iPhone 2.0 on the way...

I have posted a review of the first iPhone when it was released last year. This review comprised a very long list of things the iPhone 1.0 could not do. I dismissed it as an extremely expensive device (including the 24 month contract) that was very lacking in some modern functionality most others phones already had.

A couple of months after the launch O2 revised their tariffs - giving more minutes for your money, and allowing an 18 month rather than 24 month agreement.

Back to the new model that launches July 11th, there is a new £30 a month tariff on the way for light users, and a pay-as-you-go option has also been promised at some point.

The best news is the price of the handset has been significantly reduced. The 8Gb version starts at £99 and the 16Gb version starts at £159. On the more expensive tariffs the iPhone will be available free of charge.

The iPhone itself has had a limited amount of hardware changes. Most important it is now compatible with the faster 3G networks. It now includes a GPS radio receiver for accurately pinpointing your location. The camera and headphone socket are now flush which means at last you can use any set of headphones you choose.

There are numerous software changes, which can also be installed on the old iPhone if you havn't illegally unlocked it. There is support for third party applications, a new application store, better Microsoft exchange integration and 'hopefully' the addition of picture messages and video capture.

I will be very tempted to get one when they are launched. I would recommend buying on the £45 a month contract to get a discount of £100 on the device. After 9 months you can call O2 and ask to downgrade to a cheaper tariff! My only remaining mini-gripe is that 16Gb is a bit small for music - and no where near enough to carry round a selection of videos as well. Hopefully a 32Gb version will be along soon.

Chris

Update: Still no picture messaging or video, unless you can find an email gateway.

Europe - the Irish have saved the day!

Today the results of a referendum on the EU 'treaty' in Ireland have been announced. The 'treaty' must be ratified by all 27 member states to succeed. In 2005 the French and Dutch voted the 'constitution' down. It has since been reformated and called a treaty. Every review body (including the government's own) who has studied the treaty has concluded it is the same as the constitution, but renamed and reformated to be un-intelligible. The 'constitution' would have thrown away the existing European constitution and replaced it with a brand new constitution. The 'treaty' achieves the same end by taking the existing constitution and amending any lines that are different between the old and new constitution. All governments have tried to force it through without a vote, except for the Irish.

There was a very high turnout and the result was a very strong 'No'. Respect to the Irish!!

One: to the government for fulfulling their promise to hold a referendum before handing over control of the country to Brussels.

And two: for the electrorate "not following the wishes of their leaders" as the Financial Times put it.

Maybe I misunderstand the world, but I always thought in a democracy the leaders ask the electorate and follow their collective instruction. If the leaders issue orders and force the population to follow them regardless of their opinion I would call it a dictatorship.

Can someone please explain this to Gordon Brown, or his successor who takes over in a couple of months!

Labour were elected on the basis of a referendum. Apparently 80% of the population wants a referendum, but we are not given one because the government expects it is unlikely to win. That is a very seriously worrying reason for refusing a vote in a democratic country.

To make my position clear on Europe I do not believe a one-size-fits-all European government would benefit our country. We are one of the most technologically advanced nations in Europe which requires a very different way of government to a developing country like most of the rest of Europe. Financially we are already getting a bad deal from Europe. (See my blog post from November 2007 for more)

At past summits the demands of our country have been badly received by a lot of our peers. Our demands have appeared as a nuisance and not been given proper consideration.

I was reading the sport supplement of the Times a couple of weeks ago. There was an article about Britain's bid to host the 2018 football world cup. A senior international figure Jack Warner is quoted as saying "Nobody in Europe likes England.", "For Europe, England is an irritant"

Then take a look at the results from the 2008 Eurovision song contest where voting was clearly political and nothing to do with the actual songs and we received zero votes.

These may be about football and the Eurovision, but I think it would be foolish to dismiss the comments completely.

I am seriously concerned that without a veto we will get a seriously bad deal by joining Europe. We will also loose our seat on the UN Security Council. If we cannot get a majority vote in the proposed new Europe we will have absolutely no say in domestic or international matters any more. The red lines we apparently had put in to safeguard our national interests can legally be overruled at a later date on the whim of Brussels due to a 'ratchet clause'. Additionally our government who we elected will be stripped of all powers to govern our country. Instead we will be at the mercy of European MPs over whom we have no electoral power.

I will be raising a glass in thanks to the Irish for halting the devious and underhand attempts of European leaders to force the abandoned constitution through the back door! That's shut too now guys!

Chris

New Satellite TV launches in UK - Freesat

In my last post I mentioned that a new TV service in the UK would be launching soon. This launched on Tuesday. This service is available to most households in the UK via a satellite dish.

The name of the new service is Freesat. This is extremely confusing because there was already a free satellite TV service available from Sky with the same name. The Sky offering is normally now referred to as 'Freesat from Sky'. The new Freesat service is owned by the BBC and ITV. I am amused the word Sky is completely absent from the Freesat website and literature!!

If you have a Sky dish you can buy a Freesat set-top box (STB) at most large electrical retailers and just plug it in. Both systems use the same satellite signal for receiving channels. Freesat do have their own TV guide and interactive services that are completely separate from Sky.

In my last post I concluded the new service was a branding exercise and that it was pretty pointless. There have since been a couple of developments.

1. ITV HD will not be available on the Sky HD service. It will be exclusive to Freesat.
2. There will soon be televisions on the market that can receive Freesat without a separate STB.

Sky have been complaining about Freesat saying they already offered such a service and the new one is a waste of money. Given that Sky holds 17.9% shares in ITV it is very interesting that ITV HD will not be on Sky. The chairman of ITV was quoted as saying 'they would not give the channel to Sky for nothing'.

A number of broadcasters have been complaining about Sky's monopoly and business practices. Recently Sky withdrew their Sky One channel from the Virgin cable network because Virgin would not pay a massive price increase for the channel. Some small channels have been challenging the cost levied by Sky for carrying their channel.

There is more to this than meets the eye!

I would love to know how much is payed and in which direction for the channels on the Sky service. My hunch is Sky is used to charging content produces to transmit their channel on the Sky network. And ITV HD have told them to get stuffed! Sky is now playing catchup because their status as the only network with all available HD services is at risk. They are getting a taste of their own medicine! As a Sky HD customer I hope this is resolved and ITV HD will be on Sky soon.

The game I think ITV are playing is to get access to channels that have an exclusive contract with Sky - namely Channel 4 HD and Five (Both of these are absent from Freesat). Sky are going to be in trouble when they come to re-negotitate most of their contracts with content providers now they have competition! They are already at the limit of what most customers will pay to view a subscription TV service.

Where I really believe the new Freesat is justified is that anyone can make receiving equipment for the new service. The Sky receivers were only available from Sky. It was not possible to integrate these with televisions and recorders. This was a real headache if you did not subscribe to Sky+ - recording a weeks programmes meant setting your Sky receiver and your video device for each programme. The Sky programme guide is locked and can only be decoded by Sky - whereas the new Freesat system will be open to all.

Today the free service from Sky is better than the free service from Freesat. If both STBs cost the same I would choose a Sky one because I then have the option of paying for TV channels if my needs change.

If any more channels go Freesat exclusive Sky will have problems. I hope we don't get to a situation where consumers will need a STB for the Sky service and an STB for the Freesat service in order to get all the channels they want - not a desirable situation.

Chris

UPDATE: My imagination has been running on high since I wrote this article. Think of all the possibilities now there is an innovative new TV service. While the Sky service works - there have been no innovations from them for years. While the HD receiver has a network port and numerous USB ports - like the interactive card slot featured on all systems since launch they don't do anything.

Imagine if the new Freesat service allowed you to access your recorded shows as you wished? Maybe the box could have a built-in DVD burner? You could copy programmes onto an iPod or a PSP to watch on the move. You could watch live TV on your PC by connecting a web browser to your satellite receiver. You could manage all your recordings from anywhere on the internet! I hate having to turn my TV on just to set a show to record.

At present on Sky all the time-delayed and Hi Def versions of normal channels exist as separate channels. Imagine if the box could merge them into one. You press a button to switch between the current or the 1 hour delayed version. If there is a recording clash the system could automatically pick up one of your programmes from the time delay channel if possible. How user friendly would that be?

Also your satellite receiver could stream video files from your PC, and could connect to all the new TV over IP services such as the iPlayer or BT Vision.

Lastly what if more channels that are currently subscription only on Sky changed their business model as numerous newspapers have? If they gave them free they would have more viewers and could charge more for advertising. More and more choice of free TV channels would be wonderful!