Gear 2 Is the Wearable Samsung Should Have Shipped the First Time

by Lance Ulanoff

It’s not news that Samsung likes to throw a lot of products at the wall, and see what sticks. But when it came to the original Samsung Galaxy Gear wearable device, the strategy was even more aggressive: Rush the product to market, even if one or two of its design decisions made absolutely no sense.

Having seen and touched the elegant, new Samsung Gear 2, I am more convinced of this than ever. While not perfect, it is definitely the product Samsung should have released the first time around.

 The Gear 2 is lighter, thinner, more powerful, offers a better screen, much, much better battery life, and a sharper, more elegant watch-like profile. Most importantly, there's a camera on the watch itself, rather than the wristband.

Why didn’t Samsung ship this version of the Gear in 2013? I blame Samsung’s Crazy Artist Syndrome.

Think of Samsung as a great, slightly manic sculptor who likes working out in the open: see the work-in-progress! He can’t help but rapidly deliver unfinished works to his patrons, one after the other. Each is slightly different and better than the last, but those who bought the early stuff grow increasingly frustrated as they see the later, far more polished results.

Instead of apologizing to the customers or advising them to postpone purchase, the artist simply delivers a revision many months later.

So Much Better

As I was playing with the Gear 2 and quizzing a couple of Samsung representatives about the new product at the New York City launch event on Monday, I joked that I was sad to see the camera move off the watch band. One laughed knowingly, but the other, who could not see the grin on my face, asked in all earnestness, “Really? Why?”

I told him I was kidding, and appreciated it the moment Samsung made the official announcement at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. Moving the camera and wiring out of the band meant you can change or replace the band.

That exec at MWC said almost exactly what I had told Samsung’s PR people last year in private meetings. The company had to know this was a terrible idea when they were shipping the first Gear, and yet they went ahead with it anyway. When I told the Samsung rep that I always thought that putting the camera on the band was an incredibly bad idea, he replied: “but look how far we’ve come in five months.”

He’s right, of course. Samsung has made remarkable progress in a very short period of time. But if you know anything about product development cycles, you know that this edition — complete with a heart rate monitor (on the back), different operating system (Tizen) and a monumentally better second-gen super AMOLED screen — must have been underway even before Samsung released the first Gear.

Why didn’t Samsung wait? The reviews for the first product, especially from women, were not kind. Wouldn’t it have been better to avoid that kind of pain, retain its reputation, and deliver a product that could make even the forever-working-on-a-wearable Apple sit up and take notice?

Work Remains

I am not saying the Gear 2 is a perfect device. Though it is thinner and lighter than before, the Gear 2 had to share the stage with Samsung’s Gear Fit — which, to be honest, stole the show.

The Fit is, as you would guess, is a fitness band; it features the world’s first curved Super AMOLED screen on a wearable. It’s light, fun, sexy, and could be the breakout star of Mobile World Congress. It also highlights what Gear 2 is not: curved and jewelry-like.

Samsung also revealed yet another Gear: the Gear 2 Neo. It’s a camera-free version that lacks some of the Gear 2’s stylish lines; it is likely there to satisfy budget-conscious consumers. By the way, neither Gear 2 model offers much variety when it comes to band options. You get a couple of color choices, but all are rubber and have the same crosshatch texture.

Even with this Gear overhaul, one very big question remains: How much? With the Neo and Fit likely to get $199 and $149 price tags respectively, the full-featured Gear 2 will probably cost nearly $250. That may be about $50 too expensive for most consumers. But if Samsung offers an attractive Galaxy S5 bundle price, they still might have a wearable success on their hands. And on ours, for that matter.

But if you don’t like this Gear, wait five months — the Gear 3 is surely waiting in the wings.

Facebook Flip-Flops on Messenger After WhatsApp Acquisition

by kurt wagner

it was just four months ago that Facebook updated its standalone messaging app, Messenger, with the goal of making the user experience more like texting.

That task appears to be easier said than done. Facebook's $19 billion acquisition of messaging app WhatsApp on Wednesday effectively confirmed that Messenger didn't live up to the task, at least not outside the U.S.

With the acquisition, Facebook has started preaching a very different strategy for Messenger than was outlined just four months ago.

With the Messenger update in October, Facebook opened messaging to all its users' mobile contacts, not just those on Messenger. Users needed only to add their phone numbers within the app. Messenger was redesigned to look like a standard text message inbox, and messages were delivered more quickly than before, according to Facebook product managers.

The app even had icons to alert users if they were sending a message to someone on mobile instead of their Facebook inbox. The update, in short, was intended to produce a real rival to SMS — not to mention WhatsApp.

"All of our changes around the new Messenger are about making it a mobile-to-mobile experience, so that I know I can dependably reach you instantly," Peter Martinazzi, Messenger product manager at Facebook, told Mashable last October. "If you're on Messenger, its going to go to your phone and you're going to treat it just like you would SMS, as a high priority mobile to mobile message."

Fast forward to Wednesday, when Mark Zuckerberg discussed WhatsApp with investors and mentioned Messenger frequently. Gone was the comparison to SMS. Messenger was suddenly an app for casual conversations between Facebook friends.

Messenger "evolved from Facebook chat, which was more instant messaging, not SMS," said Zuckerberg. "It's widely used today for chatting with your Facebook friends, and a lot of the messages people send are not real-time. Someone will send someone a message like a more informal email and then expect a reply later in the day."

So what happened? Facebook simply bought a better way to capture the global messaging audience, which WhatsApp reaches. In the 10 days leading up to Wednesday's acquisition, WhatsApp was the top social networking app on iOS every day but one in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy, according to App Annie.

"Facebook tends to be floppy," says Gartner analyst Brian Blau. "They try one thing, it doesn't work out, then they immediately try something else. It's how Facebook tries to innovate."

It would be hard to see Messenger disappearing anytime soon, Blau added. It seems likely that Facebook was simply hedging its bets — building an app to compete with WhatsApp while simultaneously pursuing it.

Regardless of the reason, it appears that Messenger has been relegated back to its original use case — casual conversations between Facebook friends. Because if you can't beat 'em, buy 'em.

Will WhatsApp Reach 1 Billion Users Faster Than Facebook Did?

by kurt wagner

it appears that the billion-user club is about to get a new member.

Facebook announced the acquisition of messaging app WhatsApp on Wednesday, a deal worth up to $19 billion in cash and stock that puts serious muscle behind Facebook's international reach.

In a call with investors to outline the acquisition, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and WhatsApp CEO Jan Koum hinted multiple times that they expect WhatsApp to become a billion-user platform, a milestone that Facebook eclipsed less than 18 months ago.

"WhatsApp is the only widely used app we've ever seen that has more engagement and a higher percent of people using it daily than Facebook itself," Zuckerberg said on the acquisition call Wednesday, noting that WhatsApp has doubled in size over the past year. "Based on our experience of building global services with strong growth and engagement, we believe WhatsApp is on a path to reach over one billion people in the next few years."

WhatsApp has already over 450 million monthly active users (320 of which are daily active users), and the company claims it is adding more than one million new users per day. For comparison purposes, Twitter added nine million new users in the entire Q4 2013; Facebook did better, adding 40 million in the same three month period, but growth is slower for a company with a billion-plus users already under its belt.

Facebook reached one billion in October 2012, roughly eight and a half years after launch. Could WhatsApp hit one billion even faster?

Assuming the company continues to add one million users per day, then yes. Much faster, actually.

WhatsApp is on pace to reach one billion users in August of 2015, approximately a year and a half after being acquired by Facebook. At that time, WhatsApp will be a little more than 6 years old, achieving the billion user milestone more than two years faster than Facebook did.

Of course, WhatsApp's trajectory is likely to change over time. Just like other consumer services like Facebook and Twitter, growth may slow as the user base gets larger and new users are harder to find.

Regardless of the timing, Zuckerberg seems poised to own two separate billion-user brands in the near future, and he's understandably excited.

"Services in the world that have a billion people using them are incredibly valuable," he said.

For $19 billion, we'd certainly hope so.

Dong Nguyen: Flappy Bird Is 'Gone Forever

by Stan Schroeder

Flappy Bird lovers, we have a problem. Dong Nguyen, the creator of the notoriously addictive iOS game, told Forbes in an interview the game is "gone forever."

According to Nguyen, his intentions were to create a game you play when you're relaxed, but it turned out to be addictive.

"I think it has become a problem. To solve that problem, it’s best to take down Flappy Bird. It’s gone forever,” he said.

The story of Flappy Bird is an odd one indeed: the game sat in relative obscurity many months after its release, and then, seemingly out of nowhere, it quickly became one of the most popular iOS apps, at one point reportedly earning its creator as much as $50,000 per day. At the pinnacle of the game's success, Nguyen decided to remove it from the App Store.

Although removing the game from the App Store sounded like a brilliant marketing move, it now seems Nguyen really doesn't plan to bring the game back. He does plan to continue developing games. “After the success of Flappy Bird, I feel more confident, and I have freedom to do what I want to do," he said.

Kids & Technology: The Developmental Health Debate

 by Stephanie Buck

How much screen time is appropriate for children? Should young kids be exposed to tech for any extended periods of time? The developmental debate has raged for decades, only to be reignited by the latest waves of iPads and social media.

Dr. Larry Rosen’s experience as a research psychologist and computer educator has allowed him to witness both the positive and negative effects of technology use on young minds. Rosen is a professor of psychology and author ofRewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the Way They Learn. In the end, he sees innovations like social media as developmental pluses for what he calls the “iGeneration.”

“Social networking is really helping them with who they are, their identity in the world,” Rosen says of preteens and teens who engage with their peers via social platforms like Facebook.

According to Rosen, teens are able to test the identity waters, so to speak. For example, they can practice different forms of sexuality via their web presences, and receive feedback from peers. It allows them to “practice life” somewhat innocuously, says Rosen.

Although he is a proponent for technology integration in modern child rearing, Rosen says there is the very real possibility of overdoing it. Many parents believe they’re doing a great job raising their child if he is quietly playing video games in his room all day. That child will lose communication skills, he says. Technology must be “chosen correctly.”

But in a perfect world, technology wouldn’t be chosen at all, according to pediatric occupational therapist Cris Rowan. Author of Virtual Child: The Terrifying Truth About What Technology is Doing to Children, and founder ofZone’in Programs Inc. Rowan’s outlook on child technology use is bleak — and irreversible.

“I used to say to parents, ‘Look, it’s reversible. Just cut your kid [off] and they’ll be OK,’” says Rowan. “But that’s not true. They’re permanently altering the formation of their brain, and it’s not in a good way.” When asked how she foresaw children adapting or evolving if they were to continue at the level of usage seen today, Rowan responded, “Well, I see them dying.”

According to a 2009 Kaiser study, kids aged 8-18 are engaging with digital media an average of 7.5 hours per day. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no more than 1-2 hours per day of screen-time. Rowan adds, “There is absolutely nothing in technology that is developmentally healthy. Any time spent in front of a device or with a device is detrimental to child development.”

She cites the research of Dr. Gary Small, Director of the UCLA Memory and Aging Research Center. Small studies how children’s brains today, specifically the frontal lobe, are developing differently than their parents’ due to technology exposure. “As young malleable brains develop shortcuts to access information, these shortcuts represent new neural pathways being laid down,” he writes in his book iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind.

Rowan references a study that indicates technology overuse is not only changing brain chemistry, but also increasing the likelihood of children developing mental illnesses. Human connection, eye contact and dialogue are paramount. Devices are hugely limiting this important exposure, Rowan says. As a result, therapists and clinicians are seeing an increase in attachment disorders, depression, anxiety, bipolar, obsessive compulsive disorders, and ADHD — all of which have been linked to technology overuse. “I’ve been working with kids for 25 years. I’ve never seen this,” she concludes. “This is something that’s epic. And we’re really just witnessing the tip of an iceberg.”

Although the debate rages on, Rosen and Rowan do agree on some things. Both referenced recent data indicating that extended use of social networks like Facebook can result in a decrease in empathy among teens, and thus an increase in narcissism. “[Overuse of Facebook by] teens can potentially lead to a problem psychologically,” says Rosen. It’s what he refers to as an iDisorder, a term he will discuss in his upcoming book about how to avoid tech-related psychiatric symptoms. However, it’s not the platform’s fault, he says. “It’s the way we relate to the platform. It makes it easy to be narcissistic. You can type anything and not see a person’s face crying on the other end.”

Furthermore, neither believes that a complete unplug is necessary — or even safe. In fact, Rowan cites tragic consequences of cutting one’s child off of technology completely — for example, the Ohio teen who killed his mother after his parents took away his Halo 3 video game.

---

What Can Parents Do?

---

1. Get the TV out of the children’s bedrooms: Kaiser studies estimate that 30% of children age 0-3 and71% of children age 8-18 have a television in their bedroom. Both Rosen and Rowan advise removing brain-drain technology from private spaces. That way, parents can both monitor the type of content kids are absorbing and limit their usage appropriately.

2. Talk about it: Engage in “co-viewing,” a practice Rosen defines as talking about media while both parent and child experience it together. He suggests playing video games with kids, and checking out their social networks (although he’s opposed to parents friending their children on Facebook, in most instances).

3. Evaluate appropriate tech by age: Rosen says that infants respond best to touchscreen technology that will foster their tactile/kinesthetic learning style. School age and young preteens have been shown to develop hand-eye coordination and decision-making skills through video games — ideally, those that have been properly researched, and coupled other imaginative play. For older preteens, mobile phone use fosters communication practice. Finally, despite studies that social networking decreases empathy in teens, Rosen has seen that platforms like Facebook actually aid communication and interaction among teens. “Virtually, you’re doing it behind the screen and you feel safe,” he says. “You have a free, anonymous feeling.”

4. Institute “tech breaks”: The breaks, according to Rosen, can be used at home, in the classroom and everywhere in between. During class or family dinners, have kids put their mobile devices face down. If they succeed in not touching the device for 15 minutes, allow them a 1-2 minute “tech break,” during which they can text, check email or log in to social media.

5. Set aside “sacred time”: Rowan advocates following the “one hour per day, one day per week, one week per year” plan, in which both kids and their parents alike completely unplug. Rowan warns it will be challenging at first: “It’s scary for some families. They don’t know how to talk to each other anymore. They don’t know what to say.”

6. Encourage “healthy” technology: For Rowan, devices like the iPod don’t inhibit social behavior as dramatically as other forms of media, like “brain-draining” video games or television. Rosen doesn’t believe it’s quite as simple anymore to limit certain types of technology — mainly because the lines are now blurred. We’ve integrated television into smartphones, and books into digital readers. He advises narrowing it down by app, and only approving ones based on solid research.

7. Trust your kids: Although parents shouldn’t give kids free reign of their social media presences, allow them to “clean up” their profile pages before you take a peek. Rosen suggests giving kids a 24-hour warning beforehand. From then on, after the initial look, parents have the right to drop by and view their kid’s page spontaneously.

Despite Rowan’s strong warnings against technology abuse by children, she is resigned to the fact that exposure these days in inevitable. On the other hand, Rosen exhibits enthusiasm about the knowledge and technical know-how of today’s youth. He sees a bright future for his friend’s nine-year-old son who, for example, can manipulate gadgets with ease.

When asked whether kids sheltered from technology risk falling behind in society, culture and the business world, Rowan responds simply, “Kids soak it up. Let’s worry about the fact that they may be illiterate by the time they finish high school.”

Anxiety over children’s technology use has existed before the dawn of MySpace, before the rise of the mobile phone, and even before the invention of calculators. Is today’s technology any different or scarier than the rise of technologies past? There’s no doubt that children are growing and developing differently than they did even 15 years ago. But it may still be too early to determine the lasting effects on today’s iGeneration.

BlackBerry Colt: Say Hello to RIM’s First QNX Phone [REPORT]

by Ben Parr

The first details have leaked surrounding the BlackBerry Colt, RIM’s first QNX-based smartphone.

The device is the company’s attempt to catch up to its technologically superior iOS and Android counterparts.RIM acquired QNX last year and anointed it the future OS of its mobile devices. RIM’s first QNX device, the BlackBerry Playbook tablet, made its debut earlier this year.

According to Boy Genius Report, the first mobile device to carry the QNX operating system, codenamed the BlackBerry Colt, is slated for release in the first quarter of 2012. It’s currently undergoing internal testing with RIM’s Software Verification team.

BGR‘s sources dive further into the product, though. Apparently, the BlackBerry Colt is likely to ship with a single-core processor. More and more smartphones, especially ones running Android, already contain dual or even quad-core processors. The next iPhone, which will likely make its debut next month, will almost certainly contain a dual-core processor. While the Colt could still get a dual-core processor before it launches next year, it seems likely that the Colt will already be underpowered compared to its competition.

Like the PlayBook, the Colt is not expected to include BlackBerry Enterprise Server at launch. BES, which powers the email, contact and calendar synchronization on BlackBerry OS, is proving more difficult to rewrite for QNX than expected. That is why the PlayBook lacked native email at launch. If this is true, it will negate one of the major reasons why people still purchase the BlackBerry.

RIM needs to find its answer to the iPhone and Android soon. It is cutting 2,000 jobs after weak financial results. Its software and hardware have simply lagged behind the competition. The BlackBerry Colt may be RIM’s last shot at saving itself from oblivion.

Are Smartphones Taking Over Our Lives? [STUDY]

by Erica Swallow

New research portrays the UK as a smartphone-addicted country. Mobile data services have increased 40-fold in a three-year period in the country, and more than a quarter of adults and nearly half of teenagers own a smartphone.

The 341-page report, released by UK telecommunications regulator Ofcom, is sprinkled with nuggets of information about mobile data consumption among smartphone users, as well as larger telecommunications trends in Internet, radio and TV usage.

Here are some of the takeaways regarding smartphone usage:

• 37% of adults and 60% of teens admit they are highly addicted to their smartphones.
• 81% of smartphone users make calls every day compared with 53% of regular users.
• 23% of teenagers claim to watch less TV and 15% admit they read fewer books as a result of their smartphone use.
• 51% of adults and 65% of teens say they have used their smartphone while socializing with others.
• 23% of adults and 34% of teens have used their smartphones during mealtimes.
• 22% of adult and 47% of teens admitted using or answering their smartphone while in the bathroom.
• 58% of adult males owned a smartphone compared with 42% of females.
• Among teenagers, 52% of females use smartphones compared with 48% of males.
• The majority of adults (32%) identified Apple’s iPhone as their favorite device, while the majority of teens (37%) prefer the BlackBerry.
• With increasing telecommunications options in an ever-connected world, addiction to mobile and Internet use is not uncommon. In South Korea, there are even clinics for treating Internet addicts.
• How would you define smartphone addiction? Does taking a few calls from the toilet and texting during dinner make you an addict? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.