Moto E launch deals: Flipkart offering 50 percent off on covers, SD cards; free e-books

Firstly, Moto G buyers will get 50 percent discount on phone covers. Users can also take home an 8GB Transcend microSD card for half the price. Lastly, Flipkart is also offering some free preselected books worth Rs 1,000. These books will be available for download within 48 hours of you logging in to the Flipkart eBooks App. The list of books include Speed Post by Shobha De, Wise and otherwise by Sudha Murthy and Khushwant Singh’s The Collected Novels . Flipkart is also offering EMI options ranging from 3 to 12 months.

Moto E is aimed at entry-level users, and could put any budget Android to shame. However, the only sore point appears to be the missing front-facing camera. It  is a watered down version of the Moto G. It gets a slightly smaller 4.3-inch qHD display, and a pixel density of 256 ppi. The rugged device comes with waterproof capabilities, and the display is scratch-resistant. The device will come dipped in nine colours, and one can customize it with Motorola shells.

Under the hood, it is powered by a dual-core Snapdragon 200 processor clocked at 1.2GHz coupled with 1GB RAM. As expected, the Moto E runs Android KitKat 4.4 and the Motorola also guaranteed future updates. It maintains the 5-megapixel rear camera.

On the storage front, it gets 4GB internal memory that is expandable using a microSD card slot. The connectivity options include 3G, Wi-Fi and GPS. Besides, the Moto E is expected to come a 1980mAH battery that promises all day battery life.

Source:

tech.firstpost.com

Posted by Editorial Team on 2:41 AM in 3G, Android KitKat 4.4, dual-core Snapdragon, Flipkart offering 50, Khushwant Singh’s, Moto E launch deals, Motorola shells, Sudha Murthy, waterproof capabilities, Wi-Fi

AT&T poised to take gigabit fiber broadband to North Carolina

AT&T says it's in the final stages of negotiating a deal with cities in the North Carolina Triangle region to deploy its U-verse GigaPower gigabit fiber broadband service.

AT&T may beat Google again in offering an ultra-high speed fiber network, this time in North Carolina.

AT&T, which has already built a fiber network in Austin, Texas, announced Thursday that it's in final negotiations with the North Carolina Next Generation Network or NCNGN to deliver 1 gigabit per second broadband over a new fiber network.

AT&T's announcement that it is close to finalizing a deal in North Carolina is another indication that competition to build ultra-high speed gigabit networks is heating up as demand for these speeds increases among residents in communities. Google, which first announced plans to build a gigabit fiber network in 2010, has helped set the stage for communities and private companies to come together in building new fiber networks capable of delivering ultra-high speed networks. And now cities around the country are working with private broadband providers to build such networks.

The NCNGN is a regional initiative that spans six communities in the Triangle and Piedmont Triad regions of North Carolina. The group, which issued a request for proposal for interested broadband providers, includes members of the cities' chambers of commerce, representatives from several area universities and a nonprofit group called Gig.U. The cities involved in the project include Winston-Salem, Cary, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Durham, and Raleigh.

In February, Google said that the cities in the Triangle region were among the 34 cities it was considering for expansion of its Google Fiber business. The company launched its first Google Fiber network in Kansas City in 2012. Last year, Google announced plans for expansion in Austin and Provo, Utah. But it's still in the permitting phase in Austin.

Meanwhile, AT&T began offering its fiber service in Austin in December.

The network

AT&T appears to be one of potentially several broadband providers negotiating a contract to build a fiber network in the North Carolina Triangle region. An AT&T spokesman confirmed the deal is not exclusive. Press reports indicate that the NCNGN is negotiating with eight different providers. Time Warner Cable could be another company that is also selected to build part of the network. The company has acknowledged its in negotiations with the NCNGN group.

AT&T said in a press release that the next step in its negotiations with the group is approval from the governing bodies of the six communities involved in the project.

AT&T's all-fiber network is expected to deliver download and upload speeds of 1-gigabit per second, which is 10 times faster than most consumer broadband available to communities today. AT&T's service will also include TV and telephony voice services.

In addition to building the residential 1 Gbps network, AT&T will also offer public Wi-Fi hotspots throughout the North Carolina GigaPower footprint as well as free access to its gigabit network in up to 100 public locations. AT&T will also offer free 3 Mbps AT&T U-verse service to 10 affordable housing complexes, which includes up to 3,000 homes.

If AT&T wins the contract to build part of the NCNGN network it will be the second community to get the company's U-verse with GigaPower fiber service. The company launched its AT&T U-verse with GigaPower service in Austin, Texas in December. Due to high demand for the service, AT&T said in January it would double its deployment in Austin. And it expects to build a similar network in parts of Dallas in 2014.

Currently, AT&T offers speeds up to 300Mbps in Austin, but it plans to upgrade the service to 1 Gbps later this year. AT&T is offering promotional rates for GigaPower in Austin at $70 per month.

Fiber competition

While AT&T claims it has always had plans to deliver ultra high-speed broadband in places like Austin, the reality is that Google with its Google Fiber initiative has lit a fire under the feet of traditional broadband providers, both setting the stage for investments in such networks as well as providing a starting point for speeds and pricing.

"To be honest, we wouldn't have launched a 1Gbps service unless we didn't see it happening in the market," said Matt Murphy, president of Grande Communications, a small cable operator based in Texas that is also deploying a 1 Gbps fiber broadband service. "Google has definitely stirred things up in Austin. And when we saw AT&T and Time Warner Cable answering that threat, we knew we had to do something too in terms of speeds and pricing."

Phone companies like AT&T and Verizon, as well as cable operators like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, have been capable of delivering very high speed broadband services for a long time. But executives have long said there was no demand for ultra high-speed services. Speeds of 100Mbps or higher were offered in certain regions from these operators, but pricing was always high.

Google was the first to offer a 1Gbps service and also to offer the service at an affordable price tag of $70, which is about $20 more than the average broadband service.

The benefits of a gigabit fiber network

The competition or at least the threat of competition in these markets will likely benefit consumers who will not only have these ultra-high speed networks built in their communities, but will also be able to take advantage of the affordable pricing.

The hope in building these networks, regardless of the provider building them, is that they will bring many benefits to the community, including advances in telemedicine, distance learning, and new industries that will create new jobs. The Federal Communications Commission, which has been encouraging the deployment of gigabit fiber networks, says that such networks can spur economic development and attract businesses.

It said last year that a fiber network serving 170,000 homes in Chattanooga, Tenn., helped lure big companies like Volkswagen and Amazon to the community, which has created more than 3,700 new jobs over the past few years.

The NCNGN Tracy Futhey, chair of the NCNGN Steering Committee and vice president of onformation technology at Duke University, is hopeful that the gigabit fiber network will benefit the community.

"This kind of private sector investment is essential to ensure our regions remain competitive and at the forefront of next-generation applications that are important to all sectors of the economy," she said in a statement.

Source:

www.cnet.com

Posted by Editorial Team on 6:46 AM in AT&T, broadband, fiber networks, Google, NCNGN, nonprofit group, North Carolina, Press reports, speed fiber, Wi-Fi

Roku Streaming Stick vs. Google Chromecast: How do they stack up?

Roku's new Streaming Stick is clearly aiming to take on Google's Chromecast, but both streamers have their strengths and weaknesses. Here's how they compare so far.

(Credit: Lori Grunin/CNET)

(Credit: Lori Grunin/CNET)

Roku's new Streaming Stick bears more than just a passing resemblance to Google's Chromecast.

They're both tiny sticks that connect to the back of your TV, use a nearby USB port (or power outlet) for power, and stream media from a variety of sources like Netflix, YouTube, HBO Go and Pandora. So which one should you get?

I haven't had the chance to fully review the new Roku Streaming Stick (which comes out in April), but from my brief hands-on time, it looks to deliver the same Roku experience that's available on the company's traditional streaming boxes. While it's too early to crown a winner, we already have a pretty good idea how these two sticks will match up.

Apps: Roku in a landslide

When it comes to apps, nothing comes close to Roku's massive 1,200-channel library. While some of those channels are definitely filler, there's a ton of top tier content, including Netflix, Amazon Instant, HBO Go, Pandora, Hulu Plus, MLB.TV, PBS, YouTube, Showtime Anytime, Time Warner Cable, Spotify, Amazon Cloud Player -- the list goes on.

(Credit: Roku)

In the Chromecast's defense, it has most of the major apps covered, including Netflix, YouTube, HBO Go, Hulu Plus, and Pandora. And now that Google has released an SDK, it's fair to expect that the rate of new apps should increase.

There is one big exception where Chromecast beats Roku in apps and that's Google's media ecosystem. Right now, Chromecast is pretty much your only option if you want to stream media from Google Play TV and Movies and Google Music. If you're all-in on Android for your media purchases, you're probably better off sticking with the Chromecast.

Price: $35 Chromecast is irresistibly cheap

Roku managed to cut the cost of its Streaming Stick ($50) in half, but it still doesn't compare to the Chromecast's unbeatable $35 price.

(Credit: Lori Grunin/CNET)

The difference between the two sticks may be a mere $15, but there's something about $35 that makes easy click to "add to cart" without thinking twice. Both are cheap, but the Chromecast is cheaper, especially if you're looking to outfit several rooms with a streamer.

Remote: Roku has the flexible approach

The Chromecast's approach to remotes was relatively novel when it was released: your mobile device is the only remote your need. Not only did it allow Google to hit that impulse-friendly $35 price, it actually works better for certain search-heavy apps like YouTube, and eliminates one more remote from your coffee table.

(Credit: Lori Grunin/CNET)

The Roku Streaming Stick includes a standard RF-based Roku remote and that's good news for anyone like me who thinks real buttons still win when it comes to the living room. Even better, Roku now supports Chromecast-style control for Netflix and YouTube and the company says it's looking to add more services in the future. That means everyone in the household can choose whether they'd rather use a regular remote or stick with their mobile device.

One final word of caution: neither works with a traditional IR-based universal remote, unless you run an IR-extender behind your TV. The good news for Harmony Smart Control owners is Logitech says it's working on adding the ability to control Roku boxes over Wi-Fi -- hopefully it works with the Streaming Stick.

Screen mirroring: Chromecast, when it works

One of the neatest features of Chromecast is the ability to cast any tab from the Chrome browser to your TV. That includes streaming video from major content Web sites like ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and Hulu (without a subscription), which typically are only available when browsing using a computer.

(Credit: Sarah Tew/CNET)

The big caveat is that in my testing, the screen-mirroring functionality doesn't work all that well. Some have had more luck with this feature than me, but it hasn't worked well in any of the wireless environments I've used it. (In the same locations, the Apple TV's screen mirroring has been considerably more reliable.)

On the other hand, Roku doesn't have any kind of screen-mirroring functionality at all. If you want screen-mirroring from a stick, the Chromecast is the best option, just don't expect flawless performance.

Search: A surprising lead for Roku

It's hard to imagine Google not being the leader in search, but Roku has it beat in the living room. Roku's cross-platform search scours through Netflix, Amazon Instant, HBO Go, Hulu Plus and more, to find where a TV show or movie is available and how much it costs. It's also quick to predict your search term based on just a few characters, which takes a lot of pain out of using the onscreen keyboard.

When Roku briefed me on the Streaming Stick, the company also showed off its upcoming mobile app (also due in April) which will integrate the same cross-platform search functionality that's available on the boxes. It's a nice plus -- not only is it easier to search on a mobile device, but when you choose the service you'd like to watch your content on, it automatically loads on the Roku.

(Credit: Matthew Moskovciak/CNET)

Google had a relatively sophisticated TV and movies search engine on Google TV and I wouldn't be surprised if that made its way to the Chromecast in some form soon. Until then, it remains a weakness on the Chromecast, as you need to open and switch between several apps to see where content is available. (Or use a third-party service.)

Hardware: Dead even

When it comes to the guts of these sticks, they're pretty much the same as far as I can tell. They both output at 1080p, have built-in dual-band Wi-Fi and use a nearby USB port for power. Perhaps there will be some performance differences when I compare them, but I'm betting they'll be pretty similar.

Roku's new Streaming Stick takes on Chromecast (pictures)

1-2 of 26

Scroll LeftScroll Right

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Personal media: It's a tie

Both of these devices are focused on streaming content straight from the Internet, but they can also be used for displaying your personal media content as well. For media stored on your computer, both devices support the Plex media server, which supports a wide variety of file formats. The only drawback is you'll need to leave your computer on with the Plex server running.

Plex on Chromecast

(Credit: Plex)

They're about equal when it comes to media stored on your mobile device too. Roku's mobile app has a "Play On Roku" feature that lets you stream music, photos and video that are stored on your mobile device. You can do the same on the Chromecast using a third-party app likeRealPlayer Cloud, although it would be nice if Android natively supported casting functionality.

Full head-to-head comparison to come

When I get the Roku Streaming Stick in for review, I'll be able to fully test both of these devices head-to-head to see which stick comes out on top. Based on the spec sheets alone, I'd give Roku the early edge: more apps, a traditional remote, and an excellent cross-platform search seems worth the extra $15, especially for a device you'll use frequently. But the good news is, whether you go Roku or Chromecast, both streaming sticks are excellent values are only likely to get better as they continue to receive software updates.

News Source: reviews.cnet.com

Posted by Editorial Team on 7:57 AM in Amazon, Chromecast, Google, HBO, MLB.TV, PBS, Roku Streaming, TV, upcoming mobile, Wi-Fi