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 to buy WhatsApp for $19 billion in deal shocker

BY GERRY SHIH AND SARAH MCBRIDE

(Reuters) - Facebook Inc will buy fast-growing mobile-messaging startup WhatsApp for $19 billion in cash and stock in a landmark deal that places the world's largest social network closer to the heart of mobile communications and may bring younger users into the fold.

The transaction involves $4 billion in cash, $12 billion in stock and $3 billion in restricted stock that vests over several years. The WhatsApp deal is worth more than Facebook raised in its own IPO and underscores the social network's determination to win the market for messaging.

Founded by a Ukrainian immigrant who dropped out of college, Jan Koum, and a Stanford alumnus, Brian Acton, WhatsApp is a Silicon Valley startup fairy tale, rocketing to 450 million users in five years and adding another million daily.

"No one in the history of the world has ever done something like this," Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said on a conference call on Wednesday.

Zuckerberg, who famously closed a $1 billion deal to buy photo-sharing service Instagram over a weekend in mid-2012, revealed on Wednesday that he proposed the tie-up over dinner with CEO Koum just 10 days earlier, on the night of February 9.

WhatsApp was the leader among a wave of smartphone-based messaging apps that are now sweeping across North America, Asia and Europe. Although WhatsApp has adhered strictly to its core functionality of mimicking texting, other apps, such as Line in Japan or Tencent Holdings Ltd's WeChat, offer games or even e-commerce on top of their popular messaging features.

The deal provides Facebook entree to new users, including teens who eschew the mainstream social networks but prefer WhatsApp and rivals, which have exploded in size as private messaging takes off.

"People are calling them 'Facebook Nevers,'" said Jeremy Liew, a partner at Lightspeed and an early investor in Snapchat.

How the service will pay for itself is not yet clear.

Zuckerberg and Koum on the conference call did not say how the company would make money beyond a $1 annual fee, which is not charged for the first year. "The right strategy is to continue to focus on growth and product," Zuckerberg said.

Zuckerberg and Koum said that WhatsApp will continue to operate independently, and promised to continue its policy of no advertising.

"Communication is the one thing that you have to use daily, and it has a strong network effect," said Jonathan Teo, an early investor in Snapchat, another red-hot messaging company that flirted year ago with a multibillion dollar acquisition offer from Facebook.

"Facebook is more about content and has not yet fully figured out communication."

PRICE TAG

Even so, many balked at the price tag.

Facebook is paying $42 per user with the deal, dwarfing its own $33 per user cost of acquiring Instagram. By comparison, Japanese e-commerce giant Rakuten just bought messaging service Viber for $3 per user, in a $900 million deal.

Rick Summer, an analyst with Morningstar, warned that while investors may welcome the addition of such a high-growth asset, it may point to an inherent weakness in the social networking company that has seen growth slow in recent quarters.

"This is a tacit admission that Facebook can't do things that other networks are doing," he said, pointing to the fact that Facebook had photo-sharing and messaging before it bought Instagram and WhatsApp.

"They can't replicate what other companies are doing so they go out and buy them. That's not all together encouraging necessarily and I think deals like these won't be the last one and that is something for investors to consider."

Venture capitalist Sequoia Capital, which invested in WhatsApp in February 2011 and led three rounds of financing altogether, holds a stake worth roughly $3 billion of the $19 billion valuation, according to people familiar with the matter.

"Goodness gracious, it's a good deal for WhatsApp," said Teo, the early investor in Snapchat.

Facebook pledged a break-up fee of $1 billion in cash and $1 billion in stock if the deal falls through.

Facebook was advised by Allen & Co, while WhatsApp has enlisted Morgan Stanley for the deal.

Shares in Facebook slid 2.5 percent to $66.36 after hours, from a close of $68.06 on the Nasdaq.

"No matter how you look at it this is an expensive deal and a very big bet and very big bets either work out or they perform quite poorly," Summer said. "Given the relative size, the enterprise valuations this is a very significant deal and it may not be the last one."

(Reporting by Garry Shih and Sarah McBride in San Francisco; Additional reporting by Soham Chatterjee in Bangalore, writing by Edwin Chan, Editing by Savio D'Souza, Andrew Hay, Peter Henderson and Lisa Shumaker)

Google Adds 'Relationships' Option to Voice Search on Android

by Adario Strange

Another piece of Google's voice search puzzle fell into place on Tuesday as the search giant announced that Android users will now be able to voice search on their smartphones by relationship terms in addition to name searches.

The update, as described by Google, will bring up any contact you've designated as having a particular familial connection to you in the "relationship" field in your contacts tool on Android. This additional functionality is meant to allow a user to now speak a phrase such as "call mom," or "text sister" to initiate those actions without the user needing to say the person's name as it's listed in their contacts.

In order to launch contacts on your Android handset via voice you first need to allow the Google search app to access your contacts and the profile information attached to each person or place.

However, during repeated testing of the update on a Moto G handset running Android 4.4.2, we were unable to get the relationship voice function to work automatically, despite a number of attempts using various listing configurations. Rather than simply recognizing the relationship assigned to the contact in the People contacts app, Google still asked "who is your brother?" prompting us to pick a contact to assign the designation of "brother."

Despite that, the system's "name" search by voice worked perfectly, which indicates that the update, which is being rolled out on Google's side, may be reaching some users sooner than others.

Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments.

Android Apps May Be Coming to Windows

by Karissa Bell

In an effort to boost interest in its desktop and mobile platform, Microsoft is reportedly considering opening up Windows to Android apps.

Citing "sources familiar with Microsoft's plans," The Verge says there are serious discussions within Microsoft over whether to open up the company's desktop and mobile platforms to Android apps. The idea would be to let consumers download the apps from a store run by a third-party "enabler" where Microsoft is still the gatekeeper.

According to the report, the discussions are in early stages and there is an ongoing internal debate over whether the plan should go ahead. While some Microsoft executives believe it would draw more users to Windows' platforms, others worry it would be Windows' undoing.

It wouldn't be the first time Android apps have appeared on Windows with a third-party enabler. Software maker BlueStacks already allows users to run Android apps on Windows devices, including Microsoft's Surface Pro.

The report comes on the heels of rumors that Nokia will be releasing its own Android handset at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month. The low-cost phone would be targeted toward emerging markets.

Nokia had earlier agreed to end its own software efforts and focus exclusively on Windows after being acquired by Microsoft.

Microsoft declined to comment.

911 Will Soon Accept Texts, Videos, Photos

 by Erica Swallow

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced a five-step plan on Wednesday to update the technology that powers the 911 emergency response system.

The plan will enable the transmission of text messages, voice calls, videos and photos, as well as automatic location information. The FCC hopes that such a plan will enable emergency responders to respond faster while also giving individuals more options for contacting 911, depending on the emergency situation.

Implementation of Next Generation 911 (NG911), the official project name, will be charted by the following five-step plan, according to the FCC’s press release:

1. Develop location accuracy mechanisms for NG911
2. Enable consumers to send text, photos, and videos to public safety answering points (NPRM)
3. Facilitate the completion and implementation of NG911 technical standards
4. Develop an NG911 governance framework
5. Develop an NG911 funding model

Genachowski began working on this plan last year — his catalyst for taking action was the fact that trapped students could not text 911 during the Virginia Tech campus shootings in 2007.

Being that texting has replaced talking in the teen demographic, this plan seems like a step in the right directions, as it aligns with the evolving nature of telecommunications.

What are your thoughts on this new plan to roll out text, voice, photo and video for 911 emergency response? Let us know in the comments.

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.

Anonymous Hackers Take Down Syrian Ministry of Defense Website

 by Sarah Kessler

Hacktivist group Anonymous has claimed responsibility for taking down the Syrian Ministry of Defense website, posting in its place a message that calls for the removal of President Bashar Al-Assad.

“To the Syrian people: The world stands with you against the brutal regime of Bashar Al-Assad,” the message begins in both English and Arabic. ” … To the Syrian military: You are responsible for protecting the Syrian people, and anyone who orders you to kill women, children, and the elderly deserves to be tried for treason. No outside enemy could do as much damage to Syria as Bashar Al-Assad has done. Defend your country — rise up against the regime!”

This message has since been removed from the still-down Ministry of Defense website, but the AnonymousTwitter account posted a link to a replica.

In April, the Syrian government launched a series of crackdowns on protesters. By the count of some human rights groups, The New York Times reports, more than 2,000 people have been killed since then. Links on the top of the Anonymous message lead to YouTube videos that illustrate the unrest.

Anonymous frequently expresses its opinion through cyberattacks. It is best known for attacks on the websites of the Church of Scientology and those who spoke against or stopped doing business with WikiLeaks. The loosely affiliated group has also claimed responsibility for politically motivated attacks on government websites in Turkey, Egypt and Yemen.