The Great Tech War Of 2012

Gilbert Wong, the mayor of Cupertino, California, calls his city council to order. "As you know, Cupertino is very famous for Apple Computer, and we're very honored to have Mr. Steve Jobs come here tonight to give a special presentation," the mayor says. "Mr. Jobs?" And there he is, in his black turtleneck and jeans, shuffling to the podium to the kind of uproarious applause absent from most city council meetings. It is a shock to see him here on ground level, a thin man amid other citizens, rather than on stage at San Francisco's Moscone Center with a larger-than-life projection screen behind him. He seems out of place, like a lion ambling through the mall.

Fast Company is tracking developments in The Great Tech War of 2012 for 30 days after this story's original publication to show just how quickly competition between Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon is heating up. Follow the updates here.

"Apple is growing like a weed," Jobs begins, his voice quiet and sometimes shaky. But there's nothing timorous about his plan: Apple, he says, would like to build a gargantuan new campus on a 150-acre parcel of land that it acquired from Hewlett-Packard in 2010. The company has commissioned architects--"some of the best in the world"--to design something extraordinary, a single building that will house 12,000 Apple employees. "It's a pretty amazing building," Jobs says, as he unveils images of the futuristic edifice on the screen. The stunning glass-and-concrete circle looks "a little like a spaceship landed," he opines.

Nobody knew it at the time, but the Cupertino City Council meeting on June 7, 2011, was Jobs's last public appearance before his resignation as Apple's CEO in late August (and his passing in early October). It's a fitting way to go out. When completed in 2015, Apple's new campus will have a footprint slightly smaller than that of the Pentagon; its diameter will exceed the height of the Empire State Building. It will include its own natural-gas power plant and will use the grid only for backup power. This isn't just a new corporate campus but a statement: Apple--which now jockeys daily with ExxonMobil for the title of the world's most valuable company--plans to become a galactic force for the eons.

And as every sci-fi nerd knows, you totally need a tricked-out battleship if you're about to engage in serious battle.

"OUR DEVELOPMENT IS GUIDED BY THE IDEA THAT EVERY YEAR, THE AMOUNT THAT PEOPLE WANT TO ADD, SHARE, AND EXPRESS IS INCREASING," SAYS FACEBOOK CEO MARK ZUCKERBERG. "WE CAN LOOK INTO THE FUTURE--AND IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY, REALLY GOOD."

To state this as clearly as possible: The four American companies that have come to define 21st-century information technology and entertainment are on the verge of war. Over the next two years, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google will increasingly collide in the markets for mobile phones and tablets, mobile apps, social networking, and more. This competition will be intense. Each of the four has shown competitive excellence, strategic genius, and superb execution that have left the rest of the world in the dust. HP, for example, tried to take a run at Apple head-on, with its TouchPad, the product of its $1.2 billion acquisition of Palm. HP bailed out after an embarrassingly short 49-day run, and it cost CEO Léo Apotheker his job. Microsoft's every move must be viewed as a reaction to the initiatives of these smarter, nimbler, and now, in the case of Apple, richer companies. When a company like Hulu goes on the block, these four companies are immediately seen as possible acquirers, and why not? They have the best weapons--weapons that will now be turned on one another as they seek more room to grow.

There was a time, not long ago, when you could sum up each company quite neatly: Apple made consumer electronics, Google ran a search engine, Amazon was a web store, and Facebook was a social network. How quaint that assessment seems today.

Jeff Bezos, who was ahead of the curve in creating a cloud data service, is pushing Amazon into digital media, book publishing, and, with his highly buzzed-about new line of Kindle tablets, including the $199 Fire, a direct assault on the iPad. Amazon almost doubled in size from 2008 to 2010, when it hit $34 billion in annual revenue; analysts expect it to reach $100 billion in annual revenue by 2015, faster than any company ever.

Remember when Google's goal was to catalog all the world's information? Guess that task was too tiny. In just a few months at the helm, CEO Larry Page has launched a social network (Google+) to challenge Facebook, and acquired Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion, in part to compete more ferociously against Apple. Google's YouTube video service is courting producers to make original programming. Page can afford these big swings (and others) in the years ahead, given the way his advertising business just keeps growing. It's on pace to bring in more than $30 billion this year, almost double 2007's revenue.

Facebook, meanwhile, is now more than just the world's biggest social network; it is the world's most expansive enabler of human communication. It has changed the ways in which we interact (witness its new Timeline interface); it has redefined the way we share--personal info, pictures (more than 250 million a day), and now news, music, TV, and movies. With access to the "Likes" of more than 800 million people, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has an unequaled trove of data on individual consumer behavior that he can use to personalize both media and advertising.

Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google don't recognize any borders; they feel no qualms about marching beyond the walls of tech into retailing, advertising, publishing, movies, TV, communications, and even finance. Across the economy, these four companies are increasingly setting the agenda. Bezos, Jobs, Zuckerberg, and Page look at the business world and justifiably imagine all of it funneling through their servers. Why not go for everything? And in their competition, each combatant is getting stronger, separating the quartet further from the rest of the pack.

Everyone reading this article is a customer of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, or Google, and most probably count on all four. This passion for the Fab Four of business is reflected in the blogosphere's panting coverage of their every move. ExxonMobil may sometimes be the world's most valuable company, but can you name its CEO? Do you scour the Internet for rumors about its next product? As the four companies encroach further and further into one another's space, consumers look forward to cooler and cooler products. The coming years will be fascinating to watch because this is a competition that might reinvent our daily lives even more than the four have changed our habits in the past decade. And that, dear reader, is why you need a program guide to the battle ahead.

The judge in the case could still treble the amount of damages Samsung has to pay because the jury said the infringements were "wilful"

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• Full transcript of Apple-Samsung juror
• Tokyo court gives win to Samsung
• Apple-Samsung: Expert opinions

The verdict in the recent Apple-Samsung patent trial in the US has sent shockwaves through the tech industry.

The jury ruled that Apple be awarded $1.05bn (£665m) after its South Korean rival infringed several of its software technologies and designs

Samsung's own claims of patent breaches were rejected.

The decisions have been picked over at length by both the media and public. Questions have been asked: Did the jury spend enough time considering the facts? Was a Californian jury inherently biased? And, based on the evidence, was the verdict wrong?

Velvin Hogan was the foreman in the jury. He is chief technology officer at Multicast Labs, which develops video technology for the web, and was familiar with the US patent system before the trial.

He spoke to the BBC to address concerns he had about some of the reports, and asked that it be known that he had not been paid for this or any other interview.

What follows is an edited version of the conversation. A full transcript is also available:

What was the crucial bit of evidence that convinced you to give a verdict that was so decisive in Apple's favour rather than Samsung's?

One of the most decisive pieces of evidence was reading the minutes for myself of a meeting that was held at a very high level between Google executives and Samsung executives.

Velvin Hogan said his familiarity with the US patent system helped the jury reach its verdict so quickly

It was for a tablet and Google was concerned that for the sake of their operating system that the look and feel and the methodology that they [Samsung] were using to create their tablet was getting too close to what Apple was doing.

And in the memo themselves - remember this was minutes - they stated that Google demanded that they back away from that design.

And later there was a follow-up memo among themselves, these executives, and in black and white it says: we elect to not pass this information down to the divisions that were actually involved in the design.

So, from the sake of the engineers they went merrily along continuing their design not given any orders to back away.

They knew nothing of that meeting. To me that kind of raised a light bulb in my head that when I got in the jury room I wanted to read the minutes of that meeting myself.

When we went into deliberation in the jury room we not only had all the physical evidence of everything that was presented, but we also had sealed source code in its entirety from both sides, we actually had the memos that were talked about in the trial... and there was a piece of evidence after a piece of evidence that just clearly stacked up.

I have tried to make it clear that it wasn't an attempt [to take] a punitive standpoint. And it wasn't necessarily focused at Samsung - that is where it had been taken out of context.A lot has been made about the original interview you gave to Reuters in which you said you wanted to make the award sufficiently high to be painful to Samsung, but not unreasonable. There has been concern this might have be prejudicial and the awards should have been based on the facts alone.

The jury deliberated for 21 hours before reaching its verdict

The jurors wanted to send a message to the industry at large that no matter who you are - whether you are Apple, whether you are Samsung, or anybody - if you wilfully take the risk to cross the line and start infringing and you get caught, and again I emphasise wilfully, you need to be prepared to pay the cost for that.

Apple presented this chart as evidence that Samsung had changed its approach after the iPhone had been unveiled

There were two issues, looking at Apple's case: whether Samsung had infringed their patents and whether the patents were valid. Why weren't you convinced by Samsung's arguments that Apple's patents were invalid since prior art existed showing similar ideas?

Prior art was considered.

But the stipulation under the law is for the prior art to be sufficient to negate or invalidate Apple's patents in this case, it had to be sufficiently similar or, more importantly, it had to be interchangeable.

And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error.

So the point being, at [a bird's eye-view from] the 40,000 foot-level, even though the outcome of the two seemed similar, the internal methodology of how you got there was entirely different. One could not be exchanged for the other.

And that is the thing that most people at large do not understand about the legal system. And as a result of that you have heard a lot of hype in the media about did we turn our back on prior art.

There had speculation that Samsung might be awarded damages as well because of its claim that Apple had infringed its technologies.

What was key to us... is that [the technologies] had to be interchangeable.

And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work. And the converse of that was true.

Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then we might have ended up with a very different verdict?

Samsung used this image to suggest there had not been a sudden change in direction after the iPhone

I think so. But let's not say me specifically.

Let's say if there had not been an individual who had the technical background, and there had not been an individual who had gone through the process, the verdict might have been different - or it might have been the same.

I believe that the jury system in this country stands. The individuals would have ultimately come to a verdict. It might have been a lot longer.

But what definitely would have been required is passing more questions to the judge and having them come back. In our case we didn't have to.

Do you have a concern that this case and the verdict given could encourage further patent litigation?

Yes. I have no doubt that, number one, this case for this country is historical. It's a landmark case and, as people have said, we set the bar rather high. But as jurors we took the job seriously.

What needs to be understood by those outside that are watching this and listening to it, no matter whether we or anyone else feel personally that the patent procedure in this country or the patent system is broken or sick, we as jurors were sworn to abide by the rules and the stipulations in law as they exist today, at the time we made the decision.

And personally, do you think it is broken and sick and needs reform?

I believe we definitely need to continue the discussion. What I applaud is the fact that there is a discussion going on. Not everybody agrees with me or agrees with the decision that we made.

The jury rejected Apple's claim that the shape of its iPad had been infringed by Samsung

But that's OK. Whether I believe it is sick or broken or needs to be fixed or not, the rules are today what they are.

But if the community of engineers at large believes that it needs to be changed or re-reviewed, this court, this trial, and this set of jurors - myself included - was not the genre for that. It was not the right place.

That wasn't our authority and it wasn't what we were supposed to do.

A lot has been made of the idea that Apple may have ultimately been gunning for Android rather than just specifically for Samsung. Do you think this verdict will have implications for other companies who use Android?

No.... Those two operating systems can stand side-by-side, even though there is some similarity. The way those two operating systems function are sufficiently different enough that there is no infringement.

Just to make it clear, the phone that I have is a Motorola Droid 3 and the reason I'm mentioning that is because it is in the record, it was told to the judge and told to the court when asked that question.

And it is of a slider variety so it has a normal keyboard, and for that reason it's not among the 26 accused phones. It uses icons, and they are more than sufficiently different than what the iPhone, what Apple uses.

At the 40,000 foot-level there are some what you would perceive to be similarities. When you look at how the code is running and what the outcome is you will find that when you compare even that phone against the current patents that Apple is using, there is no infringement.

A hearing has been scheduled for December to consider Apple's demand that eight phones be banned from sale

My point is that the consumer at large does not have to lose functionality. But the methodology that is used by the company building that can get as close as they want to to that line of infringement, but just don't cross it.

Don't cross the infringement line, make some changes so that you're not going to cross it and then innovate like crazy.

And that's really the most important part. And I think Samsung has the capability, perhaps like no other on the globe, to be able to do it sufficiently fast enough that they are not going to lose any revenue.

A lot of people have said this case happened in Apple's backyard, so what else would you expect?

Yes, this trial took place in San Jose in the heart of Silicon Valley and Apple is located just down the road west of where the trial was, and two of Samsung's divisions are here down the road north-east of where this decision was made.

Everybody knows Samsung, everybody in this valley knows Apple. There is absolutely no ground to say that Apple had a hometown advantage.

Certainly it did not influence any of us on the jury panel.

'OpenStand' Underscores Commitment to Voluntary Internet Standards

Recent proposals from several countries urging the mandatory adoption of technical standards are dangerous and misguided.

Underscoring that view is today's launch of "OpenStand," an initiative supporting a commitment to open, voluntary technical standards for the Internet.  CDT welcomes the OpenStand paradigm.  Today we also released a paper detailing how technical standardization works and why proposals for the mandatory use of Internet standards developed in theInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU) are cause for grave concern.

Our digital world turns on technical standards. Emails composed on a Microsoft Windows computer can be easily read on an Apple laptop or iPhone. Websites created by an incredible diversity of companies and organizations – Twitter.com, Wikipedia.org, BBC.co.uk, and millions more – are easily viewed in web browsers made by Google or Mozilla. This ability to communicate between technologies developed by different companies exists because standards provide the language that allows computers and software to talk to each other.

OpenStand is the product of five of the world's leading technical Internet organizations -- IEEE, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Society, and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).  These organizations have produced many of the most fundamental standards on which all Internet communications rely, including Internet Protocol (IP), HTTP, and HTML. OpenStand is a set of principles built on a model of open processes that supports transparency, consensus, and the participation of all interested parties.
While the standards organizations making today's announcement have been operating under these principles for many years, OpenStand demonstrates a continued commitment by these groups to the voluntary, bottom-up processes that have made existing standards the foundation of the Internet's success as a platform for communications and commerce.

Unfortunately, the OpenStand paradigm is under serious threat. In December, the ITU will convene the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), a meeting of the world's governments to decide whether and how the ITU should regulate the Internet. In advance of that meeting, several countries have proposed that the technical standards the ITU produces – known as "ITU-T Recommendations" – become mandatory for Internet technology companies and network operators to build into their products. Russia and a number of Middle Eastern countries are among the primary proponents.

If adopted, these proposals would jeopardize the Internet's core principles of openness and free expression, threaten the growth and stability of the network, and sap the Internet's economic vitality. Having governments – the only formal decision-making members of the ITU – decide which standards technology companies must build into their products would upend the existing process of technological development on the Internet. Those with the most intimate knowledge of technology would be cut out of the loop for technological decision making, replacing them with government officials who do not write software, run networks, or build computers.

Making ITU-T Recommendations mandatory, while all other standards remain voluntary, would skew technology development in favor of largely unused specifications of questionable technical merit. They "have long ceased to have relevance," as one industry expert has explained.

Having the ITU-T Recommendations become mandatory could also cause the ITU to become a magnet for standardization proposals that undermine freedom of expression, privacy, and other civil liberties. Knowing that ITU standards would become mandatory, some governments may step up their efforts to have standards adopted that would increase network-based surveillance capability, create backdoors in existing encryption systems, embed identity information in all communications, or introduce other functionality that would threaten the Internet's ability to support free expression and private communication.

Because the ITU standardization process is generally opaque to civil society, the ability for civil society advocates to challenge such proposals and have a real impact on their outcome would be extremely limited.

Today's announcement of support for the OpenStand paradigm provides an important counterweight to mandatory standards proposals, but there is more work to be done. The paper we released today provides details about how technical standardization works and the danger of mandatory ITU standards. Those concerned about these proposals should take action:

•    Express your support for the OpenStand paradigm. Join CDT and other concerned Internet users in publicly affirming your support for the paradigm.

•    Press national governments to oppose mandatory ITU standards.  Civil society, Internet users, and other parties concerned about the future of the Internet should explain to their national ITU delegations that mandatory standards proposals would represent a major departure from the existing paradigm of Internet standardization and that these proposals would endanger the future of the Internet as an open, innovative platform.

•    Voice your concern about mandatory application of ITU-T Recommendations on the public comment page for the WCIT.  Oppose proposals to make ITU-T Recommendations mandatory by registering your comments here.

Asia's Top 11 Tech Companies

1. Tencent Holdings

Founded: 1998
Country: China
Employees: 20,000
Sales: $4.5bn

Tencent Holdings is China's biggest Internet Company in terms of revenue. Started as an instant messaging service in the late 1990s, it is also China's largest online game operator. In June 2012, Tencent bought a minority stake in Epic Games, a developer of 3D game engine technology, and in July purchased a stake in financial news company Caixin Media to increase its content offerings. Last year, it launched online video and expanded e-commerce offerings to take on well-established players Youku and Alibaba Group.

2. Digital China Holdings

Founded: 2001
Country: China
Employees: 12,900
Sales: $9.1bn

Digital China Holdings Limited is the China's largest integrated IT services provider . Digital China provides uninterrupted integrated IT services to customers that cover IT planning and consultation, design and implementation of software solutions, outsourcing of IT system operation and maintenance, systems integration, IT distribution and maintenance.

3. Samsung Electronics

Founded: 1969
Country: South Korea
Employees: 23,501
Sales: $142.4bn

Samsung is South Korea’s biggest, most profitable and most globally identified brand. Samsung Electronics is the flagship of Samsung Group, a conglomerate that controls more than 80 companies which includes businesses like building oil tankers and apartment complexes, running hotels and amusement parks and consumer electronics. 

The company recently lost patent battle to Apple in the US and has been asked to pay $1.05 billion in damages for violating Apple's patents for iPhone and iPad.

4. Lenovo Group

Founded: 1984
Country: China
Employees: 27,000
Sales: $29.6bn 

Lenovo Group is a personal technology company spread across more than 160 countries. The company offers a variety of commercial desktops to businesses of all sizes. Its products include laptops, tablets, desktops, workstations and servers. The company is the no. 1 PC seller in India, according to a recent Gartner report. Of late, Lenovo beat Apple in the three months ending June for the second place in smartphone sales in China.

5. Tata Consultancy Services

Founded: 1968
Country: India
Employees: 243,545
Sales: $9.6bn

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) is India's top IT Company. Over the year its net profit grew by 6 per cent to Rs 2,301 crore. Revenues grew 25 per cent to Rs 11,633 crore as companies in North America and Europe continued to spend, in spite of doubts of a supreme default in some regions and a slowdown in others. The company closed 10 large deals of $100 million or more during the second quarter, including from financial services clients, and is reported to be behind 10 more such deals.

6. DiGi.com

Founded: 1995
Country: Malaysia
Employees: 2,077
Sales: $1.9bn

DiGi is a Malysia-based mobile communications company that provides a broad range of wireless services. The company has an established presence as a leader in voice and data prepaid services. It offers services under DiGi Prepaid and DiGi Postpaid brand names.

7. NHN

Founded: 1998
Country: South Korea

Employees: 2,623
Sales: $1.8bn

NHN Corporation runs South Korea's most widely used Web portal, Naver . The company also operates hangame.co.jp, naver.jp and ijji.com which target users from Japan and the United States. In January 2011, the company established a new wholly-owned subsidiary

8. Bharti Airtel

Founded: 1995
Country: India
Employees: 20,892
Sales: $14bn

Bharti Airtel is India's top mobile phone company by revenue and subscribers . The company operates in three chief business segments: mobile services, telemedia services and enterprise services. It has one of strongest balance sheet in telecom sector of India. But the lower average revenue per user (ARPU) continues to haunt the company.

In the previous quarter, the company's total revenues were up by 14 per cent to Rs 19,350 crore in the quarter from Rs 16,975 crore in the first quarter. Markedly it showed a growth of 31.5 per cent in Africa and 44.2 per cent jump in mobile data revenues from India.

9. HCL Technologies

Founded: 1991
Country: India
Employees: 84,319
Sales: $3.8bn

HCL Technologies is India's fourth largest IT Company . The company's operations comprise software services, infrastructure services, including sale of networking equipment and business processing outsourcing services. HCL Tech provides solutions to verticals, such as financial services, manufacturing, public services and healthcare. The major geographical segments include America, Europe and others.

Bangalore: Like last few years, technology companies once again rule the listing of industry verticals in Asia’s Fab 50 announced by Forbes. To be specific, there are 11 IT companies in the list, up from eight last year. The list which includes top 50 public companies of Asia-Pacific is prepared annually. The list is based on revenue, earnings, and return on capital, share-price movements and outlook of these companies.
So, here are the 11 biggest technology companies of Asia.

10. Baidu

Founded: 2000
Country: China
Employees: 16,082
Sales: $2.2bn

Baidu is China's biggest internet search engine . Baidu has lately launched a mobile browser. The company also plans to invest in a cloud computing center as it is aware that the growth in internet use is shifting to mobile phones.
Baidu is well ahead of Google in China. According to research company Analysys International, the company had 78.6 per cent share of Chinese search market in the second quarter of 2012, way ahead of second-place Google with 15.7 per cent.

11. Quanta Computer

Founded: 1988
Country: Taiwan
Employees: 108,872
Sales: $36.6bn

Quanta Computer is the world's largest contract maker of notebook computers in terms of revenue . The company designs and manufactures devices for companies such as Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Google and Amazon.com. JP Morgan has estimated Quanta's revenue to rise 14 percent in the coming third quarter, while its notebook shipments to grow slowly at zero to 3 percent. The industry's average is zero to 2 per cent.

Kindle Fire HD 8.9 vs. iPad 3: Is the Apple Experience really worth $200?

On paper, the new Amazon Kindle Fire HD 8.9 blows the iPad 3 out of the water. The Fire HD is thinner, lighter, and smaller than the iPad 3. The Fire HD has dual stereo speakers with Dolby Digital Plus, while the iPad has a single mono speaker. Where the iPad 3 is capable of 22Mbps 802.11n WiFi, the Fire HD has a MIMO antenna capable of 31Mbps.

But most importantly, the 16GB Fire HD — with its 1920×1200 (254 PPI) Retina-equivalent screen! — is a full 200 dollars cheaper than the 16GB iPad 3. If you step up to the 32GB models, or the 4G LTE models, the price difference jumps to $230.

Now, for a start, this price disparity gives you some idea of Apple’s ludicrous profit margins, but it also illustrates the very different tack that Amazon is taking. The 16GB WiFi iPad 3, at launch, cost roughly $300 to build. Given its slightly cheaper materials (plastic chassis rather than aluminium) and Amazon’s weaker supply chain, the 16GB Kindle Fire HD 8.9 probably costs around $300 as well.

Instead of making a huge profit on every device, Amazon instead opts to sell its tablets at cost price, relying on aftermarket purchases (Prime, movies, e-books, music, TV shows) to turn a profit. For this technique to work, Amazon has to sell a lot of tablets — but considering the first-generation Kindle Fire sold somewhere in the region of 6 million units in its first 9 months in the US, comfortably outselling every tablet except for the iPad, I don’t think Amazon will have a problem moving units.

The original Kindle Fire didn’t go up against the iPad, though — it was a cheap, chunky, 7-inch device that stood alone until the Nexus 7 appeared a few months ago. It was the perfect Christmas present, or the ideal buy for someone who was thinking about getting a tablet, but didn’t want to plunk down $500 for an iPad or Galaxy Tab.

The Fire HD, with an impressive screen, fancy speakers, and svelte form factor, is obviously targeted straight at the iPad (and indeed, both Jeff Bezos’ presentation and the Amazon.com product page for the Fire HD draw comparisons with the iPad 3). The question is, does the Kindle Fire HD 8.9 have what it takes?

HP tries to trump iMac with SpectreONE

With a refresh of Apple's iMac line expected soon, Hewlett-Packard appears to be trying to steal some of i-maker's thunder with a new sleek-looking all-in-one PC, the SpectreONE, running Microsoft Windows 8.

The new HP all-in-one, expected to reach retailers on November 14, has 23.6-inch, flush glass and a 1080p display, is less than half-an-inch thick (0.44 inches), and includes a wireless trackpad to take advantage of Windows 8 gesture support.

HP was a little vague on what's in the guts of the SpectreONE, saying it featured "the latest Intel processors" and a NVIDIA 1GB graphics card.

Other features include four USB ports (two 2.0 and two 3.0 ports), HDMI-in, Beats Audio headphone jack and NFC support.

NFC technology allows users to simply tap a smartphone or NFC tag on the base of the HP SpectreONE to instantly transfer content or login information to the PC. HP plans to sell tags that can be programmed with information like log-in data, according to Ubergizmo.

In addition, the system comes with full versions of Adobe Photoshop Elements 10 and Adobe Premiere Elements 10, as well as a two-year paid subscription to Norton Internet Security suite.

Optionally, the HP all-in-one supports ExpressCache from Condusiv Technologies to speed boot-up and application start times,

SpectreONE is priced to compete with Apple's 21.5-inch iMac. The HP model is expected to be priced at $1299, while the current 21.5-inch iMacs sell for $1199 with an Intel 2.5 GHz quad-core i5 processor and $1499 with 2.7GHz Intel i7 chip. The iMacs have AMD Radeon HD 6750 graphics.

The SpectreONE may have an edge spec-wise over the current crop of iMacs, but that might not be the case after Apple rolls out its new iMacs, possibly as early as next month. Those units are expected to be thinner (achieved by ditching the optical drive), have more powerful processors and graphics, support USB 3.0, and have expanded solid state storage (SSD) capacities.

While wishful thinkers would like to see Retina displays in the new Apple all-in-ones, that doesn't seem to be in the cards for them.

All-in-one desktop computers used to be considered a niche product, but they've gained popularity over the years. Apple has long been a leader in all-in-one sales, but it is expected to lose that mantlethis year, with Lenovo selling some 4 million all-in-ones worldwide compared to Apple's 3.8 million.

E-book anti-trust settlement is approved

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- A federal judge approved an anti-trust settlement Wednesday with a trio of major publishers that could pave the way for lower e-book prices.

Hachette Book Group, CBS's (CBS, Fortune 500)Simon & Schuster and News Corp.'s (NWSA, Fortune 500) HarperCollins agreed to the settlement earlier this year, to resolve allegations that they had colluded with Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) to prop up the price of e-books. Spokespeople for all three publishers declined to comment.

The suit from the Department of Justice stems from the 2010 release of the iPad, when Apple reached an agreement with the publishers to release books via its new iBookstore.

Before the release of the iPad, Amazon's (AMZN, Fortune 500) Kindle was the preeminent e-book reader on the market. Amazon forced publishers to sell most books at $9.99.

According to the Department of Justice, booksellers were unnerved by the discounted e-book price structure Amazon launched in 2007. The publishers went to Apple in late 2009 to find a way to force Amazon to raise its prices. The iPad proved to be the perfect tool to accomplish that.

The alleged conspiracy placed many books at so-called "agency pricing," putting them on the market for about $12.99 and giving Apple a 30% cut. About three days later, Amazon allowed publishers to set their own prices, resulting in higher prices on the Kindle as well.

The DOJ has alleged that as a result of the arrangement, e-book customers paid between $2 and $3 more per book, amounting to upwards of $100 million more than they otherwise would have.

Apple said in a court filing last month that it would likely appeal the approval of the settlement. The tech giant, as well as publishers Macmillan andPearson's (PSO) Penguin, have opted not to settle, and their case is set to head to trial next June.

Best extreme-definition 27-inch monitors

If you don't have the space (or the funds) for a 30-inch super-duper high-res display, a 27-inch super-high-res monitor should be your second choice. Here are the five best.
 
While most 27-inch monitors you'll find at your local Best Buy sport the perfectly capable resolution of 1,920x1,080 pixels, there's a growing contingent of monitor enthusiasts, like myself, who understand the real reason for the existence of 27-inch displays.
If you've never seen a 27-inch monitor running at 2,560x1,440-pixel resolution, then you've yet to be touched by a particularly affecting higher power.
Also referred to as "extreme definition" or "XD," this branch of higher-tier monitors will melt your face and not look back. However, as much as the impressive resolution benefits all aspects of computing, it is in games that it provides a particular advantage.
Most modern games support the resolution and look stunning while doing so. Just remember, you'll need an equally capable graphics card to really take advantage.
The effect of seeing a modern game running at 2,560x1,440 pixels is...well, let's just say you won't want to settle for anything less, including the 50-inch 1080p HDTV your console is currently connected to.
Keep reading for details on the easiest way to ruin the console experience you're currently settling for. Also, check out the video above for just a taste of the power you're not ready for. It features the HP ZR2740W, which didn't make the Top 5, but for those on a budget, it's the one to get.

Computer new technology and application lead the development

 Yesterday, with “new technology and application promote industrial revolution” as the theme of the “2011 China’s computer technology conference” was held in Beijing shangri-la hotel. The conference attracted from government related leaders, the domestic and international famous IT enterprise’s research and development director, CIO and CTO, enterprise institute for technology and project manager, college senior researchers, and the news media, and other 1000 DuoRen. Its researchers, the state of the Chinese academy of sciences of high performance computer engineering technology research center, XuLu, Intel China research institute President FangZhiXi, shenzhou digital group CTO, dean of the shenzhou digital academy XieYun and IBM China research institute SuHui, vice President of the well-known experts such as the theme, including speech published VMware, H3C, sina, nets imperial China, ali cloud, Compuware, heaven and earth and the cloud, YiDeSi strange, etc, in the domestic and international famous IT companies represented in the various points of BBS discussion.
This congress to stand in a new information technology competition and key to the commanding heights, the purpose is the combination of independent enterprises set up interaction bridge, and to discuss the new trend of development of IT industry, new features and new problems. The subject covers the whole industry chain around IT, the coolest research field and the hottest technology direction, through the lecture, the question and answer, etc DuoZhong way, explore new technology development path, outstanding share ideas and the exchange of experience. “2011 China’s computer technology conference” in addition to the morning peak BBS including beyond, still has three points BBS, involving computing clouds, mobile Internet and content networking three segmentation technology.
2011 years is our country “1025″ the beginning of plan. In the national economy and social development plan for 1025 “in, the countries explicitly will develop integrated circuit, content online, mobile Internet, cloud computing, a new generation of information technology to ascend to the strategic height. To speed up a new generation of information technology industry development as an opportunity, our information industry will have of the transformation and upgrade strategic opportunity. The consultant sadie computing clouds white paper “that, over the next three years, cloud computing applications will the government, telecommunications, education, medical treatment, finance, petroleum and petrochemical and power industries as the key point. Cloud computing in China’s market is more and more enterprises and institutions, the size of the market will also from 2010 in to $16.731 billion to over 2013 in 117.412 billion yuan, compound annual growth rate of 91.5%.
In computing clouds points on the BBS, ali cloud focused on the Internet enterprise computing clouds the road of innovation; Compuware to share with you the cloud environment application performance quality management experience; H3C is focusing on the construction of the road network cloud ready choice; China’s software testing center of experts about cloud computing system testing technology and practice; Heaven and earth, expounds the clouds cloud computing infrastructure technology evolution, VMware technology experts prospect for the cloud computing vision.
Since 2010, the Chinese government has issued a series of things networking industry policy of development related, provinces and cities and industrial park has the relative supporting support policies. “Policy, technology leading, first demand drivers,” will be the country’s content networking industry development of the main mode. In our country that the standard of key technology and network has a breakthrough, a series of key industries application products also get the promotion. Intelligent transportation, city security, intelligent power grid, and medical treatment and other areas of application will be hot.

SpacePilot Pro 3D Mouse New Technology For 2009

The bombardment of new technologies for 2009 is still going on by addition of number of new technologies one of the best technologies invented today is the SpacePilot Pro 3D mouse. It has the capability to stand in multiple medium I am curious to use this high tech design and finally today the SpacePilot Pro makes its debut. Hit the jump for the official press release.

This mouse is best for all users the designer company has approved that Company flagship 3D mouse is designed to assign all advanced control of 3D models.
The SpacePilot Pro 3D mouse is best to access all 3D applications easily and many more advanced features like second-generation quick view of advanced navigation technology, full of comfort and intelligent function keys makes your work easy and interesting. This advanced technology mouse is designed to do work is less time with high performance. For intelligent work it has 5 more advanced and intelligent function keys. SpacePilot Pro 3D mouse is best gadget for today