Diberdayakan oleh Blogger.
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Calls. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Calls. Tampilkan semua postingan

Rabu, 23 April 2014

Google Glass Gets KitKat Support And Improved Photo Browsing, Loses Video Calls

Anybody will be able to buy Google Glass tomorrow, but ahead of this, Google is giving the Glass software an update. There are a couple of new features in this update, including new tools for making working with photos easier, but Google has also decided to remove the option to do video calls from Glass for the time being.

Google says video calls from Glass didn’t live out to the company’s “high standards.” Only about 10 percent of Glass users currently use them, and because of this, the Glass team has made “the hard decision to remove video calls from Glass until the experience is better.”

It’s unclear when this feature will return, but Google tells Glass users to keep an eye out for video-streaming apps in the MyGlass app library for third-party solutions. Given that video calls from Glass were always one of the device’s marquee features, it does come as quite a surprise that Google would remove this, even if just a few percent of its current users use it. 

Send photo message

As for the photo updates, Google now finally bundles photos together so when you scroll through your timelines, it’s not cluttered by lots of photos, and the photos you take are easier to find. Glass now bundles all your videos, photos and vignettes into a single bundle for each day. If you take a lot of photos on Glass, that’s definitely a major improvement.

Despite losing the video calling feature, Hangouts on Glass are still an option for chats, and with this update, Google now allows users to more easily send photos in Hangout messages.

Other new updates include a voice command menu that’s now sorted by frequency and recency, as well as the ability to more easily send feedback about Glass right from the device.

According to Google, there are a few more features in this update, too, but it hasn’t updated its Glass Journal blog yet. We will update this post with a list of all the new features as Google makes this information available.

Send feedback

Senin, 14 April 2014

Facebook Messenger update finally adds free calls

Kris Carlon

Kris Carlon

Putting down roots in Berlin after six years of traveling is a major step for Kris Carlon, who has spent more time living out of a tent lately than sitting at a desk. Kris comes to the AndroidPIT Editorial Team via a lengthy period spent writing on art and culture in Australia and other places he has lived. He joined the Android community while resurfacing in civilization back in 2010 and has never looked back, using technology to replace his actual presence in other people's lives ever since.

Facebook has just done itself a massive favor by finally adding free voice calling to its Messenger app. The most recent update sees free calls over Wi-Fi brought to one of the most popular instant messenger services available, a feature that some of Messenger's rivals still don't have (but many others do). You can still make free calls over your data plan but that will of course cost you something in the way of data.

Messenger CallingFacebook Messenger on Android finally has free calling! / © AndroidPIT

This updated feature puts Messenger in the league of Skype, Viber and WhatsApp in terms of voice functionality, and sadly leaves Google's Hangouts behind. It can only be a matter of time until Hangouts catches up though, especially if Google is looking at launching its own wireless carrier service. It would be a little embarrassing to launch a wireless carrier service when your messaging app doesn't even support voice calling yet.

AndroidPIT Messenger CallingIf you're not on Wi-Fi you may still have to pay data charges, but otherwise Messenger dialing is free. / © AndroidPIT

The rest of the update is pretty nice too, with chat groups, forwarding of shared media to people outside of a chat and shortcuts to conversations. Loie showed you how to add a group chat shortcut to your homescreen just yesterday, so check that out if you haven't already. But far and away the biggest news out of this update is free voice calling. I may just be tempted to reinstall Messenger myself after a couple of year absence.

Are you happy to see this feature in Messenger at last? What app are you currently using to make voice calls?

Source: Google Play



View the Original article

Senin, 24 Maret 2014

The White House Blasts Turkey For Blocking Twitter, Calls For Its Reinstatement

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney today responded to the Turkish government’s attempt to block Twitter in the country. The suppressive effort failed in the most basic sense, as Twitter users could still tweet via SMS, or change their DNS settings and get around the block.

Here’s the White House:

The United States is deeply concerned that the Turkish government has blocked its citizens’ access to basic communication tools.  We oppose this restriction on the Turkish people’s access to information, which undermines their ability to exercise freedoms of expression and association and runs contrary to the principles of open governance that are critical to democratic governance and the universal rights that the United States stands for around the world.  We have conveyed our serious concern to the Turkish government, urge Turkish authorities to respect the freedom of the press by permitting the independent and unfettered operation of media of all kinds, and support the people of Turkey in their calls to restore full access to the blocked technologies.

Importantly, the Obama administration just called Twitter a “basic communication tool,” implying that tweets are on par in terms of their importance to a society to phone calls, texts and the like. It’s also good of the White House to directly connect free speech and democracy.

It will be interesting to see what comes next for Turkey: How do you walk back a Twitter ban?

There have been reports that the blockade is being lifted, albeit slowly. The ban didn’t descend all at once, and so it appears that the ban won’t lift all at once. We’re monitoring the situation as well as we can from here. If you’re on the ground, our tips line would love to know what you see.

IMAGE BY FLICKR USER Mark Skrobola UNDER CC BY 2.0 LICENSE (IMAGE HAS BEEN CROPPED)

AT&T Exec Calls Netflix’s Reed Hastings “Arrogant” For Net Neutrality Post

AT&T just turned the high-stakes debate between Netflix and telecommunications companies into a name-calling food fight. AT&T Senior Executive Vice President of Legislative Affairs, James Cicconi, slammed Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, as “arrogant” for his support of stronger net neutrality laws.

Earlier this week, Hastings penned a strongly worded post calling for stronger federal support of laws that prevent Internet service providers from charging more for high-bandwidth services.

“Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience. When we do so, we don’t pay for priority access against competitors, just for interconnection,” he wrote, in relation to the ongoing debate over the future of net neutrality and paid agreements between Netflix and Comcast.

Hastings argued that Netflix is taking up more global Internet bandwidth because it’s popular. His service is “satisfying requests made by ISP customers who pay a lot of money for high-speed Internet. Netflix doesn’t send data unless members request a movie or TV show.” (Hastings also argued a few more other nuanced points, which we covered in more detail here.)

AT&T is, apparently, not happy with the opinion. “As we all know, there is no free lunch, and there’s also no cost-free delivery of streaming movies. Someone has to pay that cost. Mr. Hastings’ arrogant proposition is that everyone else should pay but Netflix. That may be a nice deal if he can get it,” wrote Cicconi [emphasis added].

Specifically, he argues that users are being forced to pay for the infrastructure necessary to carry all the media-heavy bandwidth. In the current structure, the increased cost of building that capacity is ultimately borne by ISP subscribers. “It is a cost of doing business that gets incorporated into Netflix’s subscription rate. In Netflix’s view, that’s unfair,” explained Cicconi. “In its view, those additional costs, caused by Netflix’s increasing subscriber counts and service usage, should be borne by all broadband subscribers – not just those who sign up for and use Netflix service,” concluded Cicconi.

The FCC is currently seeking comment on a new path forward for net neutrality. In the meantime, we expect Netflix will be responding to AT&T soon. And it’ll be up to Netflix whether the debate becomes a name-calling arms race, or whether it goes in a different direction. Your move, Mr. Hastings.

Jumat, 21 Maret 2014

Netflix Blasts ISPs, Calls For “Strong” Net Neutrality And Explains Why It Pays Comcast

When Netflix agreed to pay Comcast as part of a peering agreement in the wake of the legal demise of net neutrality, the landscape of the Internet changed.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings today published an extensive blog post explaining his and his company’s views on net neutrality and why it now pays an ISP that it feels should be better regulated. The reason? Because it has to:

Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience. When we do so, we don’t pay for priority access against competitors, just for interconnection.

How does Netflix define strong net neutrality? Here’s its definition of “weak” net neutrality, to begin:

The essence of net neutrality is that ISPs such as AT&T and Comcast don’t restrict, influence or otherwise meddle with the choices consumers make. The traditional form of net neutrality which was recently overturned by a Verizon lawsuit is important, but insufficient.

Strong net neutrality is sterner stuff, according to Hastings:

Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge.

So Netflix wants to take things further and demand that peering agreements akin to what it signed with Comcast to be unnecessary. That’s sensible, given that it’s a growing cost source for the media company.

Quo warranto, you might ask; it’s a fair question. The foundation that Netflix leans upon to dispute the fact that peering agreements are a bad idea is twofold. First, that if Netflix had to fold under pressure and pay up, “imagine the plight of smaller services today and in the future.” This is a rebuttal of the idea that since Netflix can afford the fees, the situation must be just fine. YouTube would have been killed in its crib, I think, under the terms of Netflix’s current reality.

The second part of Hastings’ argument against peering is more complex:

Some ISPs say that Netflix is unilaterally “dumping as much volume” (Verizon CFO) as it wants onto their networks. Netflix isn’t “dumping” data; it’s satisfying requests made by ISP customers who pay a lot of money for high speed Internet. Netflix doesn’t send data unless members request a movie or TV show.

Interestingly, there is one special case where no-fee interconnection is embraced by the big ISPs — when they are connecting among themselves. They argue this is because roughly the same amount of data comes and goes between their networks. But when we ask them if we too would qualify for no-fee interconnect if we changed our service to upload as much data as we download** [** in other words, moving to peer-to-peer content delivery] – thus filling their upstream networks and nearly doubling our total traffic — there is an uncomfortable silence. That’s because the ISP argument isn’t sensible. Big ISPs aren’t paying money to services like online backup that generate more upstream than downstream traffic. Data direction, in other words, has nothing to do with costs.

Netflix here is being impish. The first paragraph above shifts the onus, I think fairly, on Netflix’s traffic quantity from itself to paying customers of the ISP. If those customers didn’t want Netflix, it wouldn’t comprise so much bandwidth. And as the customers are paying the ISP for Internet access, having them turn around and bill Netflix for what they already sold is an odd setup indeed.

The second paragraph is more of a middle finger in print, as you can see. The bit concerning ISPs peering amongst themselves is only applicable to a point.

Comcast released a stern but polite response:

“There has been no company that has had a stronger commitment to openness of the Internet than Comcast. We supported the FCC’s Open Internet rules because they struck the appropriate balance between consumer protection and reasonable network management rights for ISPs. We are now the only ISP in the country that is bound by them.

“The Open Internet rules never were designed to deal with peering and Internet interconnection, which have been an essential part of the growth of the Internet for two decades. Edge providers like Netflix have always paid for their interconnection to the Internet and have always had ample options to ensure that their customers receive an optimal performance through all ISPs. We are happy that Comcast and Netflix were able to reach an amicable, market-based solution to our interconnection issues and believe that our agreement demonstrates the effectiveness of the market as a mechanism to deal with these matters.”

Its point on peering is worth pondering.

I doubt that Netflix will get what it wants in regards to peering, given a lack of precedent for that sort of regulation. But its so-called “weak” net neutrality? That we need very much.

IMAGE BY FLICKR USER Marit & Toomas Hinnosaar UNDER CC BY 2.0 LICENSE (IMAGE HAS BEEN CROPPED)