The other day I received an email appeal from Free Press, “a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to reform the media,” to urge the FCC to end unreasonable penalties for switching cell phone providers or cancelling service.

Free Press’ mobile phone campaigns fly under a “Free My Phone” banner and feature a cell phone angelically equipped with white wings. For this specific campaign, though, the phone has been retouched with an angry facial expression and the indecorous exclamation “ETF, WTF?” The ETF stands for the “early termination fees” charged by cell phone carriers. And you know what the WTF stands for.

Free Press is fuming that “carriers still force us to pay outrageous penalties — up to $350 — if we cancel our phone service or switch carriers. There’s one question on everyone’s mind: WTF?” (Not everyone may phrase it that way, but it’s certainly a good question why termination fees are so high. After all, if you want to cancel your cable service, providers don’t hit you with exorbitant fees.)

Apparently, the FCC is asking the same question (though, perhaps, without the “WTF?”) Read more…

To support disaster relief efforts after this morning’s magnitude-8.8 earthquake in Chile, the Mobile Giving Foundation has announced the following text donation campaigns:

Text the word “CHILE” to 25383 to donate $10 (Habitat for Humanity)

Text the word “CHILE”  to 20222 to donate $10 (World Vision)

Text the word “CHILE” to 52000 to donate $10 (Salvation Army)

Text the word “YOUTH” to 20222 to donate $10 (UNICEF)

100% of your donation goes to the recipient charity, and the donation appears as a charge on your carrier bill, standard rates may apply. Additional campaigns will be announced here.

Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/todosnuestrosmuertos/

Related on Flipthemedia.com: Startup City: Mobile Giving Foundation

There has been a lot of discussion about the somewhat blatant omission of Flash from Apple’s newly introduced tablet, the iPad. Many of the technorati see the exclusion of Flash as Apple flexing its muscle as a kingmaker. They argue that Apple is using its influence to deprecate a technology it dislikes. While there has been some interesting talk around what this means for standards, web technologies and the future of Flash in particular, people may be missing the point. Apple’s decision to not include Flash on the iPhone OS platform (also used on the iPad) is likely a business decision and not an engineering one.

Those who support the decision argue that the inclusion of Flash would make the limitations of the hardware more obvious; as a CPU hog, Flash would slow down the browsing experience of the iPhone and the iPad and drain battery life. But businesses (Apple included) make engineering trade-offs all the time. Flash’s issues in Safari hardly seem like deal breakers and would be worthwhile trade-off for the value that it brings to a media consumption platform.

I don’t think Apple decided to pick a public fight with Adobe—arguably its most valuable third-party developer—because supporting Flash was too technically challenging. Rather, it likely has to do with Apple’s relationship with the content industry. Flash is verboten on the iPhone OS for the same reason that saving MP3s is verboten. So Apple can placate content owners and maintain the viability of its iTunes business.

If Flash were enabled on the iPhone OS, how long would it take for someone to put a streaming, Flash-based player in front of a new music service? Apple is the leading retailer of music in the United States. Why should it enable competition in a business where it has no peers and on a platform it has no reason to cede?  It simply doesn’t make sense for Apple to undercut its iTunes business and jeopardize its special status among content owners. It’s even possible that Apple’s agreements with rights holders expressly forbid it.

If user experience were the sole consideration, I’m sure Apple would gladly provide a Flash-enabled browser. While Apple may have some valid engineering concerns, they strike me as a convenient cover. Disabling Flash helps Apple control content on the platform by forcing it through iTunes or other approved software. This has to be clear to a firm who’s CEO sits on the board at Disney.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Google will tomorrow announce more “social” features to Gmail, such as status updates and sharing content. Considering that Gmail is a primary, free email service, this is a really great innovation for consumers. It also threatens dominant, dedicated social networks like Facebook and Twitter unless they too can be integrated into the Gmail social streams. Hopefully they will be.

What about mobile? Currently, Gmail can be accessed by every major mobile platform through IMAP setting, but I think that a social Gmail would require an entirely new application to utilize more rich functionality. This provides Google an opportunity to differentiate Android with a best-in-class social Gmail experience and extend its presence on other phones like Blackberry and iPhone with must-have social Gmail applications — like it has with Google Maps.

At risk will be those computer and mobile applications like TweetDeck and Tweetie that already aggregate social feeds like a social Gmail would, but don’t provide that core email service to complement. Also at risk are mobile check-in applications like Foursquare, which would have a hard time competing with a social Gmail mobile application that has the same GPS functionality and services (maybe without the gaming/novelty component).

Speaking of services, this is where a social Gmail mobile application could really excel. With its recent acquisition of AdMob, Google is ramping up the mobile advertisement services. By drawing from a pool of data drawn from a connected social network, email and search, the ad services could be incredibly targeted and sink the competition.

Social Gmail may be an evolutionary step for the email platform, but it could be revolutionary for Google’s mobile strategy.

In December 2007, Jim Manis founded the Bellevue-based Mobile Giving Foundation to establish an infrastructure for mobile charitable giving. After the earthquake in Haiti, the Mobile Giving Foundation worked to support more than 20 nonprofit organizations and helped set up high-profile campaigns for Wyclef Jean’s Yéle Foundation and the Clinton Foundation Haiti Relief Fund.

Why do you think the appeal to donate to Haiti by texting has been so successful?

It was a powerful message replicated across all communication platforms for the benefit of major charities. Texting provides an immediate way for a person to respond. It’s a powerful medium to take action.

Its success builds on a few factors. Mobile giving reaches an addressable audience of 260 million cell phone users. As a country, we send billions of text messages a year. The technology has become ubiquitous. Because of the work we’ve been doing, the infrastructure and technology were in place when the earthquake struck Haiti, and agreements were pre-negotiated with the carriers. And the billing aspect is appealing because it doesn’t require the use of a credit card.

Hasn’t this technology been around for a while? What has changed since the tsunami in 2004?

When the Asian tsunami hit, two things were relatively new: Read more…

At this point most people are pretty tired of hearing about the iPad.  Those that love it keep raving about it, and those that are dissapointed just want people to stop talking about it.  However, I think it’s good to explore exactly why the iPad won’t revolutionize the computer market – and never really had a chance to (even if it had all of features most people expected).

The iPad won’t revolutionize the market simply because it doesn’t solve a problem or fulfill a need that wasn’t being fulfilled before.  Apple has certainly released revolutionary products in the past.  The iPod brought the ability to listen to digital files on the go.  iTunes allowed people to download music legally and safely.  The iPhone created a market for mobile applications that wasn’t there before.  These products all created a market because they were actually useful.  The iPad, however cool it may be, simply doesn’t do anything new.  Anything I can do on an iPad I can do with one of my other computers.

If you are interested in video or music, Archos, a little known brand in the United States, has been making similar media devices for years.  If you want the iPad for the e-reader aspect, the Kindle is much cheaper (costs half the price, you don’t have to pay extra for 3G, and books are cheaper as well).  If you want mobile apps, the iPhone and iPod touch provide what you need.  All the iPad does is combine a few features from scattered devices.  It doesn’t actually do anything new.

Price is huge factor here as well.  $500 for the base model is a lot of money for what you are getting.  People have become so used to Apple products being expensive that they think this price point is cheap.  It’s not.  iPods and iTunes media sell at accessible price points, which is another reason they were able to create a new market.  This product isn’t accessible to the general public at this price point, especially because it doesn’t actually provide you with a function that your other devices can’t do.

The reality is we don’t need a new way to consume media right now.  I’m happy with my iPhone, laptop, and 46″ HDTV.  Carrying around yet another device isn’t appealing to me – especially since it doesn’t replace my iPhone.  If the iPad had a camera, GPS, supported Flash, and cost $100 less, I might say it is worth purchasing (but still wouldn’t call it revolutionary).  As it is, it’s a neat gadget for rich people.  Nothing more.

Amazon made an announcement last week about the Kindle e-reader and changes to their royalty scheme for authors that may have caught your eye. I will do a quick recap:

Amazon announced it is providing authors and publishers with a “70% royalty option” for books sold on the Kindle. The new royalty regimen seems to be squarely aimed at keeping Amazon as the’ top of mind’ publisher for e-books, especially in light of the enormous number of new readers that were unveiled at the recent Consumer Electronics Show (CES) and the breathlessly awaited arrival of an Apple tablet device. The new percentage of 70%, from the current royalty of 35% per title, comes with a number of restrictions. These include:

• The actual price of the book must fall between $2.99 and $9.99 and be at least 20% below the lowest price of a physical edition of the same book.
• It has to sell for the same price, or less, as it does with competing booksellers.
• It has to be available everywhere the author or publisher has intellectual property rights.

According to Amazon’s announcement, “the 70 percent royalty option is for in-copyright works and is unavailable for works published before 1923 (a.k.a. public domain books). At launch, the 70 percent royalty option will only be available for books sold in the United States.” To see the entire announcement, go here.

My take: The royalties question is very important to authors, obviously, as that’s how they eat.  Amazon’s announcement has a sobering effect on competitors and publishing houses, as many authors may opt to move their works to direct publishing by Amazon, foregoing the services (and fees) associated with working with a publishing house.

Read more…

For years, Nintendo has ruled the mobile gaming world, first with the Game Boy, then with the DS Lite. After an amazing run, though, the torch is being passed. Not to another gaming company, but to smart phone makers Google and Apple.

Over the next decade I believe smart phones will be where most gaming innovation will happen. The market for smart phone games is booming. A recent New York Times article reported that games make up more than half of the billion downloads from the Apple App Store. The App Store has about 15,000 games for the iPhone, and the Android Market has about 3,000 for Google Android devices.

Read more…