Based on what we’re hearing about all the new iPhone applications, you’d think it was the first smart-phone to run third-party software. It’s not. In fact, all three major smart-phone operating systems - Palm, BlackBerry and Windows Mobile - have a big head start when it comes to available software.What’s more, basic cell phones - the ones you get for free from your carrier - also can run software and often be programmed to perform many of the advanced functions of an iPod or smart-phone.

Apple didn’t invent cell phone applications, and it’s not the only company that’s innovating. Yet, the rest of the industry owes Apple a debt of gratitude for opening its online applications store and helping publicize the fact that cell phone applications exist on virtually all platforms. And Apple has raised the bar for ease of use. I hope other handset makers will take note and make their applications easier to find.

The most popular smart-phone brand is still Research in Motion’s BlackBerry, which works with lots of third-party programs in addition to the applications that come with the device. One way to locate them is by using a search engine to find “Built for BlackBerry,” which will lead you to the company’s application portal. It’s divided into categories of “News & Weather,” “Sports,” “Travel & Mapping,” “Games & Entertainment,” “Music & Media,” “Lifestyle” and “Finance & Bankinare quite sophisticated. Under the “Music & Media” service, there are even programs that let you listen to live radio or connect to your personal music collection. However, unlike the iPhone, BlackBerry devices use a smaller-than-usual headphone jack requiring you to use the brand’s headphones, a plug adapter or Bluetooth headphones if you want to listen to music or a video soundtrack.I also just got my hands on the new Treo 800w, which is built by Palm, runs the Windows Mobile operating system and uses the Sprint network. This device, which costs $249 with the usual two-year contract, comes with lots of programs but also supports software you can download from the phone using the Sprint software store or one of many vendors that provide software for Windows mobile.

When it comes to choice, the combination of Sprint and Windows Mobile outshines what you can get with an iPhone - at least for now. The same can be said for smart-phones that run on Verizon Wireless, which also has its own applications along with the programs available from Windows Mobile, Palm, BlackBerry and the many independent vendors that support these phones. There are even distributors who specialize in making these programs easily available.

Handango offers software for all the major platforms as does Handmark. Handmark also has a free program called “Pocket Express” that provides news, stock quotes, sports and more for many phones and smart-phones.

Even if you have a phone you got for free or really cheap when you signed up for service, you probably have more available software than you realize. Take a look at the tools menu for all the things you can do with your phone such as setting alarms, calculating tips or keeping track of your schedule.

Almost all phones have some type of e-mail service, but they also work with the free e-mail applications from Google (Gmail) and from Yahoo Mobile. Of course you’ll have to peck out your messages on the numeric keyboard, but the interface on the mobile version of Gmail is actually very good - arguably as good or better than what you get with smart-phones. Yahoo Mobile also offers search, instant messaging and other features that - like Gmail - work on most regular phones.

Nearly all newer phones also have GPS built-in as well as available applications that give turn-by-turn directions, which is not yet available on an iPhone even though the iPhone 3G has GPS.

Then there’s Google’s Android operating system. Android phones aren’t yet available, but when they are, expect a great many choices. Android is an open-source operating system that Google will license to cell phone makers and carriers around the world, which means there will be plenty of incentive for developers to jump on that platform with some great applications.

So while it’s understandable to have iPhone envy, don’t think for a moment that Apple has a monopoly on coolness or neat applications. Shop around and look at that phone you already have. You might discover it’s a lot more powerful and versatile than you thought.

g.”

As with any platform, the quality of applications varies. But some

The new Apple 3G iPhone has received a lot of attention, but the more important story isn’t the new hardware, but Apple’s application store and the many programs that run on the new phone.

Thanks to a few of those programs there’s an even larger story - the iPhone may fundamentally change the way people listen to the radio when they’re in their cars or otherwise on the go.

Two free applications for the iPhone and iPod Touch, and another program that costs only $4.99, make it possible to listen to live radio on the iPhone from anywhere, including a moving car.

Unlike those pre-TV days when families sat around a big radio console in the living room, a lot of people now listen to radio mainly when they’re on the move. Internet radio has been around for more than a decade, car radios were introduced in the 1930’s and portable transistor radios became available in the 1950s.

Until now, live radio pretty much meant listening to a broadcast station with transmitters relatively nearby. But with the iPhone you can listen to stations from around the world, including some that broadcast only on the Internet and don’t even have transmitters.

Over time, this could be as disruptive to the radio broadcast industry as the Web has been to print. That’s not to say that major broadcast organizations (including CBS, which owns CBSNews.com and for which I serve as technology consultant) can’t survive in the age of mobile Internet radio, but it does mean they will face competition from new players, including startups operating from peoples’ spare rooms.

There are at least three “live radio” software applications available, not only for the new iPhone, but for the older iPhone and the iPod Touch that have been updated with Apple’s new 2.0 software (free for iPhone users and $10 for iPod Touch users). Two of the programs: AOL Radio and Pandora are free while Tuner costs $4.99.

AOL Radio “Powered by CBS Radio” allows you to listen to more than 150 CBS music, news, talk and sports stations across the United States, as well as customized stations created specifically for online listening. By default, it uses the iPhone or iPod Touch’s location awareness capabilities to play stations in your area, but you can also use it for out-of-town stations.

---

Podcast: Larry Magid and San Jose Mercury News reporter Troy Wolverton use the new iPhone to listen to live radio from New York and Jamaica as they drive around Silicon Valley, Calif.

---

Pandora doesn’t carry broadcast stations but allows users to create their own music programming by selecting their favorite artists or genres. It’s a very creative concept that can result in programming that is highly customized yet, unlike listening to your own MP3 files, still gives you the serendipity of not knowing which song will come next.

The other program, called Tuner, lets you select from thousands of Internet stations around world or type in the URL of any station that may not be included in its rather exhaustive list.

Assuming you have a good Internet connection, the sound quality from any of these programs is generally quite good.

With San Jose Mercury News technology reporter Troy Wolverton at the wheel, I plugged the iPhone into the auxiliary jack of his car radio while we drove around the San Jose, Calif. area listening to WCBS Newsradio from New York, a radio station from Kingston, Jamaica and a customized channel through Pandora.

Even at 66 miles an hour on U.S. Highway 101, the sound was better than what you’d expect from a clear FM signal. I also tuned into my local KCBS news station where the sound quality was definitely better than the station’s terrestrial AM signal.

The iPhone isn’t the first device to bring Internet radio to people on the go. There is streaming radio software for Windows Mobile, Palm and Blackberry, but they haven’t received widespread recognition.

Given the iPhone’s popularity and the fact that you can get these stations free with the AT&T data plan, I expect this to become one of the more popular uses for the iPhone, especially for people who commute by car. And, unless car radio manufacturers and automakers have their heads in the sand, I wouldn’t be surprised to see similar technology built into car audio systems.

If this does catch on, it could be incredibly disruptive to both the terrestrial and the relatively new satellite radio industries. With the Internet, stations no longer need transmitters, satellites or hard-to-get-FCC licenses to broadcast to mobile listeners.

Startups can now compete with major broadcast companies. Of course, having a delivery vehicle doesn’t mean you have a good product or the ability to market it well but, as we’ve discovered with blogs and podcasts, new media technologies do enable some creative new players to succeed while giving incumbent players - including CBS and other broadcasters - the opportunity to take advantage of new distribution systems.

Either way you look at it, the landscape will change.

Knee-deep in iPhone 2.0 fever, I’ve been thinking about the annual cost of using not only that device but all our other gadgets that require a subscription service.As you probably have heard, AT&T has raised the price of the data plan for the new iPhone by $10 a month, which more than wipes out the savings you get from the lower initial cost of the hardware. The $199 iPhone is $200 less than its predecessor but the increased cost of the data plan works out to an extra $240 over the life of the two-year contract. IPhones users will be paying at least $70 a month, which adds up to $840 a year, plus taxes and fees.

But it’s not just the iPhone that puts a deep dent in your wallet. Even regular old cell phone service costs about $50 a month per user. When I was growing up, most households had one phone line that cost maybe $8 a month back in 1970. Adjusting for inflation, that would be about $45 today - a bit more than people are spending per cell phone.

But that figure is for one cell phone. My family has four of them with a combined monthly bill of about $250. We still have our old-fashioned AT&T landline ($42 a month) and our Vonage Internet phone ($29 a month). That jacks up our monthly phone costs to about $320 - more than $3,720 a year - and doesn’t even count extras like international calls or when we go over our allotted cell phone minutes.

Admittedly, my parents paid a lot more for long-distance calls. But their total costs weren’t nearly as high.Today’s families get plenty of other bills that our parents never dreamed of. Comcast’s cable TV service can cost as little as $17 a month for basic service, but you can easily spend as much as $120 a month for the “Digital Premier” package - and that doesn’t count the cost of any pay-per-view movies you might want to order.

Then there’s our Internet bill. I love high-speed Internet service, but once the promotion period ends, I’ll be paying $67 a month for my 16-megabit “Blast” service. (To be fair, you can get less expensive, slower-speed cable service and even cheaper DSL from AT&T.)

There are plenty of other ways we can spend money each month. If you want to add a TiVo digital recorder to your TV set, it will cost you $12.95 a month or $129 a year plus the cost of the hardware. A typical three-movie Netflix subscription costs $20 a month. Want to play interactive games on your TV? An Xbox Live subscription costs $60 a year.

When I watch a high-definition movie on Apple TV, it sets me back $5. That’s at least $1 more than what it costs at the video store, though at least I don’t have to burn $4.70-a-gallon gas to fetch the movie.

We are also starting to see software and service fees. Security programs like Norton Internet Security or Trend Micro Internet Security Pro almost always have an annual subscription plan - typically around $69 a year. So far, most people buy their desktop software but there is a trend toward “cloud computing,” in which you access your software online - in some cases for a monthly or annual fee.

Yahoo has a free e-mail service, but if you want to turn on its advanced features and eliminate ads, you need to pay $20 a year.

And then there’s the cost of powering up all your equipment. My father’s energy bill was a fraction of what I pay. Not only has the cost per kilowatt gone up exponentially but so has the amount of power we use. My mom and dad might have had less efficient appliances and light bulbs but they didn’t have to pay for the energy to run a 57-inch LCD TV that uses more than 300 watts when on, or a digital video recorder that uses 47 watts 24 hour a day. And dear old mom and dad didn’t have any devices that used “passive” power when on standby.

I’m not arguing that we don’t get value for what we pay on a monthly or annual basis. But I do think it’s worth keeping an eye on those bills. Moore’s law and competition have drastically cut the purchase cost of hardware, but that’s only the start. If you want to actually use a lot of that hardware, you have to keep on paying.

This week marks my 25th anniversary as a tech columnist. “The Computer File,” my syndicated Los Angeles Times column, debuted July 3, 1983.

My first topic was “Learn Buzzwords Before Shopping,” in which I informed my readers about the difference between hardware and software and such techie terms as bits, bytes and kilobytes. I didn’t have to tell them about megabytes or gigabytes because there weren’t any devices that stored that much data in those days.

I covered the birth of the Macintosh in 1984 and, in 1996, wrote a column on why it’s OK to buy a Mac even though Apple “lost more money during the fourth quarter of 1995 than most of us could hope to earn in several lifetimes.” Who would have known that Steve Jobs was about to return to the company he founded and bring it back to life?

I also covered the launch of Windows 1.0 back in 1985, but it was a bit of a joke - slow, ugly and cumbersome. But even then it was clear that Microsoft was a tenacious company that would keep trying.

In 1990 Microsoft came up with Windows 3.0, which I called the “most significant development in the nine-year history of IBM and compatible personal computers.” I’m sure I’ll hear from people who think Windows is still slow, ugly and cumbersome but it’s hard to ignore a product with about 90 percent market share.

By the way, I wrote that first column in WordStar and later switched over to WordPerfect as my preferred word processing program. But Microsoft pretty much killed off those products once Microsoft Word - part of Microsoft Office - virtually took over the word processing market.

Speaking of Microsoft and market share, from 1998 through 2001 I covered the Microsoft antitrust trial. And though I tried to remain objective, I couldn’t help but agree with Justice Department officials who argued that the company was taking unfair advantage of its dominant position.

However, I recall Bill Gates’ testimony before Congress where he pointed out that being on top isn’t something any company could take for granted.

Years later, his words are ringing true as Microsoft struggles to catch up with Google in Internet search. And while still dominant on the desktop, Microsoft is losing market share to Apple.

For advice on the Microsoft vs. Apple question, I turned to one of the very few people who have been covering technology even longer than I have. My friend John Dvorak - who preceded me as a tech journalist by about five years - said that “right now, the Mac is a superior product and it’s a real problem for the Microsoft side of the equation.” Dvorak, who writes for PC Magazine, has a Mac but primarily uses Windows for his work. But he said that if people ask him what to buy, “I tell them to get a Mac.”

I also have a Mac. But I, too, mostly use Windows, though I no longer care much about operating systems and PCs.

With the growth of Web-based “cloud computing,” desktop operating systems and applications are becoming less significant. Now people are starting to run online applications within their Web browsers.

That doesn’t bode well for a company like Microsoft that makes billions selling shrink-wrapped software programs. Long term, it might even be bad for Apple if we get to the point where the brand of computer becomes irrelevant.

While I miss reviewing products from long-gone PC makers like Apricot and Leading Edge, there is no shortage of interesting tech stories to cover. The long-awaited “convergence” between computers and consumer technology is finally here, giving this old “PC guy” plenty of new material and gadgets to ponder.

Those include phones that report your location to your friends, GPS navigation systems that track traffic patterns and pocket-size camcorders that finally make it easy to take video. Digital cameras, which didn’t exist as consumer products when I started covering tech, have virtually replaced film cameras.

The first portable cell phone from Motorola debuted the year I started writing my column. It cost nearly $4,000. I didn’t even bother reviewing phones until Radio Shack came out with a brick-size unit that sold for less than $1,000. Back then, only rich executives had portable phones, and most of them were installed in cars. Now I get to write about all sorts of interesting phones that are affordable.

I also spent a lot of time writing about and for the early online services. In 1994 I wrote a book about those services called “Cruising Online: Larry Magid’s Guide to the New Digital Highways.”

The book came out just in time to be irrelevant because of the release of Mosaic, the first graphical Web browser (later to become Netscape), which heralded the beginning of the popular Internet. Over time, online services - isolated islands of information - gave way to Web sites accessible to anyone.

And that changed everything, including the prominence of printed newspapers - the very industry that gave me my start.

Whether I read them online or in print, I still love newspapers. That’s not because of the paper they’re printed on or the Web sites that display them but because of the information they contain and the dedicated, talented and interesting people who make them come out each and every day.

It’s been a privilege writing for CBSNews.com and for some of our country’s great newspapers - the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, Washington Post and the Mercury News - and I’m not done yet. Media companies change and columnists age, but we still have some life ahead of us.

25 years and counting

Last week, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced an agreement with three Internet service providers - Time Warner Cable, Verizon and Sprint - to remove child pornography housed on servers connected to their networks. Some civil liberties groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, have expressed free-speech concerns about this agreement.I learned of the agreement shortly after landing in Washington, D.C., on my way to a board meeting of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. The NCMEC will play a role by providing the ISPs with a list of Web addresses for sites with sexually explicit images of prepubescent children.

As an (unpaid) member of NCMEC’s board of directors, I can’t claim objectivity on this story - I strongly support its efforts to rid the world of child pornography. But despite the claims of supporters and critics of the agreement, I don’t think it will have much positive impact toward eliminating child porn nor negative impact when it comes to free speech.

Child pornography is not protected under any free-speech guarantees. It has been illegal in the United States for more than a quarter of a century. In some countries, they don’t even call it “child porn”; they call it “child sexual abuse images.” In addition to being illegal, it’s hideous because real kids are victimized, first by being used to produce the material and again each time an image is circulated

---

---

and viewed - and that often goes on for decades. Also, sexually explicit images of children are sometimes used by those to prey on children and break down their resistance to sexual contact.But just because child porn is illegal and immoral doesn’t mean that it’s OK to violate the First Amendment while trying to stamp it out. Some have expressed concern that the agreement Cuomo announced could be a form of “prior restraint” by blocking access to material without a judicial review. But no one is blocking anything. Instead, the ISPs involved are simply enforcing their own longstanding terms of service by agreeing not to host sites and newsgroups known to contain child porn.

Representatives from Verizon, Time Warner and Sprint told me that they have no intention of preventing their customers from going to any Web sites anywhere on the Internet, but will remove any sites hosted on machines connected to their own networks that are known to contain child porn.

NCMEC will supply these companies with lists of offending sites and NCMEC staff will use software to review these sites daily and let the ISPs know if there is any change to their status. If any of these companies finds that a customer is using its network to host these sites, it will disconnect them from the network.

Frankly, I don’t think they’re going to find very many illegal child-porn sites hosted by these major ISPs. If the site is hosted elsewhere, the ISPs’ representatives told me, they will not block access to the site, even if it is reported to contain child porn.

There have been reports that these companies will block access to child porn on Usenet newsgroups, but that’s not exactly true either. They’re doing something far more dramatic.

Time Warner will stop hosting all newsgroups, while Verizon and Sprint will eliminate hosting newsgroups under the “Alt” hierarchy. Time Warner Cable spokesman Alex Dudley said that was “partially a business decision” because less than 2 percent of its customers subscribe to newsgroups. Newsgroups were fairly popular in the early days of the Internet - before the World Wide Web was created in 1989 - but in recent years, they’ve lost users to Web-based forums, chat rooms and social-networking sites.

From a free-speech perspective, I’m more disturbed by Sprint and Verizon’s decision to stop serving up Alt groups than I am by Time Warner Cable’s plan to cease hosting all newsgroups. Alt, short for “alternative,” is the designation for groups that discuss issues that aren’t allowed in the more mainstream categories such as comp (computers), soc (social issues), and talk (typically religion and politics). Alt includes groups dedicated to sex and drugs, and is reportedly where Cuomo’s staff found 88 newsgroups containing child porn. But the vast majority of the material in the Alt hierarchy has nothing to do with child pornography.

Because not hosting is not the same as blocking, one could argue that it would be like a newspaper making a business decision to stop publishing a comics section or stock quotes. But there is a caveat. These companies didn’t make these changes solely of their own volition.

Although the agreement was presented as “voluntary,” the companies were under pressure from Cuomo, which does raise some troubling issues. However, unlike major ISPs in the United Kingdom, which do block access to reported child-porn sites, this is not a case of blocking but of companies agreeing to enforce their own longstanding rules and federal law by not hosting this material.

At the risk of stating the obvious, digital photography is one of the great revolutions of our time. By eliminating the cost of film and developing, and making cameras cheaper, smaller and more readily available, the technology has sparked a renaissance in photo taking.

Now that most cell phones have built-in cameras, digital cameras are literally everywhere and always with us. Even those of us who don’t think to pack our cameras when we leave the house, probably have a camera thanks to cell phones.

One of the biggest changes brought about by digital photography is the way we show off our pictures. Until a few years ago, the only way to share photos was through prints, but most digital pictures taken today are never printed. Many, I suppose, are also never shared, but those that are shared with others are often viewed on a screen rather than on paper.

In some cases, we share our pictures by showing them to our friends on our camera or phone’s LCD screen. That gives us that instant gratification that my generation first enjoyed back with Polaroid cameras. But unlike those very pricey Polaroid prints, digital images are free.

Speaking of free, there are also a number of ways to share photos online, including social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and Bebo, as well as dedicated photo sharing sites like Flickr, SnapFish, Shutterfly, Picasa and Photobucket.

????????

---

Podcast: Larry Magid talks with Alice Lankester of Photobucket whose company recently launched group photo albums for weddings, soccer teams and other group events.

---

Photobucket, which is owned by Fox Interactive, the division of News Corp. that also operates MySpace, is very popular among teenage users. One of the reasons is the fact that it’s well integrated into MySpace, Facebook, Blogger, Bebo, Hi5 and other Web sites. As a result, users can easily display their Photobucket pictures on their social networking profile. If you can put an HTML link on a Web site, you can display your Photobucket content. The site also provides photo editing powered by FotoFlexer and basic video editing through Adobe Remix.

One of the things I like about Photobucket is the very straightforward and easy to use interface. Like the competitors, it has a “bulk” uploader that allows you to upload several photos at a time, but you don’t have to spend a lot of time downloading and installing a separate application. The plug-in installs automatically and almost immediately and works from within your browser. The site also has some nice built-in tools, including the ability to create a musically annotated slide show and to place fun borders around your pictures.

Photobucket recently released an application programming interface (API) that allows others to build applications that can access photos and videos. One of the more interesting applications now available is Scrapblog that allows users to create a multimedia online “scrapbook” from your photos and videos that you can share on Photobucket as well as on Flickr, MySpace, Blogger and other sites.

Earlier this week the company announced the launch of group albums, giving groups of people a new way to create and share photo and video collections. For example, each parent of a Little League member could snap photos and videos of the kids and post them on an album that could be public or password controlled. The same could be true for guests at a wedding or other celebration.

Each album is controlled by a moderator who can pick and choose which photos will appear and delete. Individuals who post can also control which pictures are available to the group. The company will allow users to register for unique URLs (Web addresses). When my daughter Katherine marries John this August, I’m hoping they’ll let me create the site photobucket.com/katherineandjohn, but that decision will be up to the newlyweds.

Speaking of photography, one of my favorite photo accessory companies is about to release a very cool new product. Eye-Fi, which makes a little digital camera SD memory card that automatically transfers photos from your camera to your PC (and to the Web if you want) via Wi-Fi has announced a card that will also geo-code your pictures.

That means that you won’t have to remember or type in where a photo was taken. The new card, which will be called Eye-Fi Explore, will look for Wi-Fi networks near where you’re taking the picture and, if it finds one, it will make a note of the location and add that to the data that is associated with each picture. It will get the geographic information from Skyhook Wireless, a company that has mapped the location of thousands of Wi-Fi hotspots around the country.

Even if the hotspot is encrypted, Skyhook can determine where it is physically located and transfer that location information to the new Eye-Fi card and directly to your photograph. The new card will also allow you to upload pictures from hotspots even while you’re away from home, which will be very handy for travelers who want to share their photos from the road.

Eye-Fi Explore is expected to be available in early June for $129.00.

About a year ago Google announced that it would launch a service to allow users to store their own health records on a secure website. There was a lot of discussion about what it would look like but the wait is over. A free public “beta test” version of Google Heath is now operational at google.com/health.

The service allows users to create an online profile that includes information about any medical conditions, test results, procedures, immunizations and medications. You’re also asked to enter in your height, weight, blood type and race. With this information, the service, in theory, could offer you tailored medical information as well as serving as a central hub storing your medical records.

Eventually the goal is for users to be able to import their health information from the secure websites of care providers. To that end, Google already has arrangements with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the Cleveland Clinic as well the online pharmacies from Longs Drugs, Walgreens, RXAmerica and Medco. A relationship with Quest Diagnostics allows users of its services to import their lab tests. Google also has a link to the American Heart Association’s heart attack risk assessment site so that you can get your customized risk assessment without having to retype your height, weight, cholesterol and other into the Heart Association’s site.

One nice feature is the drug interaction alert that lets you know about potential conflicts between drugs you take. Of course, you have to remember to enter all your drugs for that to work.

---

Podcast: CBS News technology analyst Larry Magid discussed Google Health with Google product Manger Dr. Ronnie Zeiger and with health author and prevention specialist Dr. Dean Ornish who is an adviser to Google

---

Because none of my providers are among Google’s initial partners, I had to enter all the information myself. Fortunately, it was easy to find because the health clinic I use most of the time has its own online service that stores this information. I’m pretty happy with what my provider offers but it’s an island of information. If, for example, I were to have a blood test done elsewhere, that information would not be on my provider’s site nor is there a way I could even type it in. Google is trying to solve that problem by creating a health record keeping system that is controlled by the user, not the health care provider. This is especially important for those of us who don’t belong to a health maintenance organization (HMO) because we might visit different physicians who are not affiliated with each other.

Clearly privacy is the number one concern when it comes to any online medical information service. Google’s health privacy policy states that “You control who can access your personal health information. By default, you are the only user who can view and edit your information.” You can, however choose to share your information with others. The company also promises not to “sell, rent, or share your information” and will let you delete your account or any information in it at any time.

But even though I take Google at its word, I worry about hackers. Google Health product manager, Dr. Roni Zeiger, told me that the company has very good security and while Google does have a good track record in this area, there is never an ironclad guarantee that a site couldn’t be hacked. Of course - despite safeguards required under the federal “HIPAA law (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) - there is also the possibility that someone could break into your doctor’s office to steal your records or that your health care provider could be careless about its own privacy and security policies.

Because of my inability to import information into the service, I find it of minimal use at the moment but I do see the potential, especially after more service providers come online. I also see the potential of linking this and similar services to health and fitness technology products such as blood pressure cuffs, scales and exercise equipment. By coincidence, Google launched the service the same day as the U.S. launch of Nintendo’s Wii Fit Balance board and workout software. I could easily see how Nintendo and Google could work together to make both products more useful by linking them via the Internet.

Dr. Dean Ornish, the preventive medicine author, serves as an advisor to Google Health and attended the launch event at Google headquarters in Silicon Valley Monday. I asked Dr. Ornish why putting health information into patients’ hands was better than relying on solely on doctors to provide necessary care and information. “That model,” he said “has been of limited value because it provides all the information and all the control with the physician … It’s much more powerful to have a collaborative relationship with the patient where the physician becomes the resource that has information, shares that information and provides choices to the patient about what to do with it - the risks, the benefits, the costs the side effects and so on.” He argues that “Google Health can help provide that information to the patient as well as the physician.”

Google is not without competition. Microsoft has launched its own HealthVault service which it bills as “the hub of a network of Web sites, personal health devices and other services that you can use to help manage your health.” So, in addition to fighting over Yahoo and search advertising, these two giant technology companies are slugging it out over your health records.

Thanks to Nintendo, I now know I’m a somewhat overweight couch potato with poor balance. But there is hope. If I stick with the plan, I may lose weight, get stronger and improve my balance and posture. At least that’s the theory behind Nintendo’s innovative Wii Fit - an $89.99 game and accessory for the Nintendo Wii designed to help people of all ages and both genders get healthier.

In addition to the CD, Wii Fit comes with a balance board that wirelessly communicates with the required Nintendo Wii Console (the list price is $249 but shortages make it hard to find at that price).

First, you tell the Wii your age and height. Then step on the balance board, which measures 20.5 inches by 13 inches by 3 inches. It weighs you and calculates your body mass index, or BMI. A balance test follows to calculate your “Wii age.” I’m too embarrassed to tell you mine but let’s just say that based on my Wii age, I could be collecting Social Security years ahead of schedule.

The one thing I wish it would do is explain the meaning of BMI. While it is generally accepted as an indicator of whether someone is the right weight for his or her height, it’s imperfect because it’s based solely on weight and height. A BMI of 24 or higher is considered “overweight,” while 30 or more marks you as “obese.”

The Wii Fit screen recommends that you achieve a BMI of 22 but fails to point out that BMI doesn’t distinguish body fat from muscle mass. Based on their BMIs, Barry Bonds and Arnold Schwarzenegger would be considered obese.A sedentary person with a big belly and a high BMI almost certainly does need to lose weight, but the number can sometimes be misleading if taken out of context. Having said that, I must admit that the Wii Fit was absolutely correct when it told me that I need to lose some weight.

The key to the Wii Fit is the balance board and the Nintendo controller’s motion-sensing capability. In addition to weighing you, the balance board can help determine your posture and center of gravity based on the way you’re standing on it.

There are numerous tests and games you can play with the Wii Fit in the categories of yoga, aerobics, strength training and balance games. The aerobics exercise that got my heart pumping the fastest was a running game. You don’t use the balance board but put the regular Wii controller in your pocket. Its movement is used to calculate how quickly you’re running in place, which helps you keep up with or lag behind your on-screen running partner.

If you have a friend and another controller, you can race against a real running partner. I also enjoyed the hula hoop game, where you work up a sweat by spinning your hips to keep the hoop from falling down. Every so often you’re thrown a new hoop and have to lean way over to catch it. I’m told that if you do well enough on it you get to play the “super hula” game. But I’m not there yet.

For me, the balance games were the most frustrating, not because there’s anything wrong with the Wii Fit but because I have a lot of work to do in that area. One game has you head-butting soccer balls that are thrown to you and another has you slalom on a ski run. In both cases, your balance and reaction time are tested and measured. What’s nice about the games is the “retry” option. By repeating these games I’m finding that I’m getting a bit better and, one hopes, healthier over time.

Strength training games seem a bit weaker than other areas, partially because the device has no weights, bands or other appendages to put an extra strain on your muscles. You can, however, do isometric exercises that help with both strength and balance.

I tried the deep breathing Yoga exercise. Again there isn’t any mechanized way to measure your breath but it does help you with your timing, which, I’m told, is very important in yoga.

Like any good game, the Wii Fit has incentives to succeed. If you do well on certain games you’re rewarded not only by positive on-screen feedback but by winning access to more games.

After only a day with the device, it’s hard to fully evaluate the Wii Fit because the real value of any exercise routine is determined not just by how fun or informative it is at the beginning but by whether you stay with it. The Wii Fit is designed to motivate you with plenty of feedback and increasing levels of difficulty. I did have a lot of fun on day one and found myself motivated to keep trying to improve my score. The real question, however, is whether I’ll stick with it or if the Wii Fit, like so many other exercise devices and health club memberships, will go unused after a period of time.

If Nintendo could solve that problem it would go a long way toward making me - and lots of others - a bit healthier. But, alas, a device is only a device. The software we all need to keep fit doesn’t run on game consoles, it runs between our ears. It’s all about staying motivated and staying active.

Last week’s news about a new WiMax venture involving Sprint, Clearwire, Google, Intel and others could finally pave the way for a wireless networking system that’s not limited to a few hundred feet and - just maybe - not tightly controlled by cellular carriers.

Like WiFi, WiMax makes it possible to transmit signals between base stations, PCs and other devices, including media players and mobile phones. But rather than being limited to about 300 square feet, a single WiMax base station could theoretically radiate a signal for 30 miles to home and office devices, or 10 miles to mobile devices. These ranges, of course, are dependent on a great many factors including terrain and interference.

As for speed, the WiMax Forum claims it can support up to 40 megabits per second in fixed applications or up to 15 Mbps for mobile use (DSL typically delivers below 2 Mbps). But as anyone who’s used a WiFi network knows, speed - like range - depends on lots of factors.

The idea is to create a metropolitan area network where one or more base stations can serve large numbers of people. Such a network could be an alternative to DSL or cable modems for homes and businesses and an alternative to WiFi and cellular for people on the move. It could also provide connectivity to mobile devices, including WiMax phones that use Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). A single WiMax station could connect thousands of users to the Internet.

Intel has been a major proponent of WiMax for years and is rolling out access cards, chipsets and other WiMax related technology. And it is embedding WiMax chips in Centrino-based laptops and other mobile devices.

During a question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters Thursday at Google headquarters, Google co-founder Larry Page told me the Clearwire deal is “a significant step in the direction of openness.”

Co-founder Sergey Brin added that Google “benefits from more people having more access to the Internet with greater bandwidth and fewer restrictions.”

Page confirmed that Google staff who work on the company’s Android cell phone operating system were also involved with the Clearwire deal. Android is designed to create a more open environment for cell phone services, and could work on the Clearwire network as well as on other wireless networks and existing cell phone systems.

While Google will offer its open Android mobile operating system to cell phone carriers, the advent of WiMax could allow the search giant to offer direct mobile services without having to negotiate with carriers. Google has already invested in a free citywide WiFi network for its hometown of Mountain View.

Although executives from Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and others have talked about a new spirit of “openness,” mobile carriers are notorious for being control freaks, limiting or attempting to monetize almost anything that happens on their network.

Creating open networks, or at least increasing the number of companies offering mobile services, should go a long way to break the oligopoly that the incumbent carriers now enjoy. Unlike the current U.S. cell phone model, the new WiMax networks are likely to allow for greater flexibility and choice including the ability to get compatible handsets from a variety of companies.

This will become increasingly important as new mobile services emerge, especially with the advent of “cell phone banking” services run by PayPal, Obopay and others that ultimately allow individuals and businesses to use mobile devices to exchange money.

As a cautionary note, it’s important to consider that this new venture has a pedigree that doesn’t exactly scream openness. The new Clearwire will be 51 percent owned by Sprint. Other investors include cable companies Time Warner and Comcast.

Sprint competitors AT&T and Verizon are working on competing high-speed mobile technology called Long Term Evolution (LTE), which involves upgrading existing cellular networks to so called “fourth generation” or 4G capabilities to offer much higher download speeds.

I do worry that the cellular carriers are the major forces behind both WiMax and LTE, and the investment of major cable companies in Clearwire is also a bit concerning. Still, I’m hoping that the presence of other players and increasing pressure toward openness will create a business climate that looks more like the open Internet and less like closed cellular networks.

You don’t have to wait for WiMax or LTE to get wireless access to your laptop. Over the past year, I’ve tested EVDO wireless services from both Sprint and Verizon and both provide reasonably fast Internet service to my laptop. It’s not cheap. Sprint’s unlimited plan is $59.99 a month, while Verizon charges that for up to 5 gigabytes a month. At speeds up to 1.2 Mbps, this solution is acceptable by today’s standards for basic data but still shy of what’s needed for high quality video and voice.

A lot of people - especially its stockholders - are worried about the future of Yahoo now that Microsoft has backed away from its offer to buy the company for $47.5 billion. But Microsoft shareholders also have reason to worry.

Bill Gates, with a lot of help from Steve Ballmer, built the Microsoft on the back of the personal computer. Ballmer is now CEO of Microsoft and, starting in July, he’ll no longer have Gates as a work make. Although he’ll remain as chairman, Gates is retiring from his day-to-day responsibilities to devote more time to philanthropy.

As early as 1975, Gates saw the potential of PCs, predicting that the growing platform would create an enormous appetite for software. In 1981, he cemented Microsoft’s role by signing a deal to create the operating system for IBM’s first personal computer. Even though there wasn’t even a hint that Compaq would eventually release the first “PC clone,” Gates was smart enough to make his IBM deal non-exclusive allowing him to ink lucrative software deals with Compaq and eventually Dell, HP and the myriad of PC makers who needed Microsoft software to be sure their machines were compatible with the then gold standard IBM PC.

Gates, Ballmer and the thousands of other Microsoft employees rode this platform to such highs that they eventually wound up, literally, monopolizing the world’s desktop operating system market, prompting the U.S. Justice Department and governments around the world to file a variety anti-trust cases against the software giant. In 2000, U.S. District judge Penfield Jackson found Microsoft guilty of anti-trust violations and ordered the company split in two with one entity in charge of desktop software and the other able to sell operating systems. After a change in administrations, the Justice Department ultimately reached a less stringent settlement that allowed Microsoft to remain intact while promising to modify its behavior and submit to ongoing scrutiny.

---

Podcast: Larry Magid talks to veteran Silicon Valley technology analyst Tim Bajarn about the impact of Microsoft’s decision to withdraw its offer to buy Yahoo. furniture Videnov

---

office furniture in Bulgaria
During the midst of the anti-trust fervor, Gates told a Congressional hearing that market forces, not the government, should be in charge of determining who’s on top. “People who feared IBM were wrong,” he told a Senate Judiciary hearing in 1998, “technology is ever-changing.” A lot of people thought that was hyperbole, but in some sense history proved Gates to be right.

That very year, two graduate students from Stanford set up shop in a garage in Menlo Park, California and raised $100,000 to start Google, a Web-based company that’s now worth about $186 billion. If they were to combine their net worth, Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin would be number three on Forbes’ list of the world’s wealthiest people. As it is, they share the number five spot.

Although Microsoft continues to be a powerful and profitable company, it has continually faltered where Google has succeeded. It’s not as if Microsoft hasn’t tried. It launched Microsoft Network, MSN, back in 1995 and promoted it so heavily on the Windows 95 desktop that some people worried it would be the death knell for all other online services. It wasn’t AOL wound up dominating the field until it too started to falter as broadband penetration ate up much of its dial-up business. Microsoft Hotmail came along in 1998 and the company has continued to invest in MSN and other Internet services. From a features perspective, it competes very well with Google, Yahoo and AOL. Like Alice’s Restaurant, you can get pretty much “anything you want” at Microsoft’s various websites. But, in February 2008 Comscor ranked Microsoft a distant third in search sites with 9.8% share of behind Google (58.5%) and Yahoo (22.2%). Microsoft also came out third in total visitors. Yahoo came in first followed by Google, Microsoft and AOL.

Yahoo’s number one position at attracting visitors and number two spot in search is not lost on Steve Ballmer, especially as he eyes Google’s enormous earnings from Internet search.

With its online services division losing an estimated $745 million in the past three quarters, Ballmer has to find a way to turn things around without the help of Yahoo.

That’s not going to be easy as the technology landscape turns from PCs to web-based and mobile applications and as consumers greatly overtake businesses as the most important technology buyers.

For the first 25 years of its history, PCs were pretty much the only game in town when it came to information and productivity applications but Microsoft is fighting Google, Yahoo and others on two fronts. Though Web-based productivity applications are still in their infancy, Google has shown that it is possible to bring Microsoft Office-like applications to the web. Gmail (along with competing products form Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL) is serving needs that once required desktop mail applications such as Outlook. But perhaps more importantly, Google Docs and Spreadsheets is now competing with Microsoft Office. I’m not saying that Google’s free web applications are going to put Office out of business. For example, I’m writing this column in Microsoft Word because it has far more robust features than Google and I still use Excel when I need a complex spreadsheet. Besides, there are times when people need these applications when they don’t have Internet access.

But times are changing. Web-based applications from Google and others are only going to get better and Google has already launched programs that will run when you’re not connected to the Internet. In the mean time, Microsoft faces operating system pressure not just from Apple (which is gaining in market share) but from Linux - a free “open source” operating system that’s growing in popularity, especially in the developing world where the cost of Microsoft software is simply prohibitive.

We’re also seeing the growth of the mobile phone as a platform of choice. Again, if you look to the developing world, you’ll find that cell phone penetration is far higher than PC use and as cell phones become more powerful, people are starting to use them instead of PCs for email, web surfing and even financial transactions. Microsoft has spent billions trying to compete in this market with its Windows Mobile products but despite some pretty good sales, it’s not winning too many comparative reviews against RIM’s Blackberry software and Apple’s highly regarded iPhone. And even in this arena Microsoft has to worry about Google which has recently launched development software cell phones and Yahoo which is trying to move most of its web services over to mobile phones.

So, with this as a backdrop, one wonders what Steve Ballmer will do. He hasn’t confided in me, but after watching him and Gates for nearly a quarter of a century, I think I know a thing or two about their tenacity. Ballmer won’t give up. He’ll continue to keep an eye on Yahoo and perhaps come back later - maybe with a lower offer - if Yahoo continues to stumble. And he’ll keep shopping for smaller companies or perhaps AOL all the while continuing to invest money in Microsoft’s own web services