The recent release of Windows Mobile 6.1 on the TREO 800w at first made us hesitant. Was this a real upgrade or just another more advance software that freezes continually? To our surprise, Windows Mobile 6.1 is a real competitor in operating systems for smartphones now. I don’t know what Microsoft did, but 6.1 has fixed all the major complaints about phone stability of the past.
I’m writing this because it’s our own results and the results tested by our Windows customers.
The great news:
1. The device doesn’t crash or freeze up like its preceeding versions (6.0 & 5.0).
2. It is responsive and fast with the user. In other versions, system performance slowed as you opened more applications and did more things on the phone. 6.1 has fixed this to a great degree.
3. Great new Windows features…I can’t believe I’m saying this but its actually good. It has many more advantages than the IPHONE and is does more than the Blackberry in many respects. Here is the list from the http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/6-1/default.mspx.
- Instant messaging-like texting
- Improved Internet browsing
- Simpler e-mail and Bluetooth setup
- New Home screen interface
- New Getting Started Center
- Security enhancements
- Easier Wi-Fi connection
- More personal choice
4. You still get to work with many Windows applications native on the mobile device. This is very useful, especially for Windows centric businesses.
What does this mean? There is a shift in the tide towards windows now that this is real. In coordination with Palm 800w comeback and new phone releases of the HTC Diamond and HTC Touch Pro, Windows & HTC & Palm are back and they combined will begin to take market share from other vendors. There is no better ecosystem right now for mobile wireless applications as most applications developers don’t want to develop to 5 or 6 constantly changing operating systems. They can stick with windows and make a better application now on a stable and working device, so windows and the application developer and hardware manufacturer can now win. It’s also much easier for application developers to just extend their windows enterprise applications wirelessly now. It’s finally here…a Windows phone that just works!!! And net net, this is a good thing for the world.
By: www.mountainviewcellphones.com 8/22/2008
By: www.mountainviewcellphones.com 8/2/2008
I recently reviewed the tentative ruling by the Alameda Superior court awarding damages to the plaintiff’s for ETF’s and essentially stating early termination fees as illegal due to their premise not based on damages for the liquidated damages. AKA (Ayyad vs. Sprint, case number RG03121510, http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&PageName=itree&Action=21704699). It was tough reading due to the poor resolution of the documents, but it was very interesting.
This case pertains to subscribers and actions that happened from around 2000 to 2006, a time of great change and innovation in the wireless business. Plaintiff’s claim that early termination fees (ETF) were not legal under California Civil Code 1671 because of the punitive nature of the fees. However the court, because of a mixed up jury decision, found that ETFs were not illegal provided they take into consideration the ACTUAL DAMAGES incurred.
Here is a rewrite of the major conclusions:
1. Sprint proved it was impractical to calculate actual damages by the early termination of contracts (due to complexity of business and measuring avoidable costs).
Other court evidence: The courts analysis on this matter clear found the Sprint GREATLY underestimated damages from ETF fees and was inconsistent in this regard versus a true liquidated damage for the contracts.
2. Sprint did not prove that ETF was created or set based on analysis of damages.
I think the court correctly determined that the marketing department of Sprint made ETFs to keep up with the other carriers and lower the risk of the business with its main competitors.
3. Sprint did not prove ETF varied with amount of ACTUAL DAMAGES.
This is an actual criteria in case law as a test for liquidated damages being legal in California.
4. Sprint proved that the ETFs actually underestimated damages.
So, given points 1 to 4, under the Civil Code 1671 of California, the motivation and purpose (another case law test) of the ETF was something outside of collection of damages brought about by early termination of the contract. This makes them illegal.
This opens up the can of worms that had Sprint made better efforts to align actual damages to the ETF provisions and set up systems for this, this would have been very legal.
Remarkably, the judge ruled that despite Sprint’s unlawful ETF, the plaintiff (consumers) benefitted from Sprint’s UNDERSTATEMENT of actual damages estimated by the court had the ETF been legally structured.
In a strange ruling of damages, Sprint is ordered to return the $73MM that it has collected already from ETF damages in the form of $18.3MM payment and reversal of $54.7MM in charges.
In concluding, this was a mashed up decision due to a jury that did not make a consistent decision and a judge that tried to rule (”I think rightly”) on case law and the actual structure of the fees.
Read the rest of this entry »