
<?phpxml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>
<channel>
<title>Haaze.com / IzzyStarr / Published News</title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com</link>
<description>Test Web 2.0 Content Management System</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 07:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
<language>en</language>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Developers pleased with Apple's Lodsys response]]></title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=developers-pleased-with-apples-lodsys-response</link>
<comments>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=developers-pleased-with-apples-lodsys-response</comments>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 07:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>IzzyStarr</dc:creator>
<category>Mobile &amp; Electronics</category>
<guid>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=developers-pleased-with-apples-lodsys-response</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The in-app purchase icon.(Credit:Apple)Apple today finally responded to Lodsys, the group that's been targeting iOS developers for licensing fees on their use of in-app purchase (IAP). While Lodsys has not yet issued its own response, many developers are now breathing a sigh of relief based on Apple's stance, which states that developers are fully protected against any extra fees by the company's patent licensing terms.&quot;DEAR STEVE I WANT TO KISS YOU HUGS CHOCK,&quot; tweeted Craig Hockenberry, the principal and senior software engineer at The Iconfactory, the makers of the popular Twitterific app. Hockenberry had posted a public letter to Apple CEO Steve Jobs shortly before the company began sending its letters to affected developers, wherein Hockenberry called Lodsys &quot;greedy predators&quot; and said the group threatened the entire platform. &quot;What these predators don't realize is that for every developer who's earning millions, there are many thousands who are earning much less,&quot; Hockenberry wrote. &quot;This backbone of the iOS ecosystem is doing well with work we love, but that is very much at risk with increased legal costs.&quot;Hockenberry later tweeted, &quot;I should e-mail Steve Jobs more often.&quot; James Thomson, the maker of the PCalc app, who was one of the first to get hit with a notice from Lodsys, said simply that &quot;our long international nightmare is over.&quot; In an interview with Macworld, Thomson described the last ten days as &quot;some of the most stressful&quot; in his professional career. Lodsys first began sending notices to developers earlier this month, alerting them to the fact that their applications were infringing on a patent the group held by using IAP. The company gave developers 21 days to respond, before threatening legal action. The group offered up a licensing deal for developers to pay 0.575 percent of U.S. revenue from their applications, in return for being able to use IAP within their apps. Apple did not weigh in on the issue until its letter this morning, where the company said it, along with its app makers are &quot;undisputedly licensed&quot; to use IAP. Emanuele Vulcano, the maker of iOS app Mover never received one of these letters from Lodsys, but nonetheless removed IAP from the free version of the app out of fear of being targeted, and described Lodsys' actions as having a &quot;chilling effect.&quot; Vulcano this morning announced that he was bringing IAP back to the app immediately as a result of Apple's letter. Daniel Jalkut, the founder ofMac-centric Red Sweater Software, rounded out the other developer reactions, saying, &quot;I've never seen iOS developers so excited about the walled garden.&quot;Julie Samuels, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation who last week wrote a post saying that Apple needed to step up and defend developers, said Apple's response was &quot;the right thing.&quot; &quot;We were really happy to see Apple take a public stand and defend the folks who come up with the apps that make us all love our iPhones. It's the right thing--both morally and from a business perspective,&quot; Samuels wrote an e-mail to CNET. &quot;It took a little longer than we'd have liked--so many developers were really left in the lurch last week with the proverbial Sword of Damocles over their head, but better late than never. Now the developers can get back to what they do best: develop new apps.&quot;Morgan Reed, executive director of the Association for Competitive Technology said the group, which represents around 3,000 technology firms, was similarly happy with Apple's response.&quot;The developer community is pleased that Apple has taken steps to reassure app makers regarding Lodsys's licensing demands,&quot; Reed said in a statement. &quot;Lodsys in-app purchasing technology is already licensed by Apple. Developers share that company's understanding that in-app purchasing applications written for its iOS platform are covered under this license. Lodsys has created uncertainty in the apps marketplace and we hope that it will take the appropriate step to withdraw its unwarranted licensing demands.&quot;It remains to be seen when or how Lodsys will react to Apple's letter. In it, Apple's senior vice president and general counsel, Bruce Sewell requested that the company immediately withdraw notices sent to developers requesting that they strike up licensing deals, calling such assertions &quot;false.&quot; So far Lodsys CEO Mark Small and any of the company's other representatives have declined to speak with press on the matter, relaying information to its blog instead.<br/><br/>0 Vote(s) ]]></description>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[You Don't Know Jack is back--and it's awesome]]></title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=you-dont-know-jack-is-back-and-its-awesome</link>
<comments>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=you-dont-know-jack-is-back-and-its-awesome</comments>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>IzzyStarr</dc:creator>
<category>Technology</category>
<guid>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=you-dont-know-jack-is-back-and-its-awesome</guid>
<description><![CDATA[You Don&amp;39't Know Jack has finally arrived for iOS!(Credit:Jellyvision)The best Jack since Bauer...is back.I'm talking, of course, about You Don't Know Jack, the hilarious PC (though not always &quot;PC&quot;) trivia game that debuted way back in 1995. It spawned all kinds of sequels, but has been AWOL for over a decade.That changed a few months ago, when YDKJ came roaring back for Windows and game consoles. And today, I'm giddy to report, Jack has hit the App Store. The verdict It is, without question, the best iOS trivia game to date.For those unfamiliar with the series, YDKJ plays like a game show, complete with wisecracking host Cookie, who reprises his snark- and sarcasm-filled role from the originals. Each episode (there are 20 in the game) consists of 10 timed questions: some multiple choice, some &quot;specialty&quot; types of question like DisOrDat and Who's the DummyThe faster you answer each question, the more money you earn--or lose, if you get it wrong. Each episode ends with the Jack Attack, a kind of bonus round.The questions, most of them drawn from pop culture, range from wacky to irreverent. And at least a few are incredibly timely, with topics including Elizabeth Taylor's burial (careful, it's a trick question) and Charlie Sheen.The only thing missing here is the social element: YDKJ for iOS is exclusively a one-player exercise. Developer Jellyvision promises &quot;episode and feature updates&quot; in the near future, and I hope that means some multiplayer love.Even so, YDKJ is definitely worth the $2.99 asking price ($4.99 for iPad). Not convinced You can try the two-episode You Don't Know Jack Lite edition absolutely free.Bottom line: If you like trivia, or laughter, or fun of any kind, you'll love this game.<br/><br/>0 Vote(s) ]]></description>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[What Japan's nuclear crisis means for public health (Q&A)]]></title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=what-japans-nuclear-crisis-means-for-public-health-qa</link>
<comments>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=what-japans-nuclear-crisis-means-for-public-health-qa</comments>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>IzzyStarr</dc:creator>
<category>Eco</category>
<guid>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=what-japans-nuclear-crisis-means-for-public-health-qa</guid>
<description><![CDATA[By far, the biggest danger from the disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi power plant is to the workers who are trying to control a still-volatile situation. But with the crisis likely to play out for months, people are beginning to wonder what the release of radioactive material actually means. Very low levels of radioactive material have been found in the water supply in Tokyo, for example, and those same particles are being carried by the wind elsewhere in the world. Workers at the plant are being exposed to radiation coming directly from the core and spent-fuel cooling pools. For people living far from the source of the radiation, exposure can come from the radioactive material that entered the air or water during efforts to stabilize the cooling systems. Radioactive versions of elements such as cesium, iodine, and strontium can enter the body either through the lungs or by eating and drinking affected food. A standard precaution is to prevent people, particularly growing children, from drinking milk in the area of a nuclear accident, since cows can eat grass with radioactive iodine and pass it on to people.(Credit:Tokyo Electric Power via Martyn Williams)The Environmental Protection Agency is monitoring and publishing data on the radioactivity in water and milk from Japan in the U.S. and the levels are &quot;far below levels of public-health concern.&quot; But some argue that being exposed to even a small dose of the radioactive materials already released--iodine-131 and cesium-137 are the most prevalent--can be significant. If ingested, radioactive iodine can be absorbed by the thyroid gland, with children at the most risk. Cesium-137, which can also lead to cancer by affecting many types of cells, is more worrisome because it has a half-life of 30 years, versus 8 days for iodine-131. Radioactive strontium, which also has a long half-life, is linked to bone cancer and leukemia.If there is a large-scale release of radioactive isotopes from the Fukushima Daiichi reactor or spent-fuel pools, then the risks will rise substantially. But in the current situation, how should people evaluate the health risk How do academics and scientists view this problem Are sufficient safeguards being put in place To get a better understanding of these questions, CNET spoke to two experts in the field to get their views the same week that the Fukushima Daiichi was raised to the highest level possible for a nuclear power accident.Below is an edited transcript of a discussion with David Brenner from Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research. My CNET colleague Elinor Mills conducted an interview with Ira Helfand, the former president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a group firmly opposed to nuclear power, which it says poses unacceptable risks. That Q&amp;A can be found here.In a nutshell, the view of Brenner, who recently testified to Congress on radiation from backscatter X-rays at airports, is that the individual risks are extremely low for people outside the exclusion zone around the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. At the same time, a large number of people will be exposed, which means that over the long term, that minute risk becomes more significant. Q: What is the difference between what workers are exposed to and the rest of the populationBrenner: It's simply a matter of the radiation dose. It's relatively low for people away from the plant. While we don't know what the doses are, the workers are clearly getting relatively high doses.There have been traces of radioactive material detected in food and milk here in the U.S. Should people be concerned Brenner: In the U.S., the levels of radioactivity in the water and milk both on the West Coast and the East Coast have been exceedingly low. I don't think there are any significant health issues with the level of radioactivity in this country. It was inevitable that once radioactivity was released in Japan, that some of it would be blown here. What was fortunate is that most of the radioactivity released into the air was blown into the sea but it was inevitable that it would end up in this country...Very little indeed has gotten here because it got heavily distributed. The fact that you can measure it here doesn't mean that it's a high health risk, at least in the short term. That's the situation in the U.S.In Japan, the doses are still pretty low outside the exclusion zone. Again, the further away people are from reactors, the lower the dose, such as the folks in, say, Tokyo. In Kyoto, it's even lower.What about the longer-term effectsBrenner: The health consequences are actually very small for any individual. That being said, there are longer-term issues. The two main isotopes that were released are iodine-131 and cesium-137. The half-life for half the radioactive material in iodine to decay is eight days, so by a month or two later, it's essentially all gone. There's no long-term effect. Whatever cesium was released will get into the food chain, into the ecosystem, and it will gradually get dispersed. So there will be some in the food and water for generations to come. It will be at some level but it will be at a very low level. What we really have will be a prolonged exposure to very low levels of radioactive from the Fukushima event. That's really what we're stuck with. But the risk for any individual will be tiny. Although individual risk is low, an awful lot of people exposed to it. Think of the lottery. An awful lot of people will [be involved] because somebody's going to win...[In this case] one would expect some extra cancers in the long run but everybody's individual risk is low.Some people say that even a tiny bit of exposure should be avoided because it could cause a specific type of cancer, such as thyroid cancer in children. Brenner: You can think about risk in two different ways. There's the risk of an individual and certainly the risk is very small. You can also think about the lottery analogy. How many tiny individual risks affect a population It's two complementary ways of looking at it.From an individual's point of view, one doesn't have to worry. When you're starting to think about what is significant from the point of view of the population and how do we proceed with nuclear power, we need to think about the population.Should we be restricting food importsBrenner: Most of radioactivity being seen in food, water, and fish is almost certainly from iodine. I would expect in a month or two months, those restrictions will probably go away. But what will be left will be much lower levels of cesium in food [in part because less cesium than iodine was released]. It's more than appropriate that Japan and the U.S. and any other country should be monitoring the food. It's not hard to do. I don't expect this will be long-term except in a broader sense.How do people in your profession decide what's an acceptable risk Brenner: We try to think about risk and benefits. Having a CT scan, there's a small radiation risk, but there's a benefit to hopefully getting an accurate diagnosis. It's another story whether we get that balance right since there are alternatives to CT scanners.You could argue, one should be doing the same estimations for nuclear power. The risk, unfortunately, is the scenario like what we have in Fukushima. What are the benefits of power without oil or use of fossil fuels It's up to society to make the risk-benefit analysis as best they can. You need to understand risks as well as you can and different folks will come up with different conclusions. One thing that's pretty clear is that we have in this country and Japan a pretty aging fleet of nuclear reactors. The Fukushima plant was built in the 1970s and there are plenty of similar reactors also built at the same time in the U.S.It seems to me we're at that point where we have to make decisions about replacing older reactors with more modern reactors that have more defense mechanisms built into them. We can never say anything is 100 percent safe, but they can be a lot more safe. Are you pro nuclear powerBrenner: My job is to try to understand the risks. It's for society in general to determine how to balance risks. I'm all in favor of safe nuclear if it can be achieved. Some risks do always exist. The question is do they counter-balance the benefits. The two extremes around nuclear power are either that it's extremely unsafe and it should be abolished, but that is not true. The other extreme is that it's entirely safe. That's not true either. The reality is in the middle. It seems that there isn't agreement on the ultimate health impact from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Does that disaster provide much guidanceBrenner: Most of the epidemiological studies that should have been done haven't been done for political and economic reasons. The Soviet Union broke up shortly after so was difficult to have Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia work together on it.The studies that have been done are the low-hanging fruit--studies about thyroid cancer and leukemia which you would expect to see first. There's no question there was a tremendous increase in thyroid cancers and it's pretty clear for [an increase in] leukemia too. Studies on the more common cancers like lung cancer and breast cancer have not been done. And that's a shame, to put it mildly. Lacking those, people are having to estimate what consequences were because we don't know enough about the effects of very low levels or radiation.It's still not appropriate to compare Fukushima to Chernobyl, where the containment blew up entirely and large amounts of the core were emitted high into the atmosphere. There was no ocean. I heard a statement that Fukushima was one tenth as hazardous as Chernobyl but I think it is far less.You testified in Congress about backscatter X-rays at airports. For most people, this is the day-to-day question: how much low-level radiation is OK. Do we knowBrenner: The argument's a little bit the same [as Fukushima]. The individual risk is miniscule. I didn't hesitate to go through [security] on my flight home. The concern is the population risk because an awful lot of people fly, about 700 million a year in the U.S. If the TSA wants to scan every passenger, you got a scenario where you have a tiny risk and you take that tiny risk [and multiply it], you do get significant population risk. You could argue that there's risk but it's OK as there is a benefit. But there are alternative technologies, such as millimeter scanners that don't have this X-ray risk.An individual who lives in Tokyo doesn't have that choice and there are no individual benefits. Fortunately, for an individual the risks are extremely low.You readers may or may not know this but 40 percent of them are going to get cancer, so the sorts of increases we're talking about are miniscule. It's a tiny addition to a very large problem. You've been working on a system where people can do individual testing with a blood test (called the RABIT, for rapid automated biodosimetry tool for radiological triage). Is the goal to get away from statistical estimates for whole populationsBrenner: Yes. The motivation is [a response to] a large-scale radiological terrorist event [from a dirty bomb]. In many senses, that scenario is quite like the scenario in Japan with a very small number of people exposed to high doses. And a very large number of people exposed to very small doses and not believing what they are being told. There is a great deal of skepticism in Japan and I'm sure that would be true in this country too. The goal is to have some very high-throughput way of estimating one's dose. So you can try to find the folks who did get high doses who need to be treated. The other part is to reassure people. We're developing a finger stick approach where you take a drop of blood, something that can be done by nonexperts. You'd have many centers, such as hospitals and railway stations, where you can go have your finger sticked, give a drop of blood, and it would get transported to more centralized machines. An individual estimate will mean that you won't clog up the emergency services. What sorts of precautions should someone in the U.S. and Japan take right now Brenner: You don't need to be doing anything. The EPA is testing the water and milk and the levels are all pretty low and will get a lot lower as iodine decays. There's no reason to avoid any food or drink. The same goes for Japan. Yes, there will be some contaminated food [and they are being monitored with spot checks] for the moment. That's what the government is and should be doing [to watch that] it is going to be at reasonable levels.<br/><br/>0 Vote(s) ]]></description>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[Congress zeroes in on FCC's Net neutrality rules]]></title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=congress-zeroes-in-on-fccs-net-neutrality-rules</link>
<comments>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=congress-zeroes-in-on-fccs-net-neutrality-rules</comments>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 08:10:59 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>IzzyStarr</dc:creator>
<category>Technology</category>
<guid>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=congress-zeroes-in-on-fccs-net-neutrality-rules</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The new Republican members of both the House and Senate wasted no time following up on promises to undo the Federal Communications Commission's December vote to apply new &quot;Net neutrality&quot; rules to some broadband Internet access providers.The new &quot;Open Internet&quot; rules (PDF) would prohibit blocking of lawful content, Web sites, applications, and devices and ban &quot;unreasonable discrimination&quot; in the handling of specific data packets. (&quot;Open Internet&quot; is the FCC's preferred term for Net neutrality.) A new transparency requirement would mandate detailed disclosures of network management practices. Last week, the House held two hearings on the new rules. Based in part on my analysis of the new rules for CNET, I was called to testify at the February 15 hearing before the Judiciary Committee. (My written testimony can be found here (PDF)). The following day, the Energy and Commerce Committee grilled all five FCC Commissioners for over four hours.It was clear from the hearings that Republicans are determined to undo the new rules, which they believe are both unnecessary and outside the statutory authority of the FCC. Democrats, many of whom were also skeptical of Net neutrality regulations in the last Congress, now appear united in defending the agency. As one of the first issues to be taken up by the new Congress, the starkly partisan tone of the hearings suggests there will be considerable gridlock between now and the 2012 elections, and not only on tech-related issues. The Net neutrality proceedings have set the tone for future proceedings on health care, debt, financial reform, climate change, and other hot-button issues.Action follows hearingsThe hearings weren't simply for show. Hours after the testimony on February 16, the House and Senate introduced a joint &quot;Resolution of Disapproval,&quot; a streamlined mechanism for Congress to nullify agency rulemakings. Resolutions must be voted on within 60 days of publication of new rules. They require a simple majority to pass and are not subject to filibuster.Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) introduced the resolution in the House. Upton issued a statement, saying in part, &quot;We held a hearing today in which we gave the commissioners of the FCC one more opportunity to provide sufficient evidence of a crisis that warrants government intervention. They failed. The controversial Internet regulations stifle innovation, investment and jobs. A federal bureaucracy should not be picking winners and losers.&quot;Passage in the House seems certain, and Republicans would have to find only a few Democrats in the Senate to secure a majority. President Obama, given his oft-stated support of the FCC's Open Internet proceedings, would likely veto the resolution, but it is also possible he would not do so in horse-trading for other legislation, in particular the federal budget. Even if the resolutions don't pass, Republicans have other avenues for neutering the new rules. On Thursday, the House passed an amendment to the pending budget bill that would prohibit the FCC from spending any money to implement or enforce the new rules. Ten Democrats joined the Republicans in approving the amendment. Obama may be forced to accept the funding amendment as part of ongoing budget talks, or face giving in on other priorities.There's also targeted legislation introduced in the opening days of the new session by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), which would make clearer that Congress has never given the FCC authority to regulate the Internet, full stop. Blackburn's bill has at least some Democratic support in the House.Meanwhile, Verizon and MetroPCS have each filed lawsuits in the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the FCC's legal authority to adopt the new rules. Other legal challenges are likely, and could take a year or more to work their way through the court.Hearings focused on competition, market analysis At the Judiciary Committee hearing February 15, Subcommittee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who is also co-chair of the Congressional Internet Caucus, pressed me and two other witnesses--Public Knowledge President Gigi Sohn and Brett Glass, who runs fixed wireless broadband provider Lariat--on the failure of the FCC to provide evidence of significant market failures that would justify new regulations. The hearing also explored why new regulations were needed given existing antitrust laws enforceable by the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, or by private lawsuits.My testimony underscored my deep concern on this point with the FCC's Open Internet Report and Order, approved by a bare majority of three Commissioners, all Democrats. In explaining the new antidiscrimination rule, the majority explicitly rejected the idea that enforcement should be based on traditional antitrust principles, which require a showing of anticompetitive behavior and demonstrable harm to consumers. The majority did not offer an alternative standard, however, saying only that they would enforce the rule to ensure &quot;the general proposition that broadband providers should not pick winners and losers on the Internet--even for reasons that may be independent of providers' competitive interests or that may not immediately or demonstrably cause substantial consumer harm.&quot;Yet the majority also noted 16 major exceptions to the discrimination rule, including carve-outs for caching, peering, content delivery networks, mobile broadband, virtual private networks, IP-based voice and video services, and other specialized applications, including telemedicine, that run on the ISPs broadband infrastructure. It was not clear why these particular non-neutral practices, which the majority acknowledged are &quot;inconsistent&quot; with the new rules, had been excluded, and why the majority expressed skepticism that any future innovations would be tolerated.That hearing also questioned the FCC's rationale for the new rules, which the majority characterized repeatedly as &quot;prophylactic.&quot; The report's principle concerns seem to rest on the lack of robust broadband Internet access competition in much of the U.S. (On Friday, the Department of Commerce issued a long-awaited first draft of its national broadband map, showing where high-speed access is available.)All three witnesses agreed that the best protection for consumers against abusive ISP practices would come from increased choices for broadband providers. To that end, I argued that the FCC would have better spent its time working to streamline the process of siting new cellular towers and working to free up underutilized radio spectrum, priorities the agency made little progress on during the withering Net neutrality debate.I also noted the agency's heel-dragging over promising new broadband technologies, such as Broadband over Power Lines, which have yet to gain commercial footholds. BPL could prove an effective way of delivering broadband to rural consumers, many of whom have no service offerings today.At the hearing February 16, Republicans hammered the commissioners on the lack of any market analysis in the nearly 200-page report that accompanied the new rules. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski argued that the agency had performed the needed analysis, but could not confirm whether they had done so in conformance with White House rules published by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.Proceedings suggest gridlocked new Congress While it's far from clear if any of the legislative or legal challenges to the Net neutrality rules will prove their undoing, there's little doubt that Republicans now see it as a test case for their new power following last fall's midterm elections. And that they see Net neutrality as a leading example of the kind of regulatory overreach and economic interference on which they campaigned.Net neutrality didn't start out as partisan issue. Last year, a bipartisan majority of Congress urged the FCC not to pass new rules, at least not until Congress gave the agency authorization to do so. It's also important to remember that as part of last month's 300-page Comcast-NBC Universal merger agreement (PDF), Comcast agreed to abide by the new rules for seven years, even if the regulations are overturned in court. It's possible that Comcast will challenge that part of the agreement if the rules are undone by Congress or the litigation.<br/><br/>0 Vote(s) ]]></description>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[New Verizon model could boost iPhone shipments by 12M in 2011]]></title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=new-verizon-model-could-boost-iphone-shipments-by-12m-in-2011</link>
<comments>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=new-verizon-model-could-boost-iphone-shipments-by-12m-in-2011</comments>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov -001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>IzzyStarr</dc:creator>
<category>Latest News</category>
<guid>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=new-verizon-model-could-boost-iphone-shipments-by-12m-in-2011</guid>
<description><![CDATA[iPhone shipment by Verizon Wireless and other CDMA carriers in 2011 could boost iPhone shipments by 12.1 million, according to market researcher IHS iSuppli.The new iPhone is the same as the old one, except it uses a network dubbed code division multiple access (CDMA). Verizon&amp;'s shipments of CDMA will likely be supplemented as other CDMA carriers around the world start shipping their iPhones. That could boost overall shipments by 25 percent to 61.2 million this year, according to IHS iSuppli.Total iPhone shipments are expected to rise 33.3 percent this year. Without CDMA, the growth rate would only be 7 percent. Others that might ship a CDMA iPhone could be Japan&amp;'s KDDI and China Telecom.a4AThe arrival of a CDMA version and the addition of Verizon as a carrier will significantly boost the available market for Applea4a4s iPhone,a4 said Tina Teng, senior analyst, wireless communications, for IHS. a4APotential and current iPhone subscribers in the United States long have been clamoring for an alternative to AT&amp;amp'T.a4The Verizon model is not expected to be more costly to manufacture than the existing AT&amp;amp'T model, which uses the GSM wireless technology. CDMA iPhone shipments are expected to grow to 16.5 million in 2012 and 20.3 million in 2013. Then they will decline to 18.2 million in 2014, mainly because other networks will see more growth.IHS iSuppli believes Apple will offer a 4G LTE phone in 2012. That version would be able to take advantage of faster 4G data networks. The LTE version should sell 1.8 million units in 2012, 11.1 million in 2013 and 24.2 million in 2014. Total iPhone sales will soar to 98.4 million units in 2014, up from 46 million in 2010, the research group projects.[pictures: TechCrunch and Engadget].Next Story: Why Verizon&amp;'s iPhone spells the end of the golden age for carriers Previous Story: Mobile banking firm Obopay promotes its president to CEOPrintEmailTwitterFacebookGoogle BuzzLinkedIn      DiggStumbleUponRedditDeliciousGoogleMore&amp;8230'          Tags: CDMA, GSM, iPhoneCompanies: Apple, Isuppli, Verizon          Tags: CDMA, GSM, iPhoneCompanies: Apple, Isuppli, VerizonDean is lead writer for GamesBeat at VentureBeat. He covers video games, security, chips and a variety of other subjects. Dean previously worked at the San Jose Mercury News, the Wall Street Journal, the Red Herring, the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register and the Dallas Times Herald. He is the author of two books, Opening the Xbox and the Xbox 360 Uncloaked. Follow him on Twitter at @deantak, and follow VentureBeat on Twitter at @venturebeat.VentureBeat has new weekly email newsletters.  Stay on top of the news, and don't miss a beat.<br/><br/>0 Vote(s) ]]></description>
</item>

<item>
<title><![CDATA[5 solid startup lessons]]></title>
<link>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=5-solid-startup-lessons</link>
<comments>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=5-solid-startup-lessons</comments>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov -001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>IzzyStarr</dc:creator>
<category>Latest News</category>
<guid>http://www.haaze.com/story.php?title=5-solid-startup-lessons</guid>
<description><![CDATA[When Aaron Levie launched Box.net from his college dorm room, he was exploring a lot of new territory. Now, as CEO of a company that has raised nearly $30 million in venture capital since 2005, he has filtered what he has learned into five lessons, which he shares in this entrepreneur thought leader lecture, given at Stanford University:(Can&amp;'t see the video Click here.)Next Story: Deals &amp;038' More: Storenvy snags $1.5M for indie e-commerce marketplace, Cohuman raises $600K to organize your to-do list Previous Story: Silicon Valley VCs reach highest confidence levels in two yearsPrintEmailTwitterFacebookGoogle BuzzLinkedIn      DiggStumbleUponRedditDeliciousGoogleMore&amp;8230'          Tags: Stanford University          Tags: Stanford UniversityChris Morris is editor of the Entrepreneur Corner on VentureBeat, helping start-up business owners launch and grow their companies. He previously worked at Yahoo! Finance, where he was managing editor, and as director of content development at CNNMoney.com. He is also a widely respected journalist in the video game and technology fields, whose work has appeared in Variety, CNBC.com, AOL and Forbes.com. Follow him on Twitter at @MorrisatLarge Have news to share Launching a startup Email: tips@venturebeat.comVentureBeat has new weekly email newsletters.  Stay on top of the news, and don't miss a beat.<br/><br/>0 Vote(s) ]]></description>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
