May 2, 2024

Bits Blog: Steve Jobs: Designer First, C.E.O. Second

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

2:45 p.m. | Updated Correcting the photo of the indicator light on the Mac laptop.

If you walked into the office of almost any chief executive and asked him or her to describe a favorite font, I’m pretty sure you would be greeted with a blank stare and silence. If you asked Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple, you had better make yourself comfortable: Mr. Jobs was passionate about typography and would have described, in great detail, the intricacies of a single serif.

That is what made Mr. Jobs’s products feel so impeccable. He didn’t just pore over spreadsheets, personnel issues and revenue numbers, as most C.E.O.’s are expected to do. He thought about design, too. In fact, he went beyond thinking about it. He obsessed over it — every curve, every pixel, every ligature, every gradient.

In his widely noted commencement speech at Stanford University in 2005, Mr. Jobs explained where this design passion came from, describing a typography class he attended after dropping out of college:

“Because I had dropped out and didn’t have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and sans-serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can’t capture, and I found it fascinating.

“None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But 10 years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography.”

His focus on the little things like the “space between different letter combinations” was a constant from the development of the Macintosh to the iPhone, which was released more than 20 years later.

This is what separated Mr. Jobs, as a chief executive, from everyone else.

When Mr. Jobs resigned as Apple’s chief executive in August, Vic Gundotra, senior vice president for engineering at Google, posted an account of an exchange with Mr. Jobs before the introduction of the iPhone.

Mr. Gundotra said Mr. Jobs had called him on a Sunday morning with an “urgent issue, one that I need addressed right away.” Mr. Jobs said: “I’ve been looking at the Google logo on the iPhone and I’m not happy with the icon. The second O in Google doesn’t have the right yellow gradient. It’s just wrong and I’m going to have Greg fix it tomorrow. Is that O.K. with you?”

The hundreds of designers who had been involved in the iPhone development didn’t notice that the shading in a yellow O might have a slightly incorrect gradient. But Mr. Jobs did.

But the greatest example of Mr. Jobs’s attention to detail and design can be found in the little millimeter-sized glowing light that appears on every MacBook Laptop. The light, known as a sleep indicator, glows when the laptop is closed, or sleeping. Competing laptops have this feature too, but Apple’s is different.

screenshot via Apple.com The sleep indicator light on MacBook laptops glows at the pace of a breathing adult.

The Mac sleep indicator is timed to glow at the average breathing rate of an adult: 12 breaths per minute. As with the space between typographic letter on the Macintosh, only Mr. Jobs could pay attention to such detail.

Correction: An image with an earlier version of this post was included in error. A correct MacBook laptop image of the sleep indicator light has been substituted.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=eb1afd0620d5fce2fb4f22956d358173

Bucks Blog: Wednesday Reading: Dale Carnegie and Emily Post for the Digital Age

October 05

Wednesday Reading: Dale Carnegie and Emily Post for the Digital Age

Dale Carnegie and Emily Post get updated for the digital age, iPhone gets an upgrade, eye doctors grow wary of Avastin and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8847276e2835f2b4b1fa17c7312cccaf

Julia Child’s ‘Mastering the Art of French Cooking’ Joins E-Book Revolution

That may explain why cookbooks have been late bloomers in the e-book revolution, lagging behind other categories, like fiction, that have been widely embraced in digital form.

Yet cookbooks have recently begun to show signs of strength in the digital book market, bolstered by publishers who are releasing e-book editions of new titles simultaneously with the print versions and converting older, classic cookbooks into digital form.

On Wednesday Alfred A. Knopf will release the e-book edition of one of the most famous cookbooks: “Mastering the Art of French Cooking,” by Julia Child, immortalized in the best seller “Julie Julia” and its film counterpart, starring Meryl Streep.

The introduction of “Mastering” to the e-book library is not just a testament to the book’s venerable status and enduring popularity, but also to the publishing industry’s willingness to embrace digital publishing with all its quirks, including, for cookbooks, shorthand measurements like “2 tbsp finely minced shallots,” which appear in smaller type.

While most novels and nonfiction books are easily converted into black-and-white e-books, which can be read on anything from an iPhone to a Nook to a Kindle, cookbooks are not so straightforward.

“Cookbooks often have incredibly complex layouts,” said Jennifer Olsen, the manager of digital production for the Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. “They are very tricky to produce as e-books.”

Knopf first tried to convert “Mastering the Art of French Cooking,” which Ms. Child wrote with Louisette Bertholle and Simone Beck and released in print 50 years ago, into an e-book more than a year ago. At the time the technology was not available to replicate Ms. Child’s distinctive two-column format, which allowed the reader to see the ingredients alongside the corresponding instructions in the recipe, step by step, rather than the more conventional format of listing ingredients at the beginning.

Judith Jones, the recently retired editor at Knopf who acquired “Mastering” in 1961, was one of the people who objected, arguing that the publisher should abandon the effort until an e-book could faithfully reproduce the original.

When Knopf tried again this summer, the production staff had the entire book retyped by hand, since no electronic file of the book existed. The illustrations throughout the cookbook — tiny sketches of sauté pans and freshly julienned carrots — were scanned at a high resolution so they could be transferred to the e-book. And the publisher managed to recreate the two-column format, just like the original version of “Mastering.”

Other features are purely digital: live links allow readers to jump to other sections in the book, as when Ms. Child suggests that cooks preparing Potage Velouté aux Champignons should also read the recipe for Fluted Mushroom Caps. And readers who are unsure what a roux is can click on the word and gain access to a pop-up dictionary entry. (It’s a mixture of butter and flour.)

When Ms. Jones saw the new e-book edition, she was persuaded that it should be released.

“I suddenly saw the difference,” she said. “You really could almost improve on how you read the book.”

Some elements of the 752-page print edition, which has sold 2.5 million copies, have been lost in the digital version. The delicate font used in the book, announcing recipes like Fricassée de Poulet à l’Ancienne and Moules au Beurre d’Escargot, could not be reproduced in the e-book version.

And the book is better experienced on tablets than on dedicated e-readers. While it is possible to read it on a black-and-white Kindle or Nook, many of the design elements cannot be viewed on those devices.

Still, eager food writers have hailed the release as “a milestone of sorts,” as the blogger Cookbook Man noted this week. “Since Julia was a pioneer in bringing cooking to TV, it’s only fitting that her 1961 classic helps usher in the digital age of cookbooks,” he wrote.

At $19.99, the e-book version of “Mastering” is only a few dollars cheaper than the hardcover edition available on Amazon for $22.74. (The list price of the hardcover is $40.)

Paul Bogaards, a spokesman for Knopf, said the price was in line with some e-book editions of other Knopf cookbooks, like “Sunday Suppers at Lucques,” by Suzanne Goin ($19.99), and “The Mozza Cookbook,” by Nancy Silverton ($18.99). Shorter cookbooks in e-format can sell for as little as $12.99.

As publishers have produced more e-book editions of cookbooks and dozens of cookbook apps, the overall category has shown gains in e-book sales, according to industry data. Kelly Gallagher, the vice president for publishing services for Bowker, a research organization for the publishing industry, said that while cookbooks were still behind other categories, like romance and mystery, they had been bought in larger numbers throughout this year.

In the first quarter of 2011, about 6 percent of total cookbook sales were in digital format, Mr. Gallagher said. By the end of the second quarter, that number had jumped to 8.5 percent.

The number of published cookbooks, both print and electronic, have increased to 3,300 in 2010 from 2,643 in 2009, according to data from Bowker. Even higher sales of e-cookbooks are expected in the coming months, thanks to the proliferation of color tablets, most recently with the introduction last week of the Kindle Fire by Amazon.

Sarah Rotman Epps, a senior analyst for Forrester Research, said that Apple sold 28.7 million iPads worldwide through the quarter ending in July. She now estimates that the company has sold at least 33 million of the devices.

Edward Ash-Milby, the cookbook buyer for Barnes Noble, said that the cookbooks that had seen strong sales in e-book have tended to be those with a more narrative structure.

But print sales are still strong, he added. “Cookbooks are a very strong category in our stores,” Mr. Ash-Milby said. “They’ve got a great future in print.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2b0a95289107742c0fe2728f429133cc

Bucks Blog: Tuesday Reading: Using the Net Wisely in a Health Crisis

October 04

Tuesday Reading: Using the Net Wisely in a Health Crisis

Using the net wisely in a health crisis, new iPhone faces stiff competition, odometer tampering rising on off-lease cars and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=bb2bd69a44c65bd7c73cd5edc99d6830

The Media Equation: Steve Jobs Saw What Media Titans Missed

At the time, publishers were profoundly unhappy. Apple was not only proposing to take a third of the revenues, but it was also requiring that the transaction go through Apple, meaning publishers would get none of the consumer data that had such high value to advertisers.

Mr. Jobs was friendly enough — I can recall a less pleasant conversation about the criminal case involving a stolen iPhone prototype — but he thought it was silly for publishers to whine about sales without data. After all, he said, they already did a tremendous business on the physical newsstand that did not provide a lick of data about their buyers.

Our exchange was more an example of Mr. Jobs as micromanager than as technological visionary. But the perspective it showed is indicative of a pattern for Apple and Mr. Jobs. Again and again, he would step up to entrenched players in the media with calcified business models and explain their business to them in ways they did not recognize from the inside.

Apple is a technology company, but as someone who writes about the insular kingdom of media, I can’t think of a bigger player on the board in the last 10 years. In music, in movies and in publishing, Apple has upended long-standing paradigms and altered the media landscape. (Television has been another story, so far, though there are rumors that the company is turning its guns on TV in a big way.)

So what secret tunnel did he use to bypass and overcome traditional media businesses? One carved by consumers. By placing sexy, irresistible devices in the hands of the public, he reverse-engineered the business model of the industries that produce the content for Apple’s gorgeous hardware.

When the iPod and iTunes were unveiled in 2001, the music industry was under siege from piracy, with services like Napster thriving on the free use of its content. Mr. Jobs’s take-it-or-leave-it deal gave Apple control over pricing, data, distribution and platform, a proposal of towering hubris. But the industry, kicking and screaming all the way, eventually went along, and 10 billion song downloads later, digital revenue is a fundamental part of the business.

In the process, Apple brought a practical end to the album format — allowing people to buy individual songs and create their own playlists.

ITunes not only supplied a legitimate, easy-to-use alternative to piracy, it created a runway for services like Pandora and Spotify.

“He took a locked system, one that was controlled by the record companies, and cracked it open,” said Jim Guerinot, the longtime manager of the Offspring, Trent Reznor and Nine Inch Nails, and Gwen Stefani. “That disruption created opportunities for everything that has happened since.”

Mr. Jobs did not so much see around corners; he saw things in plain sight that others did not. “It’s not the consumer’s job to know what they want,” he explained.

In the case of music, many of us wanted the ease and portability of MP3 files, but didn’t want to become mouse-enabled criminals taking the music we wanted. From that perspective, 99 cents seemed like a small price to pay.

“I think far from destroying the music business, he put it on a path to redemption,” said Tom Freston, former head of Viacom and MTV. “With the iPod and iTunes, Steve not only created his own ecosystem, it turned out to be one that was contagious and created opportunities not only for his computer business, but for all the Apple products that came behind it.”

Mr. Jobs was initially pegged as a technologist who did not understand the media and entertainment businesses, but his track record as an operator is pretty enviable. In 1986, he bought the company that would become Pixar from George Lucas for $5 million and invested $5 million more.

Mr. Jobs understood that all that technological processing power could be used in service of narrative in unforeseen ways. After two decades and many computer-generated blockbusters, he sold the company to Disney in a deal valued at $7.4 billion.

Mr. Jobs has walked quickly and surely past conventional wisdom. He had no interest in market research. He did things his own way and expected the rest of the world to fall into line. He both brought the mouse into our homes and more or less killed it off, eliminated the floppy disk with the first iMac, and did away with the DVD on the MacBook Air, decisions that foretold the obsolescence of physical media. He shrank Web-enabled devices by piggybacking on the phone business, profoundly changing the way in which people consume media.

“Before the iPhone, cyberspace was something you went to your desk to visit,” said Paul Saffo, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur and longtime Apple watcher. “Now cyberspace is something you carry in your pocket.”

Mr. Saffo compared Mr. Jobs to a latter-day Marshall McLuhan, one for whom the media device became the message.

“He used aesthetics and intuition to create objects of desire,” he said, adding that Mr. Jobs saw technological innovation as more than just advances in hardware.

“Steve was the first one to figure out it could produce profound new media experiences,” he said.

E-mail: carr@nytimes.com;

Twitter.com/carr2n

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: August 27, 2011

An earlier version of this article misstated the inventor of the computer mouse. It was invented by Douglas Engelbart, not Steve Jobs.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/business/media/steve-jobs-reigned-in-a-kingdom-of-altered-landscapes.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

At Apple, Cook Has Tough Act to Follow

These two notions, one indisputably true and the other somewhere between a prediction and a hope, dominated the discussion of Apple the day after Mr. Jobs stepped down as its chief executive, saying he could no longer effectively run it.

Even Silicon Valley, long accustomed to seeing outsize personalities run a company one moment and be gone the next, has never seen a transition quite like this.

Apple tried to stress that it was business as usual. Mr. Cook, the new chief executive, sent a message to employees saying, “Apple is not going to change.”

Not immediately, perhaps. Mr. Cook should have it relatively easy for the next couple of years, most commentators agreed. The company will keep putting out phones, tablets and computers that are faster, thinner and lighter than those that came before. As the former chief operating officer, Mr. Cook has plenty of experience in securing a supply of cutting-edge parts that will make this possible.

But at a certain point, if Apple wants to retain or even extend its $350 billion stock market valuation, the Apple executives must channel Mr. Jobs and think up a new product — like the iPod, iPhone or iPad — that is in a different category altogether. They will have to see the future and make it real.

Silicon Valley is founded on this notion, that kids in a garage can build something that will topple the existing order. Indeed, that is Apple’s own story. But it is much harder to take huge risks when you’re no longer in a garage but running a 50,000-employee company.

Mr. Cook knows this. At Apple, he once said, “we take risks knowing that risk will sometimes result in failure, but without the possibility of failure there is no possibility of success.”

Now he will have the chance — probably many chances — to take those risks. Many who watch Apple closely say they think he is up to the challenge.

“I would lean toward an optimistic view,” said Michael Maccoby, a management consultant and author of the book “The Productive Narcissist: The Promise and Peril of Visionary Leadership.” “Steve Jobs is a hard act to follow but not an impossible one. I see so many positive factors here. Apple has created a platform, a technology, patents, processes. It’s created the Apple stores. It’s created attitudes among customers.”

Still, genius on the Jobs level is not exactly plentiful.

“Steve could build something beautiful and take all of the fright out of it. What the early Macs did was say a computer is just a tool, anyone can use it,” said Jay Elliot, an early Apple executive.

“He’s leaving Apple with a long-term vision that his successors will implement,” said Mr. Elliot, who has written a book on Mr. Jobs’s leadership style. “But in three or five years they’re going to have to find some other visionaries.”

Investors seem not to be looking that far ahead. Apple’s stock, which slid in after-hours trading Wednesday when the news was first released, fell only modestly Thursday even as the overall market stumbled, closing down 0.7 percent, at $373.72. They may be drawing comfort from the fact that Mr. Jobs is still around as chairman. He was on the Apple campus Wednesday for a board meeting, according to a person with knowledge of his whereabouts.

Mr. Cook, with his soft-spoken demeanor, is at an advantage because his personality is the opposite of Mr. Jobs’s, who was mercurial, said Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford. They would otherwise be compared, and Mr. Cook would inevitably be described as “Steve Light.”

“It’s better to be different than a second-rate version of what the last person was,” Mr. Pfeffer said. He compared the situation to that of Southwest Airlines, whose colorful co-founder, Herbert D. Kelleher, eventually stepped down and was replaced by a more sedate executive, Gary C. Kelly.

Apple, continuing its tradition of being close-mouthed, did not make Mr. Cook, 50, available for an interview. In a commencement address at Auburn University last year, Mr. Cook, who graduated from the school, described his decision to join Apple in 1998 as the most significant of his life and one that allowed him to engage in “truly meaningful work.”

Joining Apple was not obvious at the time, he said, because of its precarious state, which made many people think it was on the road to bankruptcy.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=6f2d9590a56acecaffa0be6ed1373756

Pogue’s Posts: Apple’s Steve Jobs Reshaped Industries

Steven P. Jobs at a product event in 2007.Thor Swift for The New York TimesSteven P. Jobs at a product event in 2007.

When Steve Jobs resigned as the chief executive of Apple on Wednesday, his note to the public and the Apple board was short and classy. The gist was this: “I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s C.E.O., I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.”

As you can imagine, this news is rocking the world — and not just the tech world. Mr. Jobs, after all, has almost single-handedly reshaped a stunning range of industries: music, TV, movies, software, cellphones, and cloud computing. The products he’s shepherded into existence with single-minded vision read like a Top 10 list, or a Top 50 list, of the world’s most successful inventions: Macintosh. iPod. iPhone. iTunes. iMovie. iPad.

FDDP
The Times’s technology columnist, David Pogue, keeps you on top of the industry in his free, weekly e-mail newsletter.
Sign up | See Sample

He’s done pretty well for Apple stockholders, too. Ten years ago Apple’s stock was at $9 a share; today, it’s $376. Apple is neck-and-neck with Exxon Mobil for the title of world’s most valuable company.

Most of the reactions online today read like obituaries — for Steve Jobs, if not for Apple.

Is that appropriate? Well, only Mr. Jobs’s inner circle knows how sick he actually is. (He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2004, had a liver transplant in 2009 and has had health troubles ever since.) But nobody, not even Mr. Jobs, can say for sure whether Apple can still be Apple without him at the helm.

There are three reasons that it might — and one big reason that it might not.

The good news: First, Mr. Jobs isn’t leaving Apple. He’ll remain as chairman of the Apple board. Tim Cook, who’s been Apple’s director of operations for seven years, will take over as chief executive. (He’s been acting C.E.O. since January.)

You can bet that as chairman, Mr. Jobs will still be the godfather. He’ll still be pulling plenty of strings, feeding his vision to his carefully built team, and weighing in on the company’s compass headings.

Second, the tech world doesn’t turn on a dime. Apple’s pipeline is already stuffed with at least a couple of years’ worth of Jobs-directed products. In the short term, you won’t see any difference in Apple’s output of cool, popular inventions.

Third, even if Mr. Jobs isn’t sitting at every design meeting, ripping apart or heartily embracing each idea presented to him, his tastes, methods and philosophies are deeply entrenched in the company’s blood.

In Silicon Valley, success begets success. And at this point, few companies have as high a concentration of geniuses — in technology, design and marketing — as Apple. Leaders like the design god Jonathan Ive and the operations mastermind Tim Cook won’t let the company go astray.

So it’s pretty clear that for the next few years, at least, Apple will still be Apple without Mr. Jobs as involved as he’s been for years.

But despite these positive signs, there’s one heck of a huge elephant in the room — one unavoidable reason why it’s hard to imagine Apple without Mr. Jobs steering the ship: personality.

His personality made Apple Apple. That’s why no other company has ever been able to duplicate Apple’s success. Even when Microsoft or Google or Hewlett-Packard tried to mimic Apple’s every move, run its designs through the corporate copying machine, they never succeeded. And that’s because they never had such a single, razor-focused, deeply opinionated, micromanaging, uncompromising, charismatic, persuasive, mind-blowingly visionary leader.

By maintaining so much control over even the smallest design decisions, by anticipating what we all wanted even before we did, by spotting the promise in new technologies when they were still prototypes, Steve Jobs ran Apple with the nimbleness of a start-up company, even as he built it into one of the world’s biggest enterprises.

“I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it,” Mr. Jobs wrote in his resignation letter.

That’s a wonderful endorsement. But really? Can he really mean that Apple’s days will be brighter and more innovative without him in the driver’s seat?

Tim Cook gets rave reviews as an executive and numbers guy. But is he a Jobs-style visionary? Does he have Jobs-style charisma? Does he have a Jobsian reality distortion field? Before the iTunes Store opened, would he have been able to convince the record companies to sell their music for $1 a song? In 2005, would he have had the force of personality to make Cingular redesign its voice-mail system for the iPhone’s visual voice mail? In 2009, would he have been able to cow ATT into offering a no-contract-required, month-at-a-time data plan for the iPad?

Will he have the crazy confidence to kill off technologies he sees as dying, as Mr. Jobs has over and over again (floppy drive, dial-up modem, and, in Mac OS X Lion, even faxing)?

Does he know where the puck of public taste will come to rest two years from now? Five years from now?

There’s an awful lot of Steve Jobs in Apple, and an incredible amount of talent at its Cupertino headquarters. So no matter what happens, Apple will not slowly sink into a directionless, uncharacterizable, spread-thin blob like, say, Yahoo or Hewlett-Packard or Microsoft.

But what will happen when Mr. Jobs’s pipeline is no longer full, and when his difficult, brilliant, charismatic, future-shaping personality is no longer the face of Apple?

It’s hard to imagine that we’ll ever see another 15 years of blockbuster, culture-changing hits like the iMac, iPod, iPhone and iPad — from Apple or anyone else. And that’s really, really sad.

Thank you, Mr. Jobs, for an incredible run. The worlds of culture, media and technology have never seen anything like you.

In your new role, we wish you health, rest and happiness — and, whenever you feel up to it, the opportunity to let Apple know where the puck will come to rest.


This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: August 25, 2011

An earlier version of this post referred incorrectly to the cancer diagnosis Mr. Jobs received in 2004. It was pancreatic cancer, not liver cancer.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=9c8407bef22ebe80dd3cdf452cfc5980

DealBook: BlackBerry Maker RIM Again Subject of Takeover Talk

The new Blackberry Torch 9860.Mark Blinch/ReutersThe new Blackberry Torch 9860.

OTTAWA — Ever since the introduction of its first BlackBerry more than a decade ago, Research in Motion has defied expectations that it would be gobbled up by a larger rival and has effectively created the market for smartphones.

But as Google moves to buy Motorola Mobility, RIM, already under pressure from diminished prospects and declining market share, is once again the subject of takeover talk.

Since the Motorola acquisition was announced on Monday, shares of RIM, which have suffered for much of the year, have shot up more than 10 percent, mainly on speculation of a sale.

“For a long while the market cap of RIM prevented any kind of takeover,” said Adam Leach, a London-based analyst with Ovum. “I’m certainly not writing them off now, but they have got a tough job.”

Tenille Kennedy, a spokeswoman for RIM, said the company does not “comment on rumors and speculation.”

The Motorola deal, which has the potential to shake up the mobile industry, comes at a difficult time for RIM.

After pioneering wireless e-mail, RIM has slowly ceded control to Apple’s iPhone and to handsets that run on Google’s Android operating system. The current lineup of BlackBerrys relies on technology that dates back to the first models of the smartphone.

RIM has moved to spruce up its technology. In 2010, the company bought QNX Software Systems of Ottawa and the Astonishing Tribe, a Swedish user interface design house, to recreate the BlackBerry platform.

But the results have been disappointing so far. The BlackBerry Playbook received a weak reception this spring when it lacked important features like an integrated e-mail application. Last week, Sprint dropped plans to offer a forthcoming model of the tablet computer that would have connected to the carrier’s network.

RIM does not seem in a rush to introduce new Blackberry phones based on the QNX software, either. The models will not be available until later next year, and the company is offering no further specifics.

Still, RIM has plenty to offer suitors. Despite reducing financial forecasts, the company remains firmly profitable. In the latest quarter, the handset manufacturer reported net income of $695 million, down from $769 million in the quarter a year ago.

BlackBerry, too, remains a valuable brand, even as its market share declines.

It is the device of choice for corporate customers in important industries like financial services and law enforcement, which depend on the unique features of the BlackBerry to safeguard their e-mail. The security stems from RIM’s proprietary global network, a system that is hard to duplicate and also generates recurring revenue for the company.

While analysts have speculated in the past that Microsoft could be interested in BlackBerry, that seems less likely in light of the Motorola acquisition, said Al Hilwa, an analyst with IDC in Seattle. If some handset makers that use Google’s Android system switch to Windows Mobile Phone 7, Microsoft’s mobile technology, then a perpetual also-ran could become a serious competitor. In that case, a deal for BlackBerry would be less necessary.

“Microsoft is the party that stands the best to gain out of this,” said Mr. Leach.

A more likely buyer, said Mr. Hilwa, would be a large software company that, like Google, sees wireless as an important component in its future growth.

Alternatively, a cash-rich Chinese handset maker like ZTE or Huawei could view RIM as a way to expand beyond generic, low-profit phones.

Another possibility, if more remote, is the prospect of a better-known Asian manufacturer such as Samsung or HTC buying RIM to distinguish its products from the Android and Windows Phone competition.

A deal for RIM, though, faces significant hurdles.

For one, RIM’s co-chief executives, Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis, are the company’s largest shareholders. Neither seems interested in losing control. And they will not readily back down from a fight, as the executives demonstrated during a protracted patent battle several years ago that the company eventually lost.

The Canadian government, which must approve any takeover, has also been reluctant to sign off on deals for companies it views as strategic assets. Last year, the country’s regulators blocked the purchase of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan by BHP Billiton, the Australian mining company. Politicians and commentators have portrayed an acquisition of RIM as an economic doomsday outcome for Canada.

But while a takeover seemed unthinkable during previous debates, the prospects for a RIM deal may be less distant in the current environment.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=be5fc7205cf1fb5efb08703116ea9d4c

Deciding on a Book, and How to Read It

This might not sound so extraordinary, but I didn’t just read a book in print, on an e-reader or even on a mobile phone. Instead, I read a book on dozens of devices.

I was not trying to set a Guinness world record or paying off on an obscure bet. I wanted to answer a question I often hear: which e-reader or tablet is the best for reading books?

So I set out to try them all, reading a chapter on each: the Amazon Kindle, the first- and second-generation Apple iPads, the Barnes Noble Nook, an iPhone, a Windows Phone, a Google Android phone, a Google Android tablet and a laptop computer. To be fair, I also read a chapter in that old-fashioned form — a crumply old print paperback.

The book I chose was “The Alienist,” by Caleb Carr. It’s a New York City crime novel set in the late 1890s and involves a serial killer, a New York Times reporter and Theodore Roosevelt. This seemed the perfect group of misfits to bring on my reading journey.

For the first chapter, I turned to an Amazon Kindle ($140-$190).

In a quest for the right e-reader, the software for the device and the simplicity of buying a book play crucial roles. Shopping on Amazon for the Kindle is simple; you go to Amazon’s Web site and purchase the book, which is then sent to any devices with Kindle software installed.

Reading on the Amazon Kindle is a joy in many respects. The Kindle is light, weighing under nine ounces. Its six-inch screen is the perfect size for reading, and reading on its black and white E Ink display over extended periods doesn’t strain your eyes.

Battery life is outstanding; on average you charge the device only once a month.

My only complaint with the Kindle design is the placement of the keyboard at the bottom of the device. Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, played a crucial role in the design of the Kindle and has noted during past product announcements that the keyboard is there to help people take notes or search. But to me, it seems like a waste of space.

The Kindle also has other limitations. It is a dedicated e-reader, so you can’t hop off to the Web to look up facts, which I often wanted to do when reading a historical novel.

On the plus side, the Kindle software works on almost every device with a screen and an Internet connection. After reading my first chapter on the Kindle, I read subsequent chapters on a number of mobile phones. The Kindle app syncs your reading location between devices, so whichever one you pick up, it knows exactly where you left off.

Despite the small screen on a mobile phone, I find reading on one to be simple and satisfactory. Maybe this is because I have become accustomed to mobile screens, using them for hours at a time to check the news, sift through e-mail and navigate social networks.

All of the mobile phones on which I read chapters felt somewhat similar, although screen brightness and the size of the phone’s screen did vary. For example, I began Chapter 12 of the book on a Google Nexus S Android phone, which is made by Samsung. This phone is much lighter than an iPhone, but the screen felt a little less crisp. Reading on a Windows Phone 7 felt smooth, most likely because the Kindle app meshes well with the phone’s slick operating system.

If I had wanted to, I could have bought my book through dozens of e-book apps in the Apple App Store. Most are free and offer access to thousands of free e-books or paid versions. But the big downside for many is that you can read them only on Apple devices.

Apple also offers its own reading software, iBooks. Although iBooks looks beautiful, with a design that feels more like a traditional book, with sepia-toned paper and stylistic typography, again, it is available only on Apple devices. So if you own an iPad and an Android Phone, you won’t be able to jump between the two devices if you buy books through the iBooks Store.

For the next chapter, I downloaded the book from the Google eBookstore and read it on the Samsung Galaxy Tab, a Google Android tablet. The text was clean and easy on the eyes, but over all the experience wasn’t quite as satisfactory as I’d had with the Kindle, the other Android phones or the iPhone. The software hid menu screens in places that I had difficulty finding, and its design felt a little too rigid and even clunky.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=052ab7ef6db8f6958c2fb7c19bad9bac

Gadgetwise: Video: A Smartphone Showdown

In this video Sam Grobart, an iPhone user, and Andrew Ross Sorkin, who uses a BlackBerry, decide to swap phones. The change leads to a larger-than-expected transformation.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c799a40b0edc81dd88a785df29c40caf