Henry Markram, the Blue Brain guy, says in an email to IBM’s CTO, that the project is not even close to an ant’s brain and that the kind of simulations pulled off by IBM are trivial. He also calls the whole thing “stupid”, and “extremely harmful to the field”. [IEEE via Popsci]

PANASONIC MAINTAINS GLOBAL #1 POSITION IN CORDLESS TELEPHONES

Data from Leading Research Firm Confirms Substantial Lead in Worldwide Sales of Consumer Telephones

Secaucus, NJ (November 23, 2009) – Panasonic System Networks Company of America today announced that it maintained its #1 global leadership position in the cordless telephone market for the full calendar year 2008. Market data from the prominent information technology research firm MZA Ltd. confirms Panasonic’s #1 position in worldwide shipments of DECT* cordless phones and other digital cordless phones.

Panasonic’s share of the global cordless telephone market in 2008 was 19%, according to the MZA report, “The Global Consumer Cordless Telephony Market.” The nearest competitor held an 11% share of the global market.

“Panasonic continues to be consumers’ favourite because we start with the consumers’ needs in mind,” said Bill Taylor, President, Panasonic System Networks Company of America. “From handset design to features such as Talking Caller ID, our focus is on what consumers need and how our phones can enhance their daily lives. Consumers have made Panasonic the #1 brand year after year and know they can count on Panasonic telephones to deliver exceptional reliability and affordability.”

MZA reported that DECT phones showed strong growth in North America relative to other digital cordless phones. In DECT technology Panasonic’s market position was even stronger, rising from 20% in 2007 to 23% in 2008, surpassing the next nearest competitor by 8 points of market share.

MZA concluded that a variety of factors continue to drive sales, including a large customer base that prefers to own a landline phone, attractively priced packages from telephone service providers and the availability of multi-handset bundles.

*DECT: Digitally Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications standard for minimal interference and extended range and battery life

As far as fumbles go, confusing people about your new products name ranks pretty high, and that’s exactly what they did—we were there, and at first we thought the phone was called the Blur, then the Click, then the Cliq, as did pretty much the entire internet. Exhibit A, above.

Lance Ulanoff at PCMag took particular offense to the whole shitshow, and went so far as to pen a takedown piece on entire event:

The keynote did convey Motorola’s sense of urgency. In fact, the whole event felt rushed. Motorola never stopped long enough to give us a good look at the CLIQ. It was like the Cliffs Notes version of a product launch. Major product points were glossed over or never explained. I don’t think anyone specifically said that the big touch screen phone was hiding a QWERTY keyboard. Instead, you just kind of noticed it as the presentation went along.

Implied QWERTY! This is one of the most brutal hatchet jobs I’ve ever seen inflicted on a non-human, but it’s probably deserved. Which is a shame, because the Cliq turned out to be a pretty swell little phone, actually! [PCMag]

An AT&T senior VP:

We appreciate the opportunity to clear up misconceptions related to an application Google submitted to Apple for inclusion in the Apple App Store. We fully support the FCC’s goal of getting the facts and data necessary to inform its policymaking.

To that end, let me state unequivocally, AT&T had no role in any decision by Apple to not accept the Google Voice application for inclusion in the Apple App Store. AT&T was not asked about the matter by Apple at any time, nor did we offer any view one way or the other.

We had nothing to do with this! Really! But we’re just saying, even if we did—we didn’t!-it wouldn’t matter, since you’ve got web apps! Seriously.

The most interesting in AT&T’s statement is regarding VoIP. It seems like Apple could actually allow Skype over 3G, if it wanted to (though AT&T would really prefer all VoIP apps run over Wi-Fi), and they agreed when the iPhone contract was first forged that Apple wouldn’t make its own VoIP app, meaning a video iChat probably ain’t in the cards for a long time:

AT&T and Apple agreed that Apple would not take affirmative steps to enable an iPhone to use AT&T’s wireless service (including 2G, 3G and Wi-Fi) to make VoIP calls without first obtaining AT&T’s consent. AT&T and Apple also agreed, however, that if a third party enables an iPhone to make VoIP calls using AT&T’s wireless service, Apple would have no obligation to take action against that third party.

Apple’s statement is even better, saying they haven’t even rejected Google Voice:

Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone.

Here’s where Apple states it alone shot down Google Voice:

Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter.

Of course we all know their core reason—”it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience”—is a crock, since there are ton of other dialers and messaging apps out there, as we’ve pointed out. Apple pretending that it’s also because they care about your safety is cute, too:

In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways.

Riiiight.

Amidst the swirl of horse crap, Apple does provides key insights into the App Store review process: There are merely 40 full-time reviewers for those thousands of apps, and at least two of them must review each app. Apps that might have a problem are escalated to an executive review board that meets “weekly”. Even with these constraints, Apple says 95 per cent of apps make it through the review process within 2 weeks. Twenty per cent of them are rejected. And incredibly they’ve reviewed over 200,000 apps and updates.

Anyway, there’s a lot to sift through here, though amazingly, none of it really explains what happened to Google Voice. See for yourself: AT&T’s full release release here [PDF]; Apple’s here. Warning: They’re loooooong.

You’d be forgiven for thinking Psystar had fallen off some kind of wagon a few weeks ago, when they somehow emerged from (possibly strategic) bankruptcy only to immediately release another hackintosh product, just like the ones that landed them in their predicament in the first place. Their move was bold; their post-bankruptcy statements, hilariously brash.

Now the Psystar PR team, such as they are, is back at it, and they’re rallying the troops—this time, with a software, more nuanced message:

Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy. Apple can’t tell an applications developer that it can’t make a piece of Mac-compatible software. They can’t forbid Mac users from writing blogs critical of Apple. And they can’t tell us not to write kernel extensions that turn the computers we buy into Mac-compatible hardware.

A new trial date has been set for January 11, 2010, in federal court in San Francisco. As we move toward trial, we’ll be keeping you informed about the arguments, the evidence, and what’s going on in the case. And, come January, Camara & Sibley will be ready to fight for Psystar, guns blazin’. We hope to see you there!

Camara & Sibley? That sounds suspiciously legitimate! And what happened to David and Goliath, and applesauce? It seems they’re moving away from the silly rhetoric and returning to an older, more sympathetic refrain:

Everyone here values openness. And that’s how we’re going to fight Apple: in public. We have nothing to hide. We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself. We’re probably one of Apple’s biggest customers. Then we install these copies of OS X, along with kernel extensions that we wrote in-house, on computers that we buy and build. Then we resell the package to people like you. That’s it.

The court date is set for January 11 in San Francisco, where, assuming Psystar stays serious about this, we might actually get a decent show. [Psystar via OS News—Thanks, Rob!]

The small irony here is that Sony Ericsson makes Windows Mobile phones, whose credo is that it’s all about choice. But what are you waiting for, take the poll!

I, for one, think there are too many damn Twitter apps—Apple really should just block every Twitter app submitted after today. I hope Microsoft takes a hard line as well with its app store, I really wouldn’t want there to be too many choices. [Twtpoll]

Following their endearingly blustery update announcement, a Palm spokesperson explained that the company will take this fight, possibly the greatest battle of our generation, to the ends of the earth. Or at least to the leading opt-in industry advocacy organisation for USB hardware:

Palm believes that openness and interoperability offer better experiences for users by allowing them the freedom to use the content they own without interference across devices and services, so on behalf of consumers, we have notified the USB Implementers Forum of what we believe is improper use of the Vendor ID number by another member.

To quote the least appropriate person possible, uhh, “Boom?” But what does “improper use of the vendor ID number” mean? Palm isn’t very specific, though I imagine they have a conceptual, rather than a compliance, issue with Apple. In other words, Palm seems to think that Apple’s use of the its vendor ID to shut others out of using its software is somehow wrong, or out of line with the USB-IF’s stated ethos. That, and the fact that Palm pretty much has to question the legitimacy (or usage) of Apple’s vendor ID, because by designing the Pre to spoof an iPod vendor ID, they’re totally infringing upon it. Check this USB-IF compliance update from 2007:

The Vendor ID used by a product must match the VID of the company producing the product (the integrator). Please ensure that the VID used by the product matches the company making the product. The USB-IF does not permit the product to display the silicon VID instead of the company making the product…With written permission, the device may be listed on the Integrators List.

I’ve got a feeling Palm doesn’t have that permission slip.

The best part about this is how low the real stakes are: Vendor IDs, “USB Compliant!” badges and iTunes syncing are all that’s materially at risk here for either company. All the rest is a battle for good PR, fought by PR people. If nothing else, it has been, and will continue to be, really, really fun to watch. [Quote via AllThingsD]

Last week brought a distressing tale of sobriety and job loss from Redmond, but following a concerted internet scorn-fest, Microsoft has come back around to the idea of a corporate campus pub. Mostly.

Microsoft spokesman Lou Gellos, whose Office Space-esque statements on the original cancellation were probably the only reason the story—which I’d like to remind you reflexive naysayers was about a large company building an at-work bar for their employees—gained traction in the first place, confirmed the reversal to Techflash, saying that Spitfire (the contracted pub chain) and Microsoft had discovered “a creative way to find that happy medium.” That happy medium apparently entails drinking only after 3:00, exclusively during scheduled gatherings and special events. WinMo Wednesdays anyone? [TechFlash via CNET]

“Flowers and Dinners Are Just Not Enough — Show Your Mum How Special. She Really Is With Sleek LCD HDTVs from Westinghouse”

To which, my mum laughs and asks me if these people are on drugs: “Why would I like a TV as a Mother’s Day present? Are these people stupid?” As you can see in the capture, the rest of the copy is equally as retarded. Do they really think mums want “sleek” LCD HDTVs? Do some PR people have mums? Maybe they were abandoned under a bridge? Or do they actually hate mums?

I want answers, PR people, answers!

[Blam: Hey, wait! My Mum asked for an LCD TV for mothers day!]
[JD: The old woman living in the cardboard box next to your home is not your mum, Brian]