The statement, which lists all three anti-piracy bills currently under discussion - the PROTECT-IP and OPEN bills in the Senate, and the SOPA bill in the House - is a loud warning shot indicating the President's lack of support, and likely veto, of any legislation that requires tampering with the structure of the Internet to enable enforcement.

Thanks for taking the time to sign this petition. Both your words and actions illustrate the importance of maintaining an open and democratic Internet.

Right now, Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the PROTECT IP Act, and the Online Protection and Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will support--and what we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the infrastructure of the Internet.

While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.

Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.

We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.

Let us be clear--online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response. We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of legitimate American values.

This is not just a matter for legislation. We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.

So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don't limit your opinion to what's the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what's right. Already, many members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration. The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.

Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.

Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you'll continue to be part of it.

The statement indicates outright support for the position put forth by the petitioners, and suggests it would be their recommendation to the President as well that anti-piracy legislation in its current form should be vetoed.

That President Obama himself has not made a statement is probably intended to help him preserve his official position as against online piracy. However, this recommendation will very likely be heeded, and this move may slow, if not halt, any legislative activity on this matter for the remainder of this term in the Senate. In the House, which remains under Republican control, the SOPA bill (minus the court order provision that constituted its main enforcement provision) may still be voted on, but the chances of it facing reconciliation with a Senate version of the same bill are now extremely minimal.

An imminent show of dissent from the Administration against current anti-piracy legislation would likely have been the trigger for Sen. Patrick Leahy's (D - Vt.) decision Thursday to remove the court order provision from his PROTECT-IP bill. That led to Rep. Lamar Smith's decision Friday to remove the corresponding provision from his SOPA bill.

The OPEN act sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., would allow the International Trade Commission to order online ad networks and payment processors to sever ties withe foreign websites that are targeted by patent infringement claims.

SOPA, and its Senate counerpart, PIPA, on the other hand, would force search engines and websites to block links to sites that are listed as being "dedicated" to copyright infringement. SOPA has been widely endorsed by traditional media companies, but Web firms and free speech advocates have likened it to government-enforced censorship.

The OPEN Act does have some flaws, and in some points parralells SOPA, as noted by technology and law blogger Eric Goldman. Goldman notes that, like SOPA, OPEN "assumes there is a problem with foreign rogue websites that needs to be solved...and more importantly, attacking the money supply to supposed bad actors remains too blunt an instrument."

"While OPEN can't really be fixed to resolve my two structural concerns, my hope is that the discussion about OPEN will force rightsowners to provide *credible* evidence of harms that they or consumers are suffering (no more self-serving hype, please), and that such evidence will force us to think carefully about how 'rifle shot' solutions (as opposed to shotgun solutions) can ameliorate those harms," Goldman said.

The poor performance of these Web apps could simply be a bug introduced in the most recent iOS. Or it could be an intentional move by Apple to make it more difficult for those who'd like to bypass its App Store and offer Web rather than native apps.

One way to avoid the new in-app purchase rules - and to avoid paying Apple its 30% share of app sales as well - is to build your app as a Web app. While this means the app isn't available via iTunes, Apple does allow users to add any Web page to their home screen. This creates a little icon on the iPhone that makes it appear as though it's just another app.

However, if these apps aren't fully functional, or aren't as functional as native apps, it may be a disincentive for developers and for users to go that route.

The issue has been brought to light on developer forums, Hacker News, and Stack Overflow, and The Register reports that Apple is aware of the problem. It has offered no official comment, however, and no indication if this will be rectified.

If Apple is intentionally throttling the performance of Web apps, it does call into question the company's support for HTML5 and Web standards. CEO Steve Jobs asserted that support in a statement last year. Justifying Apple's lack of Flash, Jobs wrote that, "Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript - all open standards. Apple's mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards."

Making "open" Web apps perform more poorly certainly challenges the company's stance on these standards.

Unlike Google's Android Market, the app store for Google-powered phones, Apple's iTunes App Store is tightly controlled with only "approved" applications allowed access. But for jailbreakers, the term used to describe those who hack their devices, hundreds more applications are immediately available, allowing you greater control and freedom over the hardware you own.

Users who jailbreak can download apps that allow you to customize everything on the device from your homescreen images to your icons. You can also multitask by running apps in the background, tether your iPhone to your PC to use it as a modem, even turn your iPhone into a "MiFi" hotspot. Those are just the highlights, though. The jailbreak application stores (there are several, like Cydia, Icy and RockYourPhone, for example) have apps that let you do pretty much anything. Here, there really are "apps for that," when "that" is something Apple would rather you not do.

For some users, there are only one or two apps that make jailbreaking worthwhile, but for others, the reason for jailbreaking isn't just the apps themselves, but the freedom a jailbroken device provides.

For those who aren't afraid to void their warranty (don't worry, you can always restore to factory settings with no one the wiser), the new jailbreaking tool called "Spirit" brings that level of freedom to all Apple mobile devices running firmware 3.1.2, 3.1.3 or 3.2. This is also an "untethered" jailbreak, meaning you don't have to plug in your device to your computer every time your reboot it, an issue that plagued similar exploits used in the recent past.

How To Jailbreak the iPad, iPhone or iPod Touch

Note that this particular jailbreak is what's known by the hacker community as a "userland" jailbreak. That means that it exploits a security weakness in the mobile operating system. Apple tends to quickly patch these holes, once exposed, through software updates. Jailbreak users who don't want to be affected by the soon-to-arrive Apple software update, can go through a procedure to back up something called "SHSH blobs" which allow you to downgrade and re-jailbreak your device if you were to accidentally upgrade. If you want go through this step, there's a tutorial here. Otherwise, just be careful to not upgrade your device when a new software patch is released.

1. Verify you're running the latest version of iTunes (9.1.1) and then sync your iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad one last time in order to back it up. The iPad should be running OS 3.2.
2. Download the Spirit jailbreak for Mac or PC. Both are found on the Spirit homepage. (Also here: Mac, PC).
3. Connect the iPad, iPhone or iPod Touch to your computer using the USB cable.
4. Run the Spirit jailbreak application. (Note: Windows users may need to run the program as an administrator - Right-click on the .exe file and choose "Run as Administrator" from the menu. If you still have issues, try running it in compatibility mode as well. Right-click, go to Properties, Compatibility tab, and check the box "Run this program in compatibility mode for: Windows 98/Me").

   

5. Click the "jailbreak" button.

   

6. The iPad will automatically reboot.
7. Once rebooted, you'll see the "Cydia" application installed on your iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad's desktop. From here, you have access to all the unapproved, third-party applications.

That's it!

Your device is now hacked.

Note that Spirit is not a "carrier unlock" which allows the iPhone to be used with carriers other than AT&T. It is a jailbreak only.

In a lengthy piece posted here: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash, Steve Jobs explains all the reasons why Flash is not allowed on its mobile lineup, which now includes the slate computer called the iPad as well.

Much of what he says has already been suspected to be the case. Technology pundits have (correctly) reasoned that there isn't just one reason why Flash is not permitted in the Apple mobile ecosystem - there are several.

To sum up quickly (the full release is below), Jobs says this of Flash:

1. It's proprietary.
2. Most Web video plays on the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad
3. Who needs Flash games? We have apps for that.
4. Flash has poor security.
5. Flash doesn't perform well on mobile devices.
6. Flash negatively affects battery life.
7. Flash was designed for PCs, not touchscreens.

Jobs also addresses the recent decision to ban apps built with Adobe's iPhone-app-creation tool, a tool that allowed Adobe Flash developers to write iPhone apps using the skills they already had and then export those apps to an iPhone/iPad-compatible format. Says Jobs:

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. [...] This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor's platforms.

Does Google Scare Apple?

The deeper question that remains unanswered in this missive is: Why now? That is, why share all these thoughts now after remaining silent for so long?

Like the reasons for banning Flash, the reasons for Jobs revealing these sentiments are also multi-layered. For starters, there's the iPad. Positioned as a netbook replacement, the device functions in an unchartered, in-between zone where website owners aren't sure whether to display a mobile site or a regular site to iPad Web surfers... or maybe just build an app. That decision is made even more difficult as developers must debate whether to build an iPad-friendly website where the Flash content is rendered in another iPad-compatible format or removed entirely. Or again, should they build an app? Or both?

Despite "leading the way" to the new tablet era, the iPad will soon go up against a number of other tablet PCs running everything from Windows 7 to Google's mobile operating system, Android, and even an OS called Google Chrome OS, built on top of Linux but with the Chrome web browser as the only interface. An important side note here: Google has now partnered with Adobe to bundle Flash Player into its Web browser. Buggy or not, Google's position appears to be that "the most widely used web browser plug-in" (a quote from Google's VP of engineering, Linus Upson) should be made available to users, not kept from them.

Another issue that may have influenced the timing of this post: After the news about the Chrome/Flash partnership efforts, Google's Andy Rubin told the New York Times just this week that Google's Android mobile OS, currently the fastest-growing OS on the market thanks to numerous OEM partnerships, will receive full support for Adobe Flash in the next release, code-named Froyo (yes, for frozen yogurt - Google likes its desserts) and rumored to be released at the upcoming Google I/O Conference.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this: Apple is eschewing Flash in favor of open Web standards - most notably, HTML5, the upcoming version of the Web markup language that allows plugin-free video viewing. Google, however, is in favor of giving people what they want, says Rubin. "When they can't have something, people do care," he told the Times.

Now it's up to the consumers to vote with their wallets to declare a winner. An open OS with a closed, proprietary standard? Or a closed OS with support for open standards? What will you choose?

Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe's founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers - Mac users buy around half of Adobe's Creative Suite products - but beyond that there are few joint interests.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe's Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven - they say we want to protect our App Store - but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there's "Open".

Adobe's Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript - all open standards. Apple's mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android's browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft's uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there's the "full web".

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access "the full web" because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don't say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web's video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren't missing much video.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

Third, there's reliability, security and performance.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don't want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we're glad we didn't hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

Fourth, there's battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 - an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Fifth, there's Touch.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on "rollovers", which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple's revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn't use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn't support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor's platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe's goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple's platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

Our motivation is simple - we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins - we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era - for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards - all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple's mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple's App Store proves that Flash isn't necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs

April, 2010

Layar has quickly become of the most popular mobile AR browsing applications across the globe thanks to its impressive set of features, but the company's choice to provide an open API may have been the decision which fueled them to success. Companies that wish to jump on the augmented reality bandwagon have several choices for getting their content on Layar quickly and easily. Layar provides documentation on its website for how to use and interpret their API, but those looking for an easier method of geo-data input can use any of a number of third party tools. Thanks in no small part to tools like buildAR, Muzar and Winvolve, Layar's database of geo-data has rapidly expanded to include over 300 content layers including anything from restaurants to Twitter results, to even the locations of nearby heart defibrillators.

On the opposite end the spectrum, the accrossair browser, a similar mobile AR browser available on the iPhone, has decided to keep its API private and helps with the input of geo-data themselves for companies that wish to participate on their platform. Instead of allowing anyone to upload location data onto their platform, acrossair has reached out to corporations like McDonalds and FedEx to provide them with their own POIs in their browser. The one disadvantage this places on their product is a significantly lower number of POI sets that a user can access. With just over a dozen different options, acrossair has a fraction of the curated POI sets that Layar does. Founder Chetan Damani says that while their closed API certainly limits the amount of data on their browser, it enhances the overall stability of the browser - a factor which may play heavily for the company as they expand beyond the iPhone to Android and Symbian devices.

"We are keeping [the API] closed right now because we will be in a period of evolution and multiple iteration," Damani told ReadWriteWeb. "We want to move to Android, and we want to make sure that the APIs are the right APIs and that they won't limit our development. We only get one opportunity to get this right."

Damani and acrossair are playing it safe until they are able to expand their presence to more platforms before opening their API - a step Damani says they do plan on taking. When acrossair moves their browser to Android, Symbian and possibly even Windows Mobile devices, having a closed API will make the transition much smoother. Opening the API after they set up shop on each mobile OS will be a lot easier without loads of independently developed geo-data on their system.

So is it better to limit one's API early on for the sake of stability while simultaneously hampering the possible reach of one's product? The acrossair browser seems to be taking that chance, while Layar, on the other hand, is welcoming third party developers with open arms. However, acrossair has one thing going for them that Layar currently doesn't - a working iPhone application.

How much of a role Layar's open API played in the demise of their iPhone application is unknown, but all that could be moot when Layar relaunches on the iPhone "by the end of February". However, if augmented reality is the supposed "future of web browsing" as some believe it to be, having closed browsing platforms is not a viable long-term solution.

The project's lofty goal is to essentially create an open web of books where anyone can publish their books and make their content available via search.

Although still in the early days of development and potentially taking years to complete, the BookServer project will allow search engines to index books from all over the web. What that means for an end user is that you could type a title into a search engine and the engine would return results listing everywhere you could get that book in digital format including online bookstores, libraries, or a direct method from the publisher itself. Depending on your needs, you could borrow the book or purchase it and then download it to your digital device.

While the project isn't exactly a direct effort to take down Amazon's online bookstore or Google's upcoming online eBook store called Google Editions, it will provider book publishers and online libraries with the means to more effectively compete with those companies. By allowing publishers to set their own pricing and manage the distribution of their books, they will be able to take back control from Amazon and Google who would rather dictate those terms for them.

An Open Marketplace for eBooks

A secondary goal of BookServer's open system is to fight back against the proprietary marketplaces, such as Amazon's Kindle Store, where books are only sold in a copyright-protected format (.AZW) that only works on the company's eReader device, the Kindle. Elsewhere, some book sellers use other proprietary formats, others use the open ePub format, and still others distribute books as Adobe PDFs. For consumers, this multitude of choices only leads to confusion. People don't know what formats their particular device can read or where to get them. It brings to mind the similar issues consumers have had with digitally distributed music. To this day, many are still confused about whether their iTunes purchased music can play on other devices or whether tunes purchased from other online MP3 stores will play on their iPods.

While Google promises its Google Editions store will allow anyone to access digital books as long as they have a web browser and internet access, it's still unknown at this time how the company plans to make the digital content available offline. Will it require the use of special web browser plugins to do so? Until Google reveals more about the technical details, it is not possible to know how truly open their online store will be. And even if their store is 100% open, they are still a company whose ultimate goal is to profit from their work of digitizing books. BookServer's goal, on the other hand, is to provide universal access to book data made available in open formats.

Today, a few booksellers have partnered with the BookServer system including Feedbooks, O'Reilly, Adobe, and the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) project.

At the moment, Asurion's address book is available only on Android phones, and it takes advantage of the phone's open nature to access the address book details stored on the device. An iPhone version may or may not be in the works as the company seems more focused on selling their solution as something that could be integrated into handsets before time of purchase. Asurion already has relationships with several major carriers in the U.S. and Canada thanks to past software deals, so it's reasonable to assume they'll leverage those connections once again to sell their new application.

For the end user, the Asurion address book is more than just a fun way to see a contact's social information - it also lets you return a phone call via email, IM, or even a status update. Other updates like messages or photo sharing can be sent out to groups you create in the application. This makes it easy to share with multiple people at once - like sending a photo to all your friends or family.

The end user experience is entirely customizable since consumers can pick and choose which social elements, known as "mix-ins," are integrated. These mix-ins can include things like email, messaging, social networks, media sharing, mapping, interactive games, and anything else a developer can envision.

Another interesting element to the Asurion address book is the idea of a "Smart Contact." This is a contact that isn't representative of a person, but rather functions as a service. For example, a preferred airline Smart Contact delivers up-to-date travel information, provides access to reservations, frequent flyer miles, and more. That's only one example, but it's easy to imagine how brands could take advantage of this feature to further integrate themselves into customers' lives.

Perhaps the best thing about the Asurion application is that it provides a way to access the information which is most important to you without having to jump from application to application. You can now do more with the personal contacts you're the closest to - the ones who you care enough about to enter into your phone.

If you want to get in on the Asurion Mobile AddressBook beta, you can sign up here: asurionmobile.com/beta.

Was MemoryUp a "Rogue" Application?

Whether or not MemoryUp actually destroyed personal data and spammed people's contacts, as it was said to have done, is unknown. However, it would have been difficult for it to have accomplished those things. The app required no special privileges to install, so it's hard to imagine how it could have accessed the data and email addresses or how it could have sent out the spam. Also, for what it's worth, the company behind the app adamantly denies the claims. Says Robert Lee, chief technical associate for eMobiStudio, "We are very disturbed by these reports. Whatever damage is out there has not been done by our product."

...Or a Victim of Community Backlash?

The truth about this application may be that it just wasn't very good, not that it was dangerous malware. Many comments about the app in the Android store (prior to the app's removal) and in the forums weren't about losing data but about how the app wasn't worth installing because it provided no real value to the user.

What's even more apparent, though, in reading through the posts and comments about MemoryUp, is that many members of the Android community seemed to have a grudge against the app's creator, Peter Liu, whose drive-by advertising in forum postings got under people's skin. "How many times are you going to advertise this on here?" wrote one user. Later, others bragged and joked about running the "Memory folks out of town." "Peter needs to get a life," said yet another user.

It stands to reason that a handful of Android community members decided to disparage the application to get back at the app's developer...but something like that could never be proven, only suspected.

Yet, if that was the case, those people inadvertently ended up hurting Android in the process. By raising questions about the safety and security of Android platform, they helped to spread "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) about this new mobile OS. Even worse, these rumors make the iPhone's closed and "by approval only" model look like the safer, smarter choice when it comes to phones. But as anyone involved in the open movement will tell you, that is not necessarily the case.

A little over a month ago, Elgg 1.0 was introduced to the world. In this newest release, several years in the making, the software has been improved from the inside out. It has a more attractive UI and design, for starters. But under the hood you'll find more changes like better plugin support, RSS and OpenDD views, and a new database schema.

To that end, Elgg can help form the basis of a new generation of social networks. But their platform goes beyond just delivering a solution for the next web 2.0 hangout or social site, although that it a popular use for their software. The Enterprise 2.0 movement is also aided by Elgg as companies wanting to build and customize their own intranet-based social networks have begun to adopt the platform as well.

The Interview

We recently had the opportunity to follow up on our original interview with one of Elgg's founders, David Tosh. We talked about where Elgg stands today and what plans they have for the future.

How would you describe Elgg to someone who didn't know what it is?

Elgg is an open source social networking engine started by Ben Werdmuller and myself back in 2004. Elgg can be used by developers as a starting point from which to build out their own social applications (it handles common back-end functionality and has an extensive programming API), and out of the box as a useful social utility. This year, it was voted by a panel on InfoWorld as the best open source social networking platform 2008.

What's new with Elgg since we first spoke?

We have completely rewritten the Elgg core. This was necessary in order to future-proof the project, improve scalability and allow for greater customization. Over the past four years, we have found that one size really does not fit all, so we had to make sure Elgg was flexible enough to handle new demands being thrown at it, both now and in the future. The era of the monolithic social network is coming to a close; we want to make it easy for people to add social functionality into all kinds of applications.

Why did you move away from being a platform focused on education?

Although we've always had an educational base, a lot of users from other fields began picking up on Elgg. As a result, we were securing contracts to build custom networks on Elgg for groups that were not part of the educational circle, and feeding those developments back into the product. Gradually, interest in Elgg became greater outside of education, so we adapted to that change.

How does Elgg compare to its commercial competition?

With its new architecture and open standards at its core, we feel it is best placed to handle changing expectations in the social arena. It's a very competitive space, but a lot of products have just bolted social features on top of their existing systems - Elgg has social functionality built into the core and was designed from the ground up to support it. That allows us to create deeper features, and also plan ahead for new kinds of social applications. As the types of social applications and uses for them grow, we feel our approach will pay dividends.

Some employers are letting employees use Facebook at work now. Do you worry that will affect the number of potential customers for your product?

Not really. If anything, I think this increases the potential and opportunity. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc play an important role in bringing the concept of social technology to new audiences. For groups like us, who provide niche services, this is great. For example, companies try out Facebook and then start releasing that they want to improve their internal communications to be more Facebook-like; we can help them with that.

Why should someone consider Elgg for their network?

I think there are three main reasons: simplicity, extensibility and openness. The basic version of Elgg is deliberately very simple and clean. Our architecture allows you to easily extend Elgg's functionality to meet your specific requirements. Lastly, we fully embrace open standards such as OpenDD, FOAF, RSS, Open Social and OpenID, allowing you to interact with other applications.

Who is using Elgg today?

Elgg users range from sports networks to corporate companies, university intranets to school districts. There is a wide cross section picking up the software and applying it to their own niche. Increasingly, companies are also using Elgg to build social sites for their clients; we're keen to promote and support this.

What's in store for Elgg's future?

We have a couple of things in the pipeline:

• Firstly, we're going to launch an Elgg supporter scheme. This will give companies who are providing Elgg-related services the chance to form closer links with the core project.
• We are working on a new mobile intranet platform, powered by Elgg, that allows users to share status updates, photos, documents and media via MMS, SMS, email or the web. It also handles simple notes and shared tasks.
• We decided we needed a system within Curverider to improve our communication while on the move, and built it for our own use; it's been so successful that we thought other companies and organizations might find it useful as well. So far, the reaction from people we've shown it to has been extremely positive.
• All Elgg-powered services have the Open Data Definition built into their core, which allows for full import and export of users, content and connections as well as the ability to syndicate friends' activity in a distributed way.
• Lastly, we have just announced an advisory board that is packed with experts with excellent track records, in order to ensure Elgg and Elgg-powered services continue to develop and grow.

Authentication is an area of security that is more important than ever, especially since we're now using the web to access all sorts of private data, from personal communications to online banking sites. Yet as those services become more sophisticated and complex, so do the techniques used by criminals wanting access to our private information. Although many of these sites force you to create strong passwords, a password alone is not your best defense against identity thieves. For the best security, multi-factor authentication is needed, and that's what Yubikey provides.

At first glance, you may dismiss Yubikey as yet another smart card to carry around. However, the difference between smart cards and Yubikey is that smart cards require client software. Yubiky, on the other hand, identifies itself to the computer as a USB keyboard. This means there's no software to install - you just insert the key, press the button, and it will generate a one-time password for you to use.

This makes Yubikey more like PayPal's Security Key, a USB device which generates a temporary 6-digit security code every 30 seconds. However, the PayPal key requires you to enter the security code yourself each time you login. Yubikey, on the other hand, will enter your code for you.

Yubikey + OpenID

One of the most exciting uses for Yubikey is combing it with your OpenID for securing your online identity. The company runs their own OpenID server which can be used in combination with Yubikey to generate a secure OpenID. By pressing the button on the USB key, you're provided with an URL which you can use on any site which supports OpenID. You can also set up your own web site to work with Yubikey if you want a more personal URL. (To see this in action, click here for a short screencast).

Yubikey's Open Source Solution

Combining Yubikey with OpenID is just one way to use this device. Yubikey also supports authentication via RADIUS and PAM as well as other systems. Also, since Yubikey is open source, anyone can set up a server and use the company's web APIs and open source SDK to integrate it with their online services.

Already, developers have begun to use Yubikey in combination with numerous other systems. For example, Rohos has combined their Rohos Logon Key with Yubikey to provide secure authentication for logging into your Windows PC. Online password manager, MashedLife, also supports Yubikey sign on for their registered users. Henrick Schack created a WordPress blog plugin which uses Yubikey to provide an extra layer of security for logging into WordPress. A company known as Collective Software has created an Active Directory solution for use with workstation logon, network applications, extranet web publishing, and VPNs.

Those are just some of the applications available today, but the possibilities are endless.

Will Yubikey Take Off?

The security community has high hopes for Yubikey. Well-known security analyst, Steve Gibson of the "Security Now" podcast dubbed Yubikey "the coolest new secure authentication device." He felt the device had potential because of its open source nature: "...no subscription fee, lifetime free authentication...as long as you've got a USB port, this is the answer," he says.

The device also has potential because of the way it's built: small and thin enough to be carried into a wallet. It's also cheap to manufacture so it can be produced in volume for a low cost. These design considerations were no fluke, either. Yubikey's creator can CEO, Stina Ehrensvrd, put a lot of time an effort into the aesthetics, even speaking with experts at both Verisign and eBay to help her shape the product into what it is today.

Although Yubikey may not present the ideal solution for universal authentication, it could at least offer another layer of security to those web sites that contain the most private and personal information. With the growing number of identity theft victims today, extra security may appeal to those who have been burned in the past or who are just very cautious with their personal info online. It's easy to imagine banks offering Yubikey or similar solutions to their customers as an optional additional security mechanism, similar to how PayPal offers a security token to their users.

The Yubikey is available for purchase from the company's web site at prices which start at $30.00 and decrease with the number of keys ordered.

One week after we wrote about the leaked screenshots that have since been confirmed as the forthcoming home page design of AOL.com, where 3rd party content and functionality is now welcome to come on in through the front door, now Yahoo! is telling the press that its home page will soon be home to far more content from outside the Yahoo! network than ever before. The era of the walled garden is over.

Yahoo told the AP this morning that it will soon roll out the first major redesign of its home page in two years. That redesign will host a wide variety of widgets from rival services like movie links from Netflix, music from iTunes and Amazon. It will be something like the Facebook platform, but with more prominent placement for 3rd party services than even Facebook offers. Yahoo has talked about this plan before, but now is making a media push in preparation for action.

Left: The awesome logo for this week's Yahoo Hack Day

Just Like AOL.com, and Everyone Else On Top of Their Game

Yahoo's plans are similar to what AOL appears to be planning, where activity updates 3rd party social networks and possibly an on-site RSS reader will bring new functionality to AOL users.

As we wrote last week about AOL's strategy:

Aggregation of content from around the web is quite likely a key part of the future for almost all successful websites; the web is too large to pretend you're an island any more, even if your network is sprawling it just can't compete with the options offered by the web at large. While mainstream users used to think that AOL was the internet for years, they are not so naive any more.

This is an Important Trend

We've written here about the new class of powerhouse sites that specialize in bricolage, the art of assembling found objects. (Think BoingBoing and Neatorama). We've also written about why online noise is good for you. We don't expect the big portals to go as far with this strategy at first as the edge publishers have, but just like Google's indexing the open web blew the Yahoo! directory out of the water in search - so too is a new paradigm in aggregate publishing out-competing brand-selected, human edited portals.

Right: Hugh MacLeod puts it frankly.

It's an exciting time. We look forward to seeing how the rest of the world changes as the leading sources of information online turn towards a model of intelligent collecting and sharing, as opposed to a closed, self-facing broadcast model.

What About Copyright Issues?

With today's obsession with our "culture of ownership," where everything from the music we listen to the photos used in blog posts to the blog comments themselves are "owned" by someone and have varying rights of use associated with them, you would imagine that such a creation as "Garfield Minus Garfield" would have been shut down by the copyright cops long before it had a chance to create an online following.

However, that was not the case and the reason is because Jim Davis, who pens the original strip, was actually intrigued and pleased with the concept. He even went so far as to thank Walsh, saying: "I want to thank Dan for enabling me to see another side of Garfield. Some of the strips he chose were slappers: 'Oh, I could have left that out.' It would have been funnier."

Now, the online strip will make the move to the printed page. Thanks to Davis' involvement and admiration for the Walsh's version of the comic, Ballantine Books will soon be publishing a book inspired by "Garfield Minus Garfield." In the book, readers will see both the original strip and the one in which Garfield has been removed. Walsh will contribute the forward to the book.

Allowing Art To Flourish

Something about this news brought to mind a recent Wired article on an entirely unrelated subject - the Personal Genome Project. There was a quote from George Church of Harvard Medical School, which was about openness as it related to technology: "sharing technologies by distributing them as widely as possible with minimal restrictions on use encourages both the adoption and the impact of a technology."

Arguably, sharing with no restriction on use has implications far beyond just technology - it can impact art as well. Whether or not you want to classify "Garfield Minus Garfield" as "art" is up to you, but by not clamping down on the copyright, Davis allowed a whole new creation to come into existence...and one I read with enthusiasm every day.

Will Davis' respect and willing embrace of the modified strip have any greater ramifications in our society as to change our perceptions about what it means to own a thought, idea, or creation? Will it affect our opinions on when that ownership should or should not be restricted? Sadly, probably not. The belief that because you created or thought of something gives you control over it is instilled so deep into our communal thinking, especially here in the U.S., it will take more than a new comic to retrain our thoughts on the subject. It only speaks to what could be.

The Garfield Minus Garfield book will be published simultaneously with the Garfield 30th anniversary book in October of this year.

As an example http://flickr.com/services/oembed?url=http://flickr.com/photos/bees/2362225867/ returns:

<oembed>
	<version>1.0</version>
	<type>photo</type>
	<title>Bacon Lollys</title>
	<author_name>bees</author_name>
	<author_url>http://www.flickr.com/photos/bees/</author_url>
	<cache_age>3600</cache_age>
	<provider_name>Flickr</provider_name>
	<provider_url>http://www.flickr.com/</provider_url>
	<width>500</width>
	<height>375</height>
	<url>
		http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/2362225867_4a87ab8baf.jpg
	</url>
</oembed>

Early adopters of the oEmbed spec are Flickr, Viddler, Pownce, Qik, and Revision3. Viddler has created a form to test the web service, so you can see it in action.

Essentially, oEmbed makes it easier to access photos and videos with a simple URL. Standardizing how things are embedded means that, for example, a social network could allow users to simply embed media from oEmbed enabled sites just by entering a URL to a photo or video -- and the "customer" site wouldn't need to deal with multiple APIs from each provider.

This should open up a whole world of new opportunities for online research. Readers outside of the academic world but aware of the financial future of health information online in the commercial sector can imagine the analogous excitement about this announcement for academic researchers.

The blog Open Access News has a good round up of science blog responses to the news.

Pubmed is the likely home for much of the research, though the law is likely to breathe more life into online sites of scientific activity like the Nature Publishing Group, the science blog search engine PostGenomic and the Public Library of Science.

Data miner Peter Suber from the Unilever Cambridge Centre for Molecular Informatics discusses just one of many reasons this is exciting news.

The hard work continues. But now all fulltext derived from NIH work will be available on PubMed. Other funders will follow suit (if they are not ahead). So our journal-eating-robot OSCAR will have huge amounts of text to mine.

The good news is that we believe that this text-mining will, in itself, uncover new science. How much we don’t know, but we hope it’s significant. And if so, that will be a further argument for freeing the fulltext of every science publication.

In related science news, tech and science lovers (many of whom have libertarian sensibilities) should take note of a new video floating around the interwebs - Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution.