Rev2.org

It seems that the recent release of several competitors in the electronic book reader arena has made Amazon a little nervous.  Amazon announced, via press release, the availability of the Kindle Development Kit (KDK), which allows software engineers to build interactive book kits for the popular reader.

Brad Stone at the New York Times has high hopes for the KDK.  So far, the kit has only been formally released to select developers, but it will enter open beta next month.  There will be three types of application: free, paid, and subscription apps.

In another article, Stone considers the ramifications of Amazon’s move versus Apple’s quiet courting of publishers with the pending release of its new tablet platform.  That tablet is expected to become a book reader of choice for many who would prefer a more all-in-one device (computer, notebook, and book reader).

Yet the two devices are extremely different and hard to compare in this way.  The Kindle, for instance, was built from the ground up as a book reader and nothing more.  It will, of course, be much cheaper than Apple’s tablet, but beyond that, it is nothing close to the standard notebook computer.

The Kindle, for instance, doesn’t have the ability to show fast-moving or even very animated graphics and, in fact, can’t even display color.  The Kindle’s E Ink screen refreshes slowly and the Kindle’s wireless connection is paid for through the purchases made by the consumer (book downloads, software updates, etc.) and will continue to be so.  There are no monthly fees with the device.  Even active content from the new developer kit would be paid for in this manner.

Interestingly, while Amazon has been planning the KDK for quite a while, their mention of it about a year ago coincided with the announcement from Barnes & Noble and others who planned to release their own reader to the market to compete with the Kindle.  That may be the driving force behind Amazon’s decision more than anything Apple is doing.

In the ongoing tech wars between the IT giants Microsoft, Google, and Apple, strange bedfellows are not unusual.  In this case, the enemy of my enemy is my friend with Apple and Microsoft apparently in negotiations to make the Seattle giant’s Bing search engine the default on the iPhone platform.

Both companies have bones to pick with Google, who’s competing against them on several fronts, now including on smart phones with the Nexus One directly competing with the iPhone network-to-network.

Business Week reports that the discussions between Apple and Microsoft have been underway for some time and that an announcement regarding the replacement of Google with Bing as the default search on the iPhone could be imminent.

Dan Nosowitz at CNet News makes it clear where the lines have been drawn, though.  While Apple and Microsoft might be competing with operating systems and software, they are definitely not competing in the mobile phone arena.  In that regard, Apple’s top competitor is now Google.  So the deal makes sense in that way.

In dollars and cents, this effects all concerned and is more than just a gesture to make a statement.  Google’s ads appear on searches using the iPhone and that revenue would be largely lost were the default search to change.  Search Engine Land’s Greg Sterling points out that this is a deal involving about 70 million devices.   Shifting from one search to the other as the default would potentially mean hundreds of millions of dollars.

Sterling also points out the problems Verizon Wireless had when they switched the default Blackberry search engine to Bing after penning a deal with Microsoft.  Users were extremely upset at the sudden change and forced Verizon to backpedal and give tutorials on how to return Google as their primary search tool on the devices.

It’s definitely an interesting battle in the Tech War that’s been waging between the three corporate giants.  For the record, I used a Bing images search to find the photo accompanying this article and Google to find references.

It hit the New York Times amidst the buzz about the Times planning to begin charging for content, but that didn’t slow down the speculation around the ‘Net.  Microsoft is, according to the NYT, in talks with cable TV outlets, notably ESPN, to negotiate streaming content onto the Xbox.

The idea is to combine cable television and Xbox Live to make the game box more than just games.  With the Box falling behind other game systems like the Nintendo Wii and PlayStation, Microsoft no doubt hopes to boost market share by creating an all-in-one system with the Xbox to appeal to more than just kids and teenagers, but also parents.

The SeattlePI says that the quiet talks, behind closed doors, were “in-depth” between Microsoft and Disney (who owns ESPN).  They point out that both the Wii and PlayStation have Netflix streaming, making it no longer exclusive to the Xbox.

Of the three consoles, it appears that the Xbox is the one that is really turning into something akin to, well, your computer, really.  Although it still plugs into the TV and uses game paddles instead of a keyboard and mouse, the Xbox is capable of using Twitter, streaming music from Last.fm, and more.  Just like, well, your desktop.

It appears that one of the hottest venues now for traditional game console developers to explore is integrating the console with the Internet.  It’s only a matter of time before the console comes full circle and WebTV is born again, really.  Only this time, I hope, with a better price plan, the ability to actually load websites, and no loooooong waits for the dialup connection to finish downloading…

Well, it’s been a while since speculation over whether the New York Times would begin to charge online readers for content has arisen.  Now it’s back, this time from New York Magazine, who reports that the NYT has decided to start charging for content and has apparently settled on the “metered system.”

This system allows visitors to read a certain number of articles for free before hitting a pay wall requiring a subscription to see more.  This metered setup is used by the Financial Times.

The last time the NYT was predicted to go to a pay model was back in July, in the Daily Telegraph.  They weren’t the first either, but it appears the Times was able to hold off more speculation for half a year before this latest one.

Most people seem to be in agreement that the NYT plans to go to some kind of paid scheme, it’s just a matter of when.  The beleaguered news giant has been taking punches financially for some time and is losing readership right and left in favor of the Web.

Meanwhile, CNET is reporting that a spokesperson for the Times has confirmed that “changes are coming to the website,” but nothing more.

Those changes, however, might not necessarily be for a paid subscription model to read the newspaper on the Internet.  They could have something to do with a rumored special deal that is supposedly being made between Apple and the NYT.

That deal involves the much-anticipated “iSlate” or Apple Tablet computer.  Digital Trends’ Dena Cassella talks about that and the fact that Apple has been known to be shopping around for media companies and content providers for its new tablet.

All very interesting, for sure.  It’s only a matter of time before traditional print media begins to realize that their day is done and others are moving in to fill the void.

In the ongoing saga of the Google hacker attack from China, VeriSign’s iDefense group, according to Ars Technica, has issued a report from their security lab pinpointing the Chinese government as the culprit in the attacks.  The report, which steps beyond Google’s careful non-naming of suspects and the U.S. State Department’s tip-toe politics, cites sources in the defense and intelligence communities that specifically name the Chinese government to have been behind the hacking.

This explosive information has taken center stage, dwarfing the announcement from Microsoft regarding a critical Zero-Day flaw in Internet Explorer, which was also likely used in the compromising attack on Google’s Gmail and other services in China.  Erik Larkin at PC World explains that these Zero Day attacks were part of the campaign against Google and others in targeting human rights activists in China.

Meanwhile, McAfee Labs have been hard at work doing their share of investigation, naming the effort Aurora and naming various companies that were targeted in the attack.  They point that the attack vector on the IE exploit was targeted specifically at Internet Explorer 6, still popular in some parts of Asia using older machines, though no longer supported by Microsoft.  Their name “Aurora” for the attacks comes from the file path used on the hacker’s machine, which was included on two unscrubbed binaries left behind.

McAfee goes on to highlight the fact that in today’s cyber warrior battlefield, the Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) is the deadliest form of attack and is the one most feared by defenders.  Using this strategy of pinpoint, targeted attacks that are swift and often unnoticed, the hackers compromised several high profile companies including Google, Adobe and Yahoo! (among others), as we reported yesterday.

The story continues to unfold and it will be interesting to see the political response to this latest information.

The Chinese government responded to Google’s allegations of hacking and the direct threat of withdrawing Google.cn entirely by issuing a say-nothing response, according to Bloomberg.  The news service also points out that it’s against Chinese law to hack or make online attacks, but like most governments, China’s government makes the law, they don’t necessarily have to obey it.

When we covered this breaking news that seems to involve most of the world’s superpowers (China, the U.S., and Google), it was clear that Google’s stance was not on moral high ground, as some might believe, but purely based on business.  Google complies with local laws when operating in various countries–a sensible policy for sustainable business.  In China’s case, however, Google made it clear that compying with the strict censorship and then being the focus of concerted cyber-attacks directed quite obviously and specifically at human rights activists as well as being the victim of theft of proprietary technology, makes doing business in China under these rules potentially too costly.

So Google threatened to pull it’s multi-million dollar operations out of China and dump the 300 million plus Chinese Internet surfers rather than continue with Google.cn.

Venturebeat’s Kim-Mai Cutler reports that this threat of Google’s leaving was greeted with a “we don’t care” response from the Chinese tech and investment communities.  As for Google’s 20% market share in China?  Phooey.  “They want an angle so the U.S. government can get involved,” says Jess Wu of The Chinese Founders Fund.

Meanwhile, Adobe confirmed that the attacks they suffered earlier this month were connected to the massive attack that Google suffered yesterday, according to Computerworld.

Joining Adobe, Yahoo! announced that they were also attacked, as reported in BusinessWeek, and so was a law firm that sued the Chinese government, reported by ZDNet.

In the end, the question will come down to politics it appears.  Which means no one will give any clear answers.