort that involves “basically harnessing collaboration to fill a need or solve a problem.”

But the term “crowdsourcing” has only recently come into limelight as a driver of growth and innovation, and one main difference today is the empowering nature of technology and connectivity highlighted by social media. These have enabled the crowd to solve large-scale problems. Ambani calls these “social productivity” and concepts like the opportunities and promise of the crowd economy will be highlighted at the 2015 Crowdsourcing Week Global conference in Singapore on April 20 to 24 this year.

VR World interviewed Ambani on the relevance of crowdsourcing, the issues surrounding this social phenomenon, and the future, especially in technology-oriented industries. Here are is an excerpt of the conversation.

Tell us more about crowd-sourcing. Is there any particular technology or infrastructure that has made crowdsourcing more accessible today than it was a few years ago?

Priti Ambani, Global Media Director, Crowdsourcing Week

Crowdsourcing is basically harnessing collaboration to fill a need or solve a problem. The practice is common and probably as old as the human race, but the terminology and frameworks have come into focus due to two main reasons: first, technology and connectivity powered by social media; second, the sheer potential of crowdsourcing to solve large-scale problems—the practice of problem-solving innovation, efficiency and finance, based on loose and open networks of both amateurs and professionals, powered by digital technologies, social media, web 2.0 applications or even analog communications. We call this social productivity.

Can you tell us any interesting origin stories of crowdsourcing from the past that may have an impact on how things are done today? I recall, for example, that in the 1980’s Sony tried to crowd-source its logo design, only to eventually settle on keeping the old logo.

One of the interesting stories back in 1938 is Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI)’s initiative on collaborative economy through a cooperative that has shared ownership and a democratic system. Through volunteerism, gear donations, education, and financial contributions, the members and community embraced lifetime outdoor adventure and responsible stewardship of the environment.

In the tech industry, crowdsourcing naturally sprung forth in 1980’s through sharing of ideas and knowledge among Net enthusiasts. These talented and motivated coders participated in open-source projects. The flow is simple: someone has an idea, he starts coding, releases it in public and invites his peers to contribute and make some tweaks on the project to develop and improve it.

Linus Torvalds’s Linux OS is an interesting origin story—he coded the program from scratch in 1991, and released the source code publicly. Hobbyists and interested programmers contributed to the development, and fast forward today, we are reaping the fruits of the crowdsourced efforts through the open-source project for having one of the world’s popular and growing OS desktop, sharing the market with Windows and Mac OS X.

WordPress is also one of the most stable CMS is an open-source project—the collaboration, talent of these coders, and their desire to create a structured personal CMS—without this platform, we’ll be publishing our content today at the backend manually with hardcore coding in HTML and CSS.

Sometimes it just all about engagement. Even if Sony did not adopt the crowdsourced logo, an exercise in crowdsourcing is critical for continuous brand engagement. And this real success story extends beyond brands to governments and social enterprises — democratic governments need to be close to the pulse of its citizens.

What is your opinion on crowdfunding as a means of financing startups? Does crowdfunding crowd out institutional investments? What can you say about the accountability of the owner of the crowd-funding campaign?

With donation-based crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter, IndieGogo, and GoFundMe, these sites make it easier  for startups to raise money; these are effective channels to target potential customers who are really interested to pledge financial donations in exchange for products/services. Crowdfunding can be a form of equity-based or donation-based, the former have people to contribute funds or acquire shares within the company, while the latter (like Kickstarter) is experiencing significant growth from the past couple of years. I believe that crowdfunding is here to stay, disrupting the traditional process of raising capital, which NGOs would definitely benefit from this economy, as well as startups and for-profit orgs. It is catalyzing a transformative shift across finance, business, marketing, government and more.

Among institutional and angel investors, I think there are numerable benefits of a hybrid model. For example, in Israel there are more than 500 venture financed startups and more than 1000 angel investors, and sites like OurCrowd does have strict accreditation criteria built within their system. These obviously build safeguards for potential investors. Crowdfunding is surely a risky proposition, hence education on startup finance, risks and returns is being circulated widely. Even donation-based platforms rely on trust and validation — as social reputation is at stake and is an added incentive for owners to be honest and proactive. With the growing number of startup companies, both types of investors aren’t just limited to investing in public stocks; they can help fund fast-growing companies as well.

Are there any inherent challenges in crowdsourcing? For instance, how do we ensure quality of crowdsourced information like Wikipedia? Or how do we resolve differences among open-source developers?

With crowdsourcing, the inherent challenges may include cultural, political and socio-economic diversity, and also that cultural gap between the way things are executed in the east and west. Other challenges I could think of include ethical and legal risks in creative crowdsourcing.

Motivated contributors create these Wikipedia articles and they are then curated, edited, corrected, and improved over time by the community itself like writers, editors, readers, and admins. On the backend the technological platform and the curator team try to ensure articles are factual and don’t violate copyrights. While anyone can contribute, there are admins who also control the quality and documents and modifications.

To mitigate the conflicts and resolve differences among open source developers, communication plays a vital role to finish the tasks—there must be a streamlined system of recorded logs of activities and settings, and discussions of task decomposition (dividing the work in smaller pieces) and coordination in their workload on a daily basis.

Above everything else there is the crowd! Mature crowd communities like the one on Wikipedia have the potential to  organically self-sustain and resolve conflicts. The onus on creating conditions favorable for a robust and fair community lies on the platform creators  / admins or curators.

Also, how do we ensure that companies that run crowd-sourced design contests don’t exploit the participants? It could be a cheap way of getting a lot of good designs, whilst only paying for one or two. How are these challenges resolved?

In the creative crowdsourcing ecosystem, the participants must be aware of the requirements or rules before submitting their designs to companies. Many a time, one can provide a working drawing with minimal use of time and resources. It’s advisable to choose to work on briefs from companies that provide a transparent contract on the allocation of ownership/IP rights. Crowdsourced design platforms provide dual rating systems and this is a great resource for potential designers to choose who they want to work for.  Like I mentioned earlier, the wonderful thing about crowdsourcing communities is the transparency and social reputation. This online trust is increasingly important to individuals and companies — and they are willing to work to earn and maintain it. The system also weeds out the bad actors.

Exploitation happens if there’s ignorance on both sides—participants and hosting companies should do “the right thing” and as these options of freelancing and platform work become more prevalent, we will see less exploitation and more opportunity. At Crowdsourcing Week, we want to educate both sides to come up with win-win solutions for healthy collaboration in all aspects.

The post Crowdsourcing Week: The Rise of the Crowd Economy appeared first on VR World.

Electric vehicles are not just about cars. At CES 2015, there are a handful of startups that feature electric-power on a smaller scale, such as in bicycles. One such product launching at the event is the Zboard 2, an electric skateboard that can go up to 20 mph speeds with a 16 to 24 mile range.

Zboard is a business that stemmed from two college students’s goal to simply create an easier way to go around campus. The team actually launched the first version of the Zboard  via crowdfunding in 2012, giving birth to what is now a successful business borne out of necessity. The second iteration of the team’s electric skateboard is lighter and more refined, with a few added features like two handles for easy carrying.

The Zboard 2 comes in two variants: the Blue Edition and Pearl Edition, costing $999 and $1,149 each on pre-order via the Indiegogo crowdfunding page. While the Pearl edition is marginally heavier (18 lbs vs. 16 lbs) than the Blue edition, it also comes with a bigger battery and slightly bigger wheels, which account for its increased range of 24 miles vis-a-vis the 18 mile range of the less expensive skateboard.

Still, both skateboards are quite capable for their weight, delivering speeds up to 20 mph through the personal vehicle’s 500 Watt brushless motor. One advantage of this second-generation Zboard is that the use of a brushless motor, which allows for natural coasting. Also, the brushless design also means the rider can push off with the power turned off or when the Zboard runs out of battery power.

Another advantage of the new design is that the Zboard 2 is waterproof, enabling riders to go through damp or wet surfaces, without worry about damaging the electronics. The skateboard’s LED lights at the front and back also offer added safety whilst boarding in the dark.

The company has showcased the Zboard 2 at CES, and an Indiegogo campaign is currently ongoing, with the team raising 235% of its $50,000 goal in just a couple of days. The early bird prices are sold out, however. But backers can still save at least $250 off of the retail prices once the company starts delivering in June.

The post CES 2015: Zboard 2 Electric Skateboard Debuts, Gets Crowdfunded on Day 1 appeared first on VR World.

Crowdfunding, while having its detractors and disadvantages, remains to be a viable means of funding projects, especially for startups that need to validate their business ideas. In 2014, Kickstarter, one of the foremost destinations for crowdfunding creative projects, reports having funded a total of 22,252 projects. This is a 10% growth in the number of successfully crowdfunded projects, compared with 2013.

In a year-end report, the crowdfunding platform saw a total of $529 billion in pledges, or about $1,000 per minute in promised funding from backers. Of this amount, funded projects amount to $444 million — the platform only charges backers for projects that successfully meet their funding goals. 2014 also marks the year when Kickstarter breached the $1 billion pledge level.

Kickstarter showcased several highlights in year-end feature, which included innovations like a working hoverboard, an Oscar-nominated film, music album launches, Chinese language learning program, a Raspberry Pi-based DIY computer kit and various design works. The company also showcased partnerships, interactions and human connections made along the way.

Successful projects are not limited to technology, but this category dominated in terms of pledge amount with $125 million in pledges. However, the tech category only had 1,124 successful projects, while others dominated in number, such as music (4,009 funded projects), film & video (3,846) and publishing (2,064).

Kickstarter made project submission easier in 2014,  no longer requiring pre-approval for projects. That move opened the possibility for more innovative — sometimes downright crazy — projects, although the platform still adheres to three basic rules: that a project creates and shares something, that it must be honest and clearly presented, and that it cannot involve charity, financial incentives or prohibited items.

In 2014, 3.3 million backers pledged funding, a 10% growth from the previous year’s 3 million. According to Kickstarter, a clear majority, 2.2 million, are first-time backers, which indicates that the crowdfunding platform is gaining more interest from new users. However, it may also indicate that more experienced backers may already be experiencing what is known as “backer fatigue”.

Top-backed projects include the Reading Rainbow project, a “21st Century” Cooler and sandbox game Kingdom Come: Deliverance. Kickstarter also offers a few statistics, including the time of the day when most pledges are made (early afternoon), top day of the week (Wednesday), and others, which potential project-starters may find interesting.

Featured image: Tony Hawk rides the Hendo Hoverboard, a hoverboard and developer kit project, which was successfully funded as of December 15, 2014

The post Kickstarter: 3.3M Backers Funded 22K Projects in 2014 appeared first on VR World.

Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) has been playing catch-up with Android and iOS in terms of smartphone platforms, with Windows Phone trailing the top mobile OSes as a distant third wheel. The Redmond company has so far shifted its strategy to focus on the emerging and entry-level markets in pushing Windows Phone, as evident with the Lumia 535, the first Microsoft-branded handset to launch after the company’s acquisition of Nokia’s handset division.

There’s more to the company’s focus on the low-end market, it seems. Even before Microsoft’s acquisition, Nokia had been moving at least 200 million feature phones annually, mostly in emerging markets around the globe, with success. Banking on the strong Nokia brand and the design philosophy that has been attached to it, Microsoft has announced a sub-$30 feature phone with Internet connectivity, aimed at bringing the mobile Internet to the masses.

The Nokia 215 is limited to 2G connectivity, but users aren’t expected to be heavy data consumers. The device will ship with the Opera Mini browser, Bing search, MSN Weather, Twitter (NYSE:TWTR) and Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) apps for the Nokia Series 30 platform. The 215 will also ship with Facebook Messenger, which is supposedly capable of instant notifications. This could be a game changer in markets where SMS is still the dominant means of exchanging text messages. Facebook has been heavily promoting its standalone Messenger app, and the Nokia 215 would contribute to Messenger’s market share.

Like many entry-level Nokias, the device has a built-in flashlight, FM radio and MP3 playback capability. The Nokia 215 also comes with a front-facing VGA camera. All this comes in a candybar package with a 2.4-inch QVGA display. Microsoft will also ship two variants of the 215: one with single-SIM capacity and another with dual-SIM, which is a popular feature in emerging markets.

The specs are not to die for, but this means the device can last very long even with its paltry 1,100 mAh battery. The single-SIM variant can last for 29 days on standby, while the dual-SIM variant has a 21-day standby rating.

“The Nokia 215 is perfect for people looking for their first mobile device, or those wanting to upgrade to enjoy affordable digital and social media services, like Facebook and Messenger,” says Jo Harlow, corporate vice president of Microsoft Devices Group. Perhaps for people who already own more expensive and more capable smartphones, the 215 will be a novelty item or a great backup phone for when your iPhone, Android or Lumia runs out of battery in the middle of your commute.

With the Nokia 215, Microsoft may have found the best recipe for connecting people (which is Nokia’s tagline and even its mission statement, by the way) without breaking the bank. While Nokia has been shipping sub-$30 devices for years now, it is only now that the brand will have an Internet-capable device at this price point. According to Microsoft, it will start shipping the Nokia 215 in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and certain European markets starting Q1 of 2015. However, the 215 will notably be missed in the Americas.

The post CES 2015: Nokia 215 is Microsoft’s Cheapest Internet-Capable Phone at $29 appeared first on VR World.

Bitcoin is gaining momentum in the mainstream market with the listing of an exchange-traded fund on the Nasdaq. The Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust ETF will list 1 million shares under the COIN symbol at an initial public offering price of $20.09 per share.

Entrepreneurs Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss have had prior experience with Bitcoin startups, having invested in the now-defunct BitInstant, which provided a means of paying for purchases through the cryptocurrency. The Winklevoss twins — more popularly known for their involvement in the founding of Facebook (NASDAQ:FB), and the resulting lawsuits over ownership — have likewise once claimed to own 1% of all Bitcoins as of 2013. The listing of the ETF has been in the works since 2013, with the first filing having been made in July that year.

According to the prospectus (PDF), the final version of which was submitted to the SEC on December 30, 2014, the ETF’s aim is to reflect the performance of Bitcoin. “The investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the price of Bitcoins, as measured by the Winklevoss Index (“Winkdex”), less the Trust’s expenses,” it says. The Index is based on an algorithm developed by the brothers, which monitors the price of Bitcoin in real time.

The ETF will essentially enable individuals and entities with a brokerage account to invest in Bitcoin without having to hold on to the cryptocurrency itself, which may include challenges in buying, storing and safekeeping the coins. Another advantage is that the value of the ETF shares will be based on a consolidated Bitcoin price based on different exchanges around the world, which often differs in exchange rate and accessibility. And while individuals can already use and exchange Bitcoins through wallets and online exchanges, investors might not necessarily have the time nor technical know-how in doing these.

To date, investing in Bitcoin can come in the form of mining for coins (which requires significant investment in hardware infrastructure), or earning from the spread that ensues with price fluctuations. For investors, the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust will provide various strategies, such as short selling or trading the shares on margin. The ETF will also enables brokerages to buy or sell options. One longer-term benefit for the cryptocurrency and the community surrounding it is that Bitcoin gets exposure to mainstream investors and could bolster stability in its value and usage.

The SEC was earlier reported to have had positive reception of the Bitcoin ETF, noting that the fund could potentially bring stability to Bitcoin as an investment instrument and virtual currency.

The post Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust ETF To List 1M Shares on NASDAQ appeared first on VR World.

There had been a time when the International CES trade show was considered to be waning, when technology companies chose to launch products and technologies on their own terms and in their own events. Even Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) pulled out as keynote presenter after 12 years, signalling what could possibly be the end of an era for consumer electronics.

But with the Internet-of-Things and mobility on the rise, hardware and consumer electronics have become in vogue again. This year, CES continues to give a nod to startups from around the world that aim to catch the attention of potential partners, investors, media and users, with interest in hardware, software, platforms and other technologies that aim to catch on with mass appeal.

If you’re attending CES in Las Vegas this coming week, or perhaps simply observing the keynotes and presentations from online sources, you will want to note that the Eureka Park Marketplace — the event’s official startup-centric exhibit — is now 59% larger in terms of floor space compared with 2014. This year also features a concentrated exhibit from Israel and France, which have quite a big representation of up-and-coming tech firms, compared with other countries. In total, there will be at least 370 startup companies showcasing their wares at CES this year at Eureka Park alone. This does not count events run in the sidelines, as well as startups sponsored by the academe and other organizations that will vie for exhibition space through startup competitions.

Here are a few startups that might be of interest:

Virtuix Omni. This VR startup first caught attention at CES last year as a viable companion to VR goggles like the Oculus Rift. The Omni is a platform that enables users to “walk” around a virtual environment through special shoes and a slippery surface. At CES this year, Virtuix is launching what will be the final or release version of the Omni, which should hopefully be available to consumers who want that full-on VR experience.

Be warned, though: using the Omni involves being strapped into the contraption with a diaper-like harness, which may be uncomfortable or even embarrassing. But we can see the multitude of applications here, including from gaming to military/situational training or even virtual tours.

Butterfleye. Connected homes have been yet another highlight of the previous year’s CES, and the trend seems to be continuing this year. According to Butterfleye, Dropcam was just the beginning of consumer-grade (and often also SME-oriented) Internet-connected cameras. Butterfleye ups the ante with what it considers an intelligent algorithm, combining several sensors (infrared, thermal, motion, light, sound, WiFi) to activate. It is also wireless and cordless, enabling users to situate the device anywhere at the home or office. We only hope it won’t be used by unscrupulous individuals for spying.

Carbon Flyer. Launched as an Indiegogo project, the Carbon Flyer is a $190 crash-proof drone built from carbon-fiber and designed with a low-drag, high-speed delta-wing shape. The drone is controlled by smartphone via Bluetooth. This poses range questions, of course. And even if the drone itself is resistant to crashes, we can’t guarantee it won’t cause trouble for stuff it crashes into.

Connected Cycle. Not everyone drives or rides a car to work, school or to get around town. For avid cyclists, Connected Cycle incorporates smart features into any bike through a custom pedal, which automatically records speed, routes, elevation and calories burnt. It even alerts users if one’s bike is stolen, and users can track the whereabouts of the bike through a smartphone app.

Empire Robotics. One inherent advantage of humans over other beings is our use of opposable thumbs, which enables us to handle objects and tools (not to mention use touchscreen smartphones). Robots may not be that articulate, though, given differences in how the human hand and skin grips even odd-shaped objects. Empire Robotics wants to change this by incorporating a ball-like device called the VersaBall, which offers a flexible and secure grip for objects of various sizes.

FlyKly. FlyKly’s Smart Wheel converts any bike into a pedal-assisted electric bike which gives a boost up to 25 Km/h for 40 miles on a single charge. The trick is to replace the rear wheel with FlyKly’s wheel, which also comes with a smartphone app for location, performance and charge tracking. Now if only FlyKly can design a similar wheel that can convert any car or motorcycle into a hybrid.

Genisyss. If it sounds like the title of an upcoming SciFi film with futuristic/time travel themes, it’s somewhat close. This startup has developed a “DNA capsule” that essentially stores your DNA information into a thumb drive sized devices, in which you can store samples of your DNA. Perhaps one day, when scientists discover how to clone human beings or parts (which comes with big moral repercussions, of course), these tools might come in handy.

Know Roaming. For frequent travelers, roaming can be expensive, and switching to a local prepaid SIM is a better option to save on costs (and sometimes to get better service). But switching SIMs can be an inconvenience, and not all phones support dual SIM setups. Know Roaming is an add-on sticker that goes on top of your existing SIM in a one-time application. It will then determine whether you’re at your home country or network, or roaming, and will use either your default network or its own prepaid roaming network accordingly.

My Brain Tech. Noting how stressful life can be, this startup has designed a product called Melomind, which helps get rid of stress through a mix of sounds and other stimulus. We reckon the helmet can also be tweaked to magnify your telekinetic powers and prevent telepaths from accessing your thoughts. Kidding, of course.

PetCube. There are connected cars, connected homes, connected devices, and now connected pets. PetCube is a device that lets users monitor their pets and even talk to them remotely. It also comes with a laser pointer that helps you keep kitty engaged.

Umoove. This startup has developed precise facial and eye tracking technology with the use of any camera, mobile devices included. According to the company, applications include gaming and other fields that require the study of eye and facial movements (including advertising and marketing, of course).

These companies and technologies are just a drop in the bucket amongst startups and established firms that will have a presence at the International CES this week. From the sampling, there is an indication that the Internet of Things and connected devices will continue to have a strong following. The question, however, is which technologies will actually gain traction and get good execution after CES.

Stay tuned for more as VR World covers the event on the ground.

The post CES 2015: Startups to Watch Out For appeared first on VR World.