Forget Richards, Rodman, or Schmidt. Maybe It’s Tim Cook Who Should Go To North Korea

This picture (Tuaw) says it all.  Maybe Tim Cook should have been the one to visit North Korea all along to talk the “Great Leader” down from his cliff.

Mobile: Atlantic Wire Does A "China" In Hit Piece Against T-Mobile's New Plans

This is a horribly written article from the Atlantic Wire comparing AT&T and T-Mobile's new no-contract rates.  We’ll go through the errors and come to the conclusion that the writer or even the AW is bending over backward to make T-Mobile look bad and AT&T, probably a big sponsor for the site, look good.

The gist of the post is about how T-Mobile’s new plan is bad compared to AT&T for users and even trying to point out that T-Mobile could end up costing users more.  Let’s start shredding this post apart piece by piece.

First, even if the numbers used by the writer is correct, paying a bit more to get out of the thumb of AT&T’s draconian domain is worth it.  That in and of itself is a great advertising tagline.  Fortunately for folks looking at the T-Mobile plans, it’s actually cheaper to go with T-Mobile and AT&T's plans are actually more expensive.

Second, the numbers used by AW are wrong because while they’re comparing the same device, an iPhone 5, the device can be anything others.  A Blackberry or Galaxy S 3 which both carriers have.  So the cost of the device doesn't matter.  It’s the plans.  And this is where the writer is trying to make AT&T look better.

The writer used AT&T’s lowest $40 unlimited 450 min plan to compared with T-Mobile’s $50 unlimited talk and text plan.  The writer should have used the equivalent $70 plan from AT&T.  On top of that, the writer should have also included the $20 unlimited texting plan as well on top of whatever AT&T plan a subscriber picks.  The omission of the texting plan alone blatantly showed that the post was either paid for by AT&T or something far more sinister.

Had the writer used AT&T rates that are closer to what T-Mobile offers, it would come out to $2360 for two years for the 450 minutes plan with texting and $3080 for the unlimited talk plan.  Using the writer’s $60 plan to get the 2 GB data and the total cost of $2020 for T-Mobile, that’s still lower than AT&T’s lowest plan by $340 and a whopping $1060 less than AT&T’s unlimited talk plan over two years.

Okay, let’s take this a step further.  Let’s go with T-Mobile’s unlimited $70 talk, text, and data.  That’s true unlimited data which AT&T doesn’t offer.  That cost comes out to $2350 for 24 months – beating AT&T”s 2 GB with unlimited talk plan by $730.

Let’s go even a step further and add more data on top of AT&T’s unlimited talk plan.  AT&T doesn’t offer unlimited data because it knows that its data network is crap and it knows that we know it.  But it does offer incremental higher data allotments with higher costs.  Again, nothing unlimited.

So, to come as close as we can to T-Mobile’s $70 unlimited data, voice, and texting, we would have to pay AT&T $70 for unlimited voice, $20 for unlimited texting, and $50 to get 5 GB of data.  Again, AT&T doesn’t offer unlimited data.  That total comes out to $140.

For 24 months, the subscriber gets jacked $3560 by AT&T to come as close as possible to what a T-Mobile user would have to pay.  I’ll make you do the math to figure out the difference.

That’s only the cost comparisons that matter, which the writer worked hard to avoid to make AT&T stand out.

However, the last point is the most important of all.  Regardless of whatever plan you get from T-Mobile and savings aside, the user isn't beholden to AT&T.  Again, the skewed comparison the Atlantic Wire writer tried so hard to keep users on it.  This point is pretty much the same as the first one I made above.

Yes, being freed of contracts and free of AT&T is just that important to me.

Now, this would be a perfect place to end the post.  But I also like to point out that even the writer's $1916 total doesn't make sense at all.

Note:  While you can argue that I've got an ax to grind against AT&T, that may be true but the numbers themselves don't lie.

Mobile: T-Mobile's No-Contract Plans And Phone Payments Works Offer Better Transparency

I think the $99 down payment for flagship and top-selling devices like the iPhone, HTC One, Z10, and the forthcoming Galaxy S 4 is going to be a major hit for users looking to migrate to T-Mobile's new no contract plan.  For the reason that in-depth discussion about T-Mobile's new mobile plans isn't needed here, you're welcome to visit T-Mobile for more information.


What the new plans offer is greater transparency about subsidies and where your monthly payments to carriers go to.  In the past, you might pay $80 for plan and get a phone for free, $99, or even $199.  You sign a contract with the carrier and that’s it.  Locked in for two years.  While it might be kinda nice to know the breakdown of your $80, it’s was not something the carriers are obligated to tell us.

With T-Mobile’s plans, you know you’re pay, say $60 a month plus whatever amount you owe to cover the cost of the device you bought from T-Mobile for 20 months.  You see where that money is going towards and the diminishing balance of whatever device you bought from T-Mobile.

That’s kinda nice.  In the current plans offered by AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint, you pay $80 a month and even after your contract is over, you’re still paying $80 a month.  Just because you fulfilled your contract does not mean you automatically get a lower rate.  In fact, you still have to pay $80 a month to continue using the service under the same terms of your expired two year contract.  The extra money just goes into the carriers’ pocket.

After paying off your phone under T-Mobile’s plan, your rate remains the same but you’re no longer paying for your phone.  It’s how it should work.  It’s a fair deal.  And this is why I think T-Mobile’s new plans are very Apple-like in that they going to disrupt how carriers deal with its users from now on.

You pay the rate of your plan, the down payment of your device, monthly payment for the remaining balance of the device, and done.  I know many bloggers even now as looking for a “but…” but so far so good.

iWatch: It’s Not A Watch, Folks – Start Calling It iWear

I suck at naming names which is why I am not in any creative job or have ever been.  However, the more I think about it, the more I think this iWatch everyone is chiming in about is not a watch at all.  I think it’ll be a small device that is wearable and flexible in terms of where you put it on your person.

Let’s call it the iWear.

If you want to put a strap to it and wear it like a watch, go for it.  Many folks have done it with the last generation iPod nano.  Dorky looking but Apple didn’t stop you and won’t be stopping you from using iWear like a watch.  Wanna wear it around your neck?  Apple has don’t that before with the first generation Shuffle.  Looks good too.  Wanna clip it to your belt?  Sure.

iWatch is too limited.  That’s the whole point.  iWear?  I reckon it’ll spawn a whole new third party accessory industry unlike anything we have been before.  Look for Kickstarter to get inundated with accessories and add-ons for iWear.  Imagine a clip-on device for the iWear that monitors vitals or provide additional battery life.  A GPS or pedometer unit for running from Nike for iWear.

Just so you know, this is my own speculation.  But it makes a heck of a lot more sense than a watch.  But it makes a heck of a lot more sense than a watch.  And though it might be used as a watch, the idea of such a device being a GPS for your life pertains to iWear as well.

No! The End Of Reader Does Not Mean Google Will Buy Twitter

This Motley Fool post, and note that I'm stressing the "fool" part, suggests Google shutting down Reader, which I think is a mistake, is related to a buyout of a pretty big social network.  That company is Twitter.  Fool.

There just is no way this would happen.  I can't imagine Google shelling out anywhere from $20 to $25 billion for Twitter.  According to Fast Company, Twitter is worth about $10 billion today and we can see that get closer to $15 or even $20 billion by the time it goes IPO, whenever that may be.  On top of that valuation, any suitor will have to pay a premium over that to satisfy future Twitter shareholders.  It's an expensive buy.

Furthermore, after the poor execution of the Motorola buyout, I'm not sure the market is ready for this.  And can you imagine the number of defections that'll occur from Twitter if this were to happen.  

This idea is just as bad as if someone suggests that Apple buy Twitter or Facebook or another network.  And one last thing, there have been rumblings of past attempts by tech giants to buy Twitter and failed because Twitter just was not willing to sell out.  Not yet.  

The thing that has made each of these social networks so successful is that they don't owe themselves to one specific platform.  For instance, Twitter is a default social network on Apple's iOS and OS X.  However, Google+ isn't because of the ongoing competition between the two giants.  I'm pretty sure that Apple will cut iOS and OS X should there be a Google takeover.  It would be the same for Microsoft, Blackberry, or anyone else.

And the truth is the same if Apple or Microsoft were to take over Twitter.  I'm sure Google will do more to steer users away from Twitter and towards its own Google+ network or just cut Twitter out entirely.

The bottom line is that the Fool post failed to explain how Google shutting down Reader is an "indication" that a Twitter buyout is even remotely being considered.  If anything, Google might consider a Google+ lite version that essentially duplicates what Twitter already does now - limited characters for quick thoughts or links.  

A more likely scenario here is that Google may add a new feature that duplicate Reader's main RSS function and give users a format similar to readers.

I would not have a problem with the post if it simply say that it's speculation rather than try to suggest the author knows about a link between Google killing off Reader and Twitter.  

Personally, I think any self-respecting social networks should do what Facebook is doing.  As much as I hate Facebook, it's done the right thing so far.  It avoided selling out to avoid conflicts of interest within the mobile platform and has not release its own mobile device to compete with the iPhone or Android devices. It has a prominent place in all of the major mobile platforms - ensuring its main core revenue goal is intact:  making as money as it can off its users.  

And since Twitter has a similar business plan, selling ads, it makes sense to be on as many users' phones as possible.  

One thing is for sure here.  Google getting rid of Reader may have made solidify Twitter as the source of news and other social feeds for its users and it certainly would welcome us hapless Reader users.

iWatch (or Galaxy Watch): GPS For Your Life

I recently bought a very nice watch that I like very much.  It’s well built, expensive, and only tells time.  It costs more than the Pebble smart watch and will probably cost more than any watch that Apple, Samsung, or anyone else can release given consumer willingness to pay for a smart watch, which isn’t a lot.  If you’re an Apple fan, that’ll be the iWatch.  For Android fans or Galaxy fans, maybe it’ll be the Galaxy watch (and just about every tech giant out there are now said to be working on their own watches).

World War Z: New Footage Shows Just What’s Going On

I just watched the newest World War Z trailer and I’m hating myself for it.  First, I love almost everything I saw and I’m so pumped but I have to wait until freaking June for it.

I am still not sure about the undead climbing all over each other.  In World War Z the book, there was no references to anything like that.  I like that out-of-the-box thinking in this regard but I much prefer The Walking Dead type of zombies.  However, it’s not to say I’m not going to be waiting in line to one of the first to watch this at the Arclight (assigned seatings).

Now, here are new footages of the Brad Pitt version of World War Z.  And I must say, I’m loving every bit of it. Again, not crazy about the water-life wave of undead coming at you but it does add to the immediacy and feeling of being overwhelmed.

Here’s the clip.  Enjoy.