It's not nice to speak ill of the dead, even if they're very much alive and only dead in the business sense of the word.

Online advertising stops its nose-dive — Second-quarter global ad revenues, at $7.864 billion, were down 3.4 percent from a year ago. But admit it: After the past year, a 3.4 percent drop almost feels like growth. Is this a “reset” of base level from which the ad market can now grow again? TechCrunch’s Erick Schonfeld plots the line and explains the economist-speak. Erick, I hate to be all VentureBeat fussy, but do you have more granular data to work with? I’d love to see week-to-week revenues, rather than a plot that jumps in three-month increments. Really, why aren’t we able to keep a real-time ticker on our screens by now?

How to profit from Bubble 3.0 – “Don’t be afraid of a bubble” is the first big step, says Wall Street Journal writer James Altucher. He offers his educated guesses on where the next bubble might appear and how people in different roles can profit from it.

Windows 7 pricing is higher than Home buyers had probably hoped — A box of Windows 7 Home Premium will cost about $150. Upgrade packages will be in the $80-90 range. Buying made simple: You want the Premium edition. The Basic edition lacks the faster, slicker Aero interface that uses your desktop or laptop’s graphics chip — yes, your laptop has one. The Professional and Ultimate editions have office-IT-network tools and applications that only your boss should pay for. Stick with Premium, which really should be called Normal, and you’ll be fine. Ed Bott at ZD has the long version.

Windows Mobile, meanwhile, has been kicked out of Motorola in favor of Android — Om Malik talked to Motorola co-CEO Sanjay Jha, who explained that Motorola has decided the way for a smartphone handset maker to succeed is to pick one OS and focus everything on it.

David Pogue’s Take Back the Beep campaign continues — The New York Times’ Broadway-trained gadget reviewer has struck a nerve with his attack on “the obnoxious, drawn-out, 15-second instructions that Verizon, Sprint, AT&T and T-Mobile tack on to your own voice mail greeting” in order to run up your monthly minutes usage.

Here’s the cheat sheet on which key to press to skip past voicemail intros on America’s four major carriers.

Verizon: *

Sprint: 1

T-Mobile: #

AT&T: #

Pogue today recounts the responses he got from readers, who seemed unusually polite, and from wireless carrier PR people, some of whom seemed to barely understand their own voicemail systems.

Space Shuttle Endeavor puts in a perfect landing — Seven astronauts spent the last 16 days docked to the International Space Station, building an addition to Japan’s billion-dollar lab. Shuttle landings are cool. While the Shuttle is smaller than an airliner, it comes in a lot faster — 215 mph rather than 160 — and with its nose high in the air. Then it pops out a 40-foot parachute to brake itself to 110 mph before rolling to a stop.

Interview and discussion with Jeanne Branthover of the Boyden Global Executive Search.

Jon von Tetzchner (pronounced “Yon,” not “John”) co-founded Opera in 1995 after developing a small, fast browser for Norway’s national phone company. The original version needed to fit on a 1.2 megabyte floppy disk and run fast on old PCs too slow for the two browser giants of the time, Internet Explorer 4 and Netscape Communicator.

Fourteen years later, von Tetzchner has carved out a small but solid niche for Opera. The company’s browsers ship pre-installed on more than 200 mobile phone models and cover more than 20 operating systems including the Nintendo Wii, Nintendo DS and ASUS Eee Top PC, all of which ship with Opera as the built-in browser. Von Tetzchner says that by some estimates, Opera is the most-used mobile browser in the world. (Wikipedia has an unsourced figure of 40 million shipped phones with Opera built in.)

But Opera isn’t making Google-sized money. Its first-quarter sales and revenue-sharing deals with mobile carriers, search engines and other sites, added up to just over $27 million in revenue. That’s an impressive 59 percent jump over Q1 2008, at a time when most tech firms were bleeding money. But it’s a lot less than the average Valley CEO would hope to be reporting after 14 years in business.

Opera seems perpetually stuck at around 3 percent global market share for browsers, and very little of that comes from Americans. Von Tetzchner’s earnest new product, Opera Unite, which lets users turn their personal computers into globally accessible content servers, has inspired only a small number of devotees.

I prodded von Tetzchner about his company’s continued solid-but-small status over lunch in San Francisco today. “What Apple has done is very sexy,” he said, “but you have to keep in mind that iPhones are only two percent of the total number of phones” sold or given away by worldwide carriers. “That leaves 98 percent of the world’s phones not tied to Safari.”

Opera is another company like INQ or GetJar that’s well-known outside the U.S. but unknown to Americans. “People often quote our U.S. market share as if it is the global figure,” von Tetzchner said. “Our global market share is just over three percent. That is comparable to Safari and Chrome.”

In the U.S. market, Opera still has lots of room for growth in two major markets: Desktop and laptop PCs, and mobile phones. Von Tetzchner has been thus far unable to sell major PC and mobile makers on making Opera their default browser as he did Nintendo.

Now seems like a good time to try again. The past few months have proven that alternative browsers — Safari and Chrome — can draw enthusiastic user bases through downloads rather than pre-installation. And the rise of app stores seems to be making users more demanding for quality applications that aren’t sloppy and slow. Opera has that in spades — I use it on my BlackBerry.

But as troubled startup Skyfire has learned, a cutting-edge, well-built browser that plays to the new world of social networks and viral videos won’t automatically be snapped up by gadget makers.

Opera has hung in there for nearly 15 years. To get to the next level, they need a new round of buzz. What’s not clear is where that’s going to come from.

Regulators from the Federal Communications Commission have sent letters to AT&T and Apple, demanding to know “the who, what and why” of Apple’s rejection of Google’s official Google Voice app for the iPhone, according to a report by Wired News reporter Ryan Singel. AT&T has been widely rumored to have demanded that Apple remove all Google Voice apps from its store.

The FCC’s rapid-fire questions get down to the details:

“Are there any terms in AT&T’s customer agreements that limit customer usage of certain third-party applications? If so, please indicate how consumers are informed of such limitations and whether such limitations are posted on the iTunes website as well. In general, what is AT&T’s role in certifying applications on devices that run over AT&T’s 3G network? What, if any, applications require AT&T’s approval to be added to a device? Are there any differences between AT&T’s treatment of the iPhone and other devices used on its 3G network?”

The FCC also wrote Google to ask what Android apps Google has rejected, and why. Apple, AT&T and Google are required to respond by August 21, and the FCC plans to make much of their responses public.

The FCC’s website has PDF files of the letters to Apple, AT&T and Google.

[Image from The Biz]

LibreDigital , Inc. today announced that it has closed a $15 million Series B funding round led by new investor Triangle Peak Partners and existing investor Adams Capital Management.

Charlie Miller (left) has had a string of hits as a hacker. This week he added to his list as he announced at the Black Hat security conference that he and partner Collin Mulliner were able to hack an iPhone with a text message.

Charlie Miller made his name hacking cool stuff like the first Apple iPhone, the T-Mobile HTC G1 phone with Google Android software, Second Life, and the Mac operating system. He does it all not for a criminal purpose, but for the sake of improving security. But he’s always a thorn in the side of big companies.

I caught up with him Thursday evening, just after Apple security experts talked to him about how they wanted to test a patch to fix the hole he discovered. Apple has since patched the flaw.

video interview with iPhone hacker Charlie Miller from Dean Takahashi on Vimeo.

It’s the classic story. Someone has a great idea, they to decide work with their friends, then there’s real money either owed or earned, and they don’t have a written agreement to help settle their differences — cue the tears. A startup called FairSoftware wants to help you avoid such disasters by creating a business and legal framework for early-stage projects. And this week, it added iPhone applications into the mix.

The Mountain View, Calif., company’s underlying idea is the same across platforms, whether you’re building software, writing a multi-author blog, or, now, building an iPhone app. In each case, if you’ve got a great idea, you can come to the FairSoftware site to find team members. To convince people to work with you, you give them “virtual stock” in the company, and that stock pays off in a share of the revenue when the money starts rolling in (hopefully).

Basically, this heads off the problem that during the early days of a cool project, there usually isn’t a legal structure — that comes later, once the project has transformed into an incorporated company. With FairSoftware, the legal protections are there from the very beginning, they’re what help you build a team and a project. And by offering virtual stock instead of money as a payment, a prospective entrepreneur doesn’t need as much capital to get going.

Behind the scenes, FairSoftware is the one handling the product distribution and the revenue, which it then divvies up among the team members according to the virtual stock. In the case of software and blogs, the company is already taking a 4 percent cut of revenue; chief executive Alain Raynaud says he isn’t doing this with iPhone apps yet, but is definitely looking at ways to make money from that channel too.

In the best case scenario, your project will become a serious business, and you’ll want to break free from FairSoftware’s system. Raynaud says FairSoftware offers a legal process that making it easy for teams to “graduate” into an incorporated company. That process has protections in place if there has been a falling out within the team, or if there have been other disputes or departures. For example, if a developer left the project, then FairSoftware’s contracts say the code still belongs to the team, but that developer still keeps his or her shares in the company. And if a company incorporates, those shares turn into real company ownership.

Reynaud isn’t saying too much about user or project numbers (FairSoftware launched at the TechCrunch50 conference last fall), except that the early reception to the iPhone program is positive, and that he’s been surprised by how many FairSoftware users want to start blogs focused on specific countries.

FairSoftware is self-funded.

New software turns the iPhone into a powerful eavesdropping tool, but only for those who are willing to jailbreak the phone and wade into murky legal territory.

Seychelles-based FlexiSpy, a purveyor of snooping applications for mobile devices, has released new software that lets you remotely turn on an iPhone’s microphone and listen in on the surroundings. FlexiSpy likens this to an audio bug — the kind used by the FBI to keep tabs on mobsters.

The remote recording function is being installed on all new iPhones running FlexiSpy, which only works when the phone is jailbroken, meaning it is free from limitations imposed by Apple and AT&T.

This is not the first development in spy technology for mobile devices. FlexiSpy offers a whole range of tools for cell phones, including software that turns the tables by hiding mobile communications from snoopers. Another company, Mobile Spy, offers a similar line of products, but so far doesn’t have the audio bug functionality of Flexispy’s iPhone software.

Concern over cell phone spy tools is growing. It’s not hard to find stories about people discovering that their phone activities are being logged. Last week, Blackberry users in the United Arab Emirates canceled service en masse with provider Etisalat when they found out the government was installing spy software as part of a routine service update.

Flexispy markets its products as a way to “supervise and protect teenagers and employees, and to investigate infidelity and criminal activity.” These activities are in many cases illegal unless users know they can be spied upon, which usually defeats the purpose.

To clarify, I spoke with Tom Clyde and Scott Dailard, attorneys for Washington, D.C.-based Dow Lohnes. Their firm represents media companies and often provides newsroom counseling on questionable journalistic practices such as hidden microphones.

Clyde said a program like FlexiSpy would be difficult to use within the boundaries of the law. Federal wiretapping statutes say that recording a conversation in the United States requires the consent of at least one party. That means it’s illegal to plant FlexiSpy on your spouse’s iPhone and record his or her affair with another lover.

But how is this different than hiring a private investigator? Simple: Even P.I.s aren’t allowed to trespass, and they certainly can’t tap phone lines. A phone application has access to areas where an investigator cannot go.

Some states, such as California and Connecticut, require consent of both recorded parties, so bugging the phone wouldn’t necessarily be allowed even if the spouse knew about it. The same logic applies when spying on one’s children, Clyde said. One perfectly legal scenario would be installation on company phones, provided the employee is told about the spy software with clear documentation. Law enforcement could also use the software after getting court approval.

Despite the ways in which FlexiSpy can be used illegally, Clyde said the law is currently adequate for addressing legal disputes, should they arise from using mobile spy tools. So far, there hasn’t been much of an uproar.

“To me, this is just another example of where technology is moving quickly enough that it’s colliding with the law, but it’s staying under the radar to a degree where we’re not seeing a lot of civil lawsuits and criminal lawsuits,” he said.

If demand for tools from Flexispy and Mobile Spy grows, that could change.

My, how the tables have turned. Earlier this week, we learned that Apple had suddenly begun to pull third party iPhone applications for Google Voice, citing the unconvincing rationale that they “duplicated” some of the iPhone’s functionality. We then broke the news that Apple had also rejected Google’s own official Google Voice application submitted six weeks prior, sparking a din of complaints from developers and users alike over the arbitrary and possibly anti-competitive restrictions being imposed by Apple. AT&T, too, has been a target of frequent criticism as many of us believe it may have also played a part in the decision. Of course, nobody really knows who is to blame — AT&T has hinted that it was ultimately Apple’s decision, and Apple continues to remain mute on the issue. But now we may get our answers: the Dow Jones newswire reports that The Federal Communications Commission is looking into Apple’s rejection of Google Voice, and has sent letters to AT&T, Apple, and Google to find out what’s going on. We’ve obtained copies of the letters and reprinted them below.

The newswire report notes that this is part of the FCC’s ongoing investigation into wireless handsets and their exclusive deals with carriers. Of course, this all comes years after Google CEO Eric Schmidt sent a letter to the FCC, urging it to adopt open standards that would gives users the freedom to use whichever applications they’d like on their wireless devices, on whichever network they preferred. At the time the suggestions seemed perhaps a bit idealistic, but now it’s becoming clear just how badly they’re needed.

It has been just over one year since Apple released the App Store, and already we’re beginning to see just what can happen when major companies collude to restrict user choice without fear of recourse. As I’ve written before, Google Voice offers a service that innovates in the telephony space in a way that hasn’t been seen for years. But rather than try to improve and offer a better service, Apple and AT&T are doing what they can do to protect their sacred cash cow. But it looks like the government isn’t going to stand for that any longer. With this move, the FCC is showing that it’s not going to let Apple carry its famed culture of secrecy into the telecom space.

FCC Letter to Apple

                                       July 31, 2009
                                                                             

Catherine A. Novelli, Vice President
Worldwide Government Affairs
Apple Inc.
901 15th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC  20005

RE: Google Voice and related iPhone applications

Dear Ms. Novelli:

Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store.   In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.

To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.

1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store?  In addition to Google Voice, which related third-party applications were removed or have been rejected?  Please provide the specific name of each application and the contact information for the developer.
2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications?  If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice.  Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?
3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)?  If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play?  What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?
4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone.  Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?
5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons?  Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers?  If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?
6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications?   What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)?  What is the percentage of applications that are rejected?  What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

Request for Confidential Treatment.  If Apple requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules.  47 C.F.R. § 0.459.  Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b).  Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable.  Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission

FCC Letter to Google

July 31, 2009

Richard S. Whitt, Esq.
Washington Telecom and Media Counsel
Google Inc.
1101 New York Avenue, NW, Second Floor
Washington, DC 20005

RE: Apple’s Rejection of the Google Voice for iPhone Application

Dear Mr. Whitt:

Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.

To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.

1. Please provide a description of the proposed Google Voice application for iPhone. What are the key features, and how does it operate (over a voice or data network, etc.)?
2. What explanation was given (if any) for Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice application (and for any other Google applications for iPhone that have been rejected, such as Google Latitude)? Please describe any communications between Google and AT&T or Apple on this topic and a summary of any meetings or discussion.
3. Has Apple approved any Google applications for the Apple App Store? If so, what services do they provide, and, in Google’s opinion, are they similar to any Apple/AT&T-provided applications?
4. Does Google have any other proposed applications pending with Apple, and if so, what services do they provide?
5. Are there other mechanisms by which an iPhone user will be able to access either some or all of the features of Google Voice? If so, please explain how and to what extent iPhone users can utilize Google Voice despite the fact that it is not available through Apple’s App Store.
6. Please provide a description of the standards for considering and approving applications with respect to Google’s Android platform. What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

Request for Confidential Treatment. If Google requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission

FCC Letter to AT&T

July 31, 2009

James W. Cicconi
Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs
AT&T Services, Inc.
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036

RE: Apple’s Rejection of the Google Voice for iPhone Application

Dear Mr. Cicconi:

Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store. In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity (RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation.

To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.

1. What role, if any, did AT&T play in Apple’s consideration of the Google Voice and related applications? What role, if any, does AT&T play in consideration of iPhone applications generally? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or in any non-contractual understanding between the companies) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?
2. Did Apple consult with AT&T in the process of deciding to reject the Google Voice application? If so, please describe any communications between AT&T and Apple or Google on this topic, including the parties involved and a summary of any meetings or discussions.
3. Please explain AT&T’s understanding of any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol applications that are currently used on the AT&T network, either via the iPhone or via handsets other than the iPhone.
4. To AT&T’s knowledge, what other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone? Which of these applications were designed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network? What was AT&T’s role in considering whether such applications would be approved or rejected?
5. Please detail any conditions included in AT&T’s agreements or contracts with Apple for the iPhone related to the certification of applications or any particular application’s ability to use AT&T’s 3G network.
6. Are there any terms in AT&T’s customer agreements that limit customer usage of certain third-party applications? If so, please indicate how consumers are informed of such limitations and whether such limitations are posted on the iTunes website as well. In general, what is AT&T’s role in certifying applications on devices that run over AT&T’s 3G network? What, if any, applications require AT&T’s approval to be added to a device? Are there any differences between AT&T’s treatment of the iPhone and other devices used on its 3G network?
7. Please list the services/applications that AT&T provides for the iPhone, and whether there any similar, competing iPhone applications offered by other providers in Apple’s App Store.
8. Do any devices that operate on AT&T’s network allow use of the Google Voice application? Do any devices that operate on AT&T’s network allow use of other applications that have been rejected for the iPhone?
9. Please explain whether, on AT&T’s network, consumers’ access to and usage of Google Voice is disabled on the iPhone but permitted on other handsets, including Research in Motion’s BlackBerry devices.

Request for Confidential Treatment. If AT&T requests that any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission’s rules. 47 C.F.R. § 0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly, “blanket” requests for confidentiality of a large set of documents are unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of section 0.459.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

James D. Schlichting
Acting Chief
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission

Photo credit: Billogs.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.