9
Mar

Android remains a difficult opportunity for Google to successfully manage

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthGoogle recently announced its intention to proceed with a wireless data service. The latest spin on this decision, exemplified by an article published on the Wall Street Journal web site on March 8, 2015, takes this step as an indicator of a new, more frugal Google. But seen from a different angle it looks like an aggressive shot at Google’s partners in the Android alliance.

The title of the Journal article is Google: The Value of Thrift. The piece was written by Dan Gallagher and points to some recent steps taken by Google, which Gallagher presents as evidence of real follow through on points made during their most recent Quarterly earning report. Gallagher writes about the report: “Google hinted that it might curb its spending after a year in which capital expenditure surged 49% to nearly $11 billion.”

Gallagher finds an important example of this new campaign, at work, in some public announcements from Google about their decision to go forward as a wireless data provider. Gallagher notes “The Wall Street Journal also reported that the [wireless service to be offered by Google] will be limited to customers using Google’s own Nexus phones, which make up only a small portion of the overall Android market.”

But if I were the President of Samsung, or LG, or any other of Google’s partners in the Android mobile O/S effort, I don’t think I would be too pleased to learn the team managing the overall Android stack has just now decided to debut a promising wireless data effort (to deliver high quality/very high speed wireless data services from pipes supplied by T-Mobile, Sprint and more) for only its own phones. Why not mine too? I venture this phrase bounced around a few conference rooms when the news of this plan broke during Mobile World Congress 2015.

In my opinion this move is simply the latest in a series of steps likely to cause more headache for Google than anything else. The real sore spot, of course, is the damage a self-serving deal like this one can wreak on a very important recent effort on Google’s part to improve its penetration of the enterprise computing market. Certainly Android partners like Samsung are critically important to the success of this effort. Research has demonstrated enterprise IT organizations look at the Samsung Android device platform as one of, if not the only, line of Android devices worth serious consideration for an enterprise rollout. So why leave them out in the cold on this one?

It’s hard for me to get behind Google’s “moon shots” when they stumble around as they appear to have done on this one.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

13
Jan

Rounding off some of Google’s edges makes a pretty picture, but little more

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthKatie Benner, a writer published on the Bloomberg View web site, presented a hypothesis about Google on January 13, 2015. She questions whether some of Google’s recent features, what I would call its edges, are familiar because they are characteristic of another very large tech company – Microsoft. But has she actually rounded these edges to render an otherwise sloppy picture into something somewhat more appealing?

The title of Benner’s article is Google is the New Microsoft. Uh-Oh (http://www NULL.bloombergview NULL.com/articles/2015-01-12/google-is-the-new-microsoft-and-that-should-freak-it-out).

The sticking points, for me, in her characterization of Google as a maturing tech business “print[ing] money” are some otherwise simple mistakes Google has made, which are NOT the kind of mistakes worth anyone’s sympathy. Unfortunately Benner doesn’t talk to these points.

What she does opine about is her portrait of “innovation” (an otherwise meaningless abstraction if there ever was one) as an elusive quality of product development existing somewhere beyond the grasp of “hugely profitable compan[ies]”, like Microsoft.

What is missing from the piece is Benner’s definition of “innovation”. Is it safe to say she does not consider Google Glass to be “innovation?” What about the driverless car? Or, finally, what about inexpensive DNA profiling? As anyone following Google is aware, each of the above products have emerged from the “Googleplex” (the last is offered by a company headed up by Sergey Brin’s wife, 23andme).

So, to follow the point further, if the above products are not examples of innovation, would it be safe to assume Benner is talking to a definition of the term perhaps closer to what Microsoft’s CEO, Satya Nadella, presented last year, when he positioned his business as an enterprise focused on delivering solutions to enhance personal productivity? In an earlier post to this blog I wrote on this point, with reference to an article Irving Wladawsky-Berger wrote last year for the Wall Street Journal’s CIO Blog on the concept (readers need only review The Science of Innovation (http://blog NULL.irvingwb NULL.com/blog/2014/12/the-mit-innovation-initiative NULL.html) to get a glimpse of how Wladawsky-Berger understands “innovation”).

To wrap up this exposition, then why doesn’t Benner include Microsoft along with Apple in her ranks of large businesses capable of “innovating core products”. Unfortunately I can not answer these points as, in my opinion, Benner’s article rounds off these hard edges. I would have preferred to see them nailed together into a tight frame for Google’s mistakes, which I regret, are perhaps a lot more pedestrian and far removed from any notion of “innovation”.

The biggest of these, and the most recent as far as my gaining cognizance of its existence, is Google’s architecture for its Android IP business. Deciding not to update some comparatively recent versions of this O/S is a wrong decision not likely to win Google many friends from the OEM community, nor from end consumers. Certainly the decision to abandon these versions was correctable, and a rather simple thing to fix without a lot of buzz about “innovation”.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

12
Jan

Another reason why the Android segment of BYOD is problematic for enterprise IT organizations

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthThe Wall Street Journal published an article on what appears to be a decision made by Google not to support so-called older browsers (Jelly Bean 4.3 and earlier) for Android smartphones. But Android Jelly Bean 4.3 appeared as recently as June, 2013 (less than 2 years ago). So it may be safe to assume enterprise IT organizations are about to experience another big headache as they struggle to support BYOD policies permitting personnel to bring Android smartphones (and I would add tablets) into the enterprise. Some of these devices will certainly appear current (merely half way through a typical 3 year use cycle). But permitting them for use inside corporate firewalls might be a big problem.

This article is written by Danny Yadron. The article was published on Monday, January 12, 2015 and is titled Google Isn’t Fixing Some Old Android Bugs (http://blogs NULL.wsj NULL.com/digits/2015/01/12/google-not-fixing-some-old-android-bugs/?mod=WSJ_TechWSJD_NeedToKnow).

It is also likely consumers wouldn’t have a problem with Google’s decision, if the devices in question were truly older, meaning the first Android smartphone which appeared on the market in 2008, and its siblings. If the set of devices was merely limited to smartphones from 2008 to, say, 2010 (a full 5 years back), then Yadron’s reference to what he contends is the same posture Microsoft adopted with regards to its Windows XP Operating System, when it decided to stop supporting the product for production computing, would make sense.

But, in my opinion, Yadron’s statement is not tenable. “The security blind spot illustrates the challenges companies face as they try to move customers onto newer products and focus security resources on patching more-current software. Microsoft . . . applied the same reasoning when it stopped supporting Windows XP, first released in 2001, in April [2014].”

When we make reference to the Windows XP operating system, we are talking about software on the market for almost fourteen years. Sure the structure of the two announcements may be the same, but to equate a decision about products purchased as recently as 18 months ago to a decision about products purchased almost 156 months ago (nearly 10 times older) doesn’t make sense.

There is really very little similarity between the stances of these two big ISVs. Enterprise IT organizations are not likely to be fooled into thinking the two statements are the same. When they face an inevitable decision about whether to prohibit the use of mobile computing devices powered by Android Jelly Bean 4.3, on-premises, or not, they are not likely to enjoy their position as an unfortunate “bad guy”/spoiler for their community of computing users. Nevertheless, the best of them will likely have to prohibit these devices (which some personnel may still be paying off) if they are to preserve the comparative security of their internal corporate networks.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

9
Jan

Intel establishes a position in the Android tablet market

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthOn February 19, 2002, Microsoft and Intel announced a “Wireless Development Initiative” at the 3GSM World Congress (http://news NULL.microsoft NULL.com/2002/02/19/microsoft-and-intel-announce-wireless-development-initiative/). The Congress, in 2002, was held in Cannes, France. Now, nearly 13 years later, Intel has established itself as one of the premier chip manufacturers for one segment of the mobile device market – tablet computers.

An Intel® Atom Z3580 CPU powers Dell’s new Venue 8 7000 tablet computer. This tablet also includes Intel’s RealSense R200 SnapShot camera. Readers can learn more about this new camera technology on Intel’s website (http://iq NULL.intel NULL.com/realsense-3d-camera-technology-help-people-cant-see/?wapkw=intel+realsense+3d+camera). The operating system is Android 4.4 KitKat. This Dell tablet has an MSRP of $399.00, with 16GBs of storage, 2GBs or RAM and an 8.4″ OLED HD screen (2560×1600 resolution).

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal website published a review of the Dell tablet. The review was written by Joanna Stern. She really liked the device. Readers should note Stern has yet to come to the same conclusion with regard to Microsoft’s Surface 3, at least as I read her opinion. So winning a “like” from Stern is no small feat.

But the Dell tablet is not the only example of Intel’s penetration of this market segment. Lenovo is using another Intel Atom processor, the 3745, to power a tablet in the sub $200 MSRP range, the Lenovo TAB S8 (http://shop NULL.lenovo NULL.com/us/en/tablets/lenovo/s-series/s8/?sb=:000001C9:00012926:). The Lenovo tablet also runs on Android 4.4 KitKat O/S and offers an 8″ HD screen (1920×1200 resolution) and 2GBs of RAM. HP is also offering Android tablets powered by the same Intel Atom CPU technology.

Intel has provided incentives for its OEMs to produce devices running on Intel technology. Mention has been made of these incentives in the most recent Intel earnings conference call. Intel has also announced it will implement a new way of reporting on its business activity in this market. Mobile administration, marketing and sales costs will be rolled into its PC device business, as Aaron Tilley reported in Forbes last November, in an article titled Intel Is Combining Its PC And Mobile Units As The Lines Between The Two Blur (http://www NULL.forbes NULL.com/sites/aarontilley/2014/11/18/intel-merge-pc-mobile-units/).

In my opinion the negative analyst reaction to this announcement, and, in fact, the overall analyst impression of just how much effort Intel has invested in this activity, to date, is overstated. The fact is they are now winning at the effort, which, going forward, should be very good news.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

8
Jan

Why update problems for Android devices can severely hamper enterprise adoption of this mobile device operating system

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthThrough a combination of direct experience, and a review of an editorial published just about a year ago on the Android Central website, I have concluded there is no clear method of uniformly updating mobile devices powered by the same Android operating system, but manufactured by different Android partners. I am not sure as to why this problem arose, but I am clear about its impact on the likelihood of the average enterprise IT organization standardizing on Android as an approved mobile computing platform. It is not likely to happen.

The title of the editorial on the Android Central website is Solving the impossible problem of Android updates (http://www NULL.androidcentral NULL.com/solving-impossible-problem-android-updates). The writer is Alex Dobie.

It is not possible for enterprise IT organizations to standardize on devices running an operating system which can be implemented on highly dissimilar hardware. What if the next update to an Android “flavor”, say Jelly Bean (http://developer NULL.android NULL.com/about/versions/jelly-bean NULL.html), includes not only new features, but substantially better security? Manufacturer A has implemented the first update (Android Jelly Bean 4.2), but can’t release the latest update (Android Jelly Bean 4.3). Worse yet, Manufacturer B has yet to implement even the first update. What enterprise IT organization would want to deal with a user community outfitted with a lot of devices from Manufacturer A, B and more?

Yet the average BYOD policy statement empowers users to bring Android, iOS, and Windows personal computing devices into the enterprise. So it should not be difficult for readers to understand why enterprise IT organizations are struggling to ensure high quality user computing experience, while, at the same time, defending the enterprise from hackers, malware, data leaks, etc.

The direct experience component of my conclusion arose as the result of my interest in participating in Microsoft’s Office Preview for Android. This preview includes Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. At first glance it looked as if my Samsung Galaxy Note 2.1 10.1 would work with the preview app. The display size of the tablet is 10.1 inches, and the Android version is 4.1, Jelly Bean. But the preview app would not work on my device, perhaps since the latest Android Jelly Bean release is 4.3.

When I posted my experience to the Google Plus community Microsoft has set up for people participating in the preview to exchange information, I was surprised to learn I am not alone. Samsung is not the only Android OEM stuck on an older version of this Android Operating System.

Regardless of just who is responsible for the problem, perhaps management at Google for Work (https://www NULL.google NULL.com/intx/en_us/work/) can fix it. If not, it might be better for them to restrict their offers to Google’s cloud SaaS and IaaS products and forget about getting much traction with Android at all.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

6
Jan

Promotional content for tablets running on Intel processors still comes up short

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthIntel® announced the availability of a set of 17 new CORE microprocessors at the CES 2015 (http://newsroom NULL.intel NULL.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2015/01/05/the-5th-generation-intel-core-family-of-processors-arrive-to-transform-computing-experiences-cherry-trail-shipping) event this week. The specs on these CPUs are impressive. Perhaps Intel OEMs can accompany the debut of these new chips with substantially more effective marketing communications than has been the case in the past.

Readers may wonder about the gap. Just how has the editorial branding of tablets, smartphones and even laptops, notebooks and 2-in-1 small form factor mobile computing devices powered by Intel missed the mark? Where Intel’s technology has been used to power mobile computing devices running a Microsoft operating system, the promotional content presented to consumers, in my opinion, has been calibrated too tightly to speak to the needs of the low end of the market. This rigidity may be a reason for comparatively low sales volume for these devices. Windows tablets are something different from desktop PCs. Then again, they are also something very different from Android tablets

There are 2 big reasons why any consumer should seriously consider purchasing a tablet running Microsoft Windows 8.1 vs a comparably priced tablet from, for example, Samsung, running Google’s Android O/S:

  • There will certainly be an update path on the O/S, which is likely not going to be the case for the tablet produced by Samsung
  • The computing experience will be consistent with any desktop computer running Microsoft Windows 8.1. This cannot be said of the Samsung device. I own a Samsung Galaxy Note 2.1 10.1, which is less than 2 years old, but is, nevertheless, entirely obsolete. The device does not support a web browser useful for highlighting and copying text, ets. The $700, approx, paid for the Samsung product amounts to a throwaway

But the marketing communications hasn’t spoken to these points. Instead, the typical marketing communications campaign for a tablet powered by Intel, running Windows, is built around an effort to highlight features directly competitive with Android and iOS powered tablets. This is a big oversight and one which should be corrected as soon as possible, if this new line of CORE processors is to perform better for the OEMs making the investment required to build them.

After all, no one likes losing money, so if consumers are better informed before they proceed down a dead end as they will should they opt to purchase an Android tablet as I did, OEMs can rest assured their change in editorial direction will benefit everybody.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

5
Dec

Look for even more feature hype as ISVs present new features somehow failing to reach consumers as promised

In an earlier post to this blog, titled Enterprise IT ISVs Contributed to the Bloated Feature Set for PCs this writer published comments about how the very close relationship between Intel and Microsoft, which first began, one can argue, when IBM turned over the chip manufacturing pieces of the original PC to Intel, actually worked to the disadvantage of both parties. The outcome of this mismatch of efforts was, we argued, the Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC) hardware architecture, which covered far too many bases to successfully compete with its Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) rivals. The RISC machines won the contest. The mobile device world is filled with small, smart devices built to conform to RISC architecture principals.

Now, in late 2014, we think it would be better, (and consumers would, ultimately, benefit more) if hardware, firmware, and software all actually worked closer together. Unless/until these players warm up to each other, devices are simply not going to work as advertised. Marketing communications messaging about new features will simply devolve into just more hype.

Over the last several posts to this blog we’ve presented some examples we’ve found of this problem eating away at some of the opportunities computing hardware consumers may hope to enjoy from their purchase decisions:

  1. Solid State Drives, purchased after market, do not work well with Intel PCs running Microsoft’s Windows O/S.
  2. Android devices, at least from Samsung, can’t be upgraded to new versions (for example, a Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1, 2.1, requires a “root canal” if a consumer wants to avail of the new KitKat or Lollipop O/S, and chuck JellyBean).
  3. A new Apple iOS O/S is made available to older iPhones and iPads, but performs poorly once it is installed; consumers suspect they have been hoodwinked into downloading and installing the new O/S as a means of pushing a new hardware sale.
  4. Finally, Personal Assistants aren’t equipped to understand complex verbal linguistics, and fail to work in high demand situations. Bi-Directional voice conversations don’t sync well with hands free bluetooth audio in cars

This list could go on for quite a while.

In this writer’s opinion, ISVs will do better to either completely abandon the notion of an after-market for new hardware products, or work closer together, perhaps via standards committees, etc.

But there is nothing on the horizon pointing to either of these events happening any time soon. For now, consumers are simply better off researching very carefully each nuance of any planned changes before embarking on them.

Ultimately ISVs will likely suffer more than consumers from this condition.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2014 All Rights Reserved

3
Dec

Consumers likely to maintain a healthier appetite for new PCs for the near term future

PC manufacturers, across the board, including Dell, have reported better sales results over the last several quarters. We think this trend will continue for the near-term future (meaning at least through to Q2 2015). We see four factors at work, which promise to continue to drive new PC purchases:

  1. the debut of ultra low cost PCs, price competitive with Google Chromebooks
  2. an improved Windows 8.1 O/S, complete with better integration of tile/app and desktop computing environments
  3. consumers hungry for storage and computing speed, exhausting upgrade efforts and buying new hardware
  4. developer community acceptance and implementation of Microsoft’s API and SDK strategies, which will deliver more computing features to PC owners, thereby narrowing the feature gap between Windows, OSX, and Android PCs

Here’s some point by point detail: 1) with the 2014 holiday buying season, consumers are finally able to purchase PCs powered by Windows 8.1 at price point parity with Google Chromebooks. At $199.99 the HP Stream (http://store NULL.hp NULL.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/us/en/mdp/Laptops/hp-stream-notebook-11-135508--1) is, arguably, an affordable option for the widest possible consumer segment requiring a Microsoft Windows computing experience. In what we can only call a major achievement for Microsoft, HP’s low end Chromebook entry, the HP Chromebook 14 (http://store NULL.hp NULL.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/us/en/mdp/Laptops/chromebook-14-88376--1) carries a street cost nearly 50% higher than the HP Stream 11.

Now to the second of our four points: The difference in computing experience quality between Windows 8.0 and Windows 8.1 is substantially. It is not likely enterprise buyers have satiated their appetite for new PCs. Further, another year has passed on the PC lifecycle, so even more older PCs will have to be upgraded. Windows 8.1 resolves many of the Windows 8 issues enterprise buyers complained about, so it is likely the uptick in PC buying will continue for some more time to come.

Consumers looking for a better PC computing experience at a reasonable cost still have the best opportunity to meet their objectives with a PC running Microsoft’s Windows O/S. So the mid to high end of the PC market, meaning the segment requiring solid state drives, HD monitors and matching graphics, etc, are more likely to stick with Wintel than to gravitate to OSX PCs.

Finally, Microsoft’s decision to release a number of APIs and SDKs empower app developers to build Office 365, and even hooks to Azure into their solutions. As developers consume these new tools, consumers should be able to use Wintel PCs to consume a lot of the apps, heretofore, only available via Android, or iOS devices. Effectively the feature (and, one can argue, the entire computing experience) gap between device architectures should narrow, which should further pump up PC sales for sometime to come.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2014 All Rights Reserved

1
Dec

Reading between the lines of Black Friday, 2014, data points, have consumers satisfied a lot of their appetite for new Apple iOS devices?

On Friday, November 28, 2014, Barrons reported on some numbers coming out of IBM on Black Friday online shopping. In an article titled Apple Makes Up Third of Black Friday Online Buying, as Wiis, Xboxes, and iPads Fly (http://blogs NULL.barrons NULL.com/techtraderdaily/2014/11/28/apple-makes-up-third-of-black-friday-online-buying-as-wiis-xboxes-and-ipads-fly/), Tiernan Ray refers to some data coming from IBM and opines on the portion of sales made via devices running Apple’s iOS O/S. This segment, per Ray, looked like “31% of total online traffic”. Barrons goes on to note this portion “more than double[s] devices running Google’s Android software.”

Pretty impressive numbers, right? Not so fast. When these numbers are compared to the numbers published by IBM about the same type of consumer buying activity merely a year before, on Black Friday, 2013, a lot of the air comes out of this dirigible. On November 30, 2013, Jay Yarow published a similar article for Business Insider. This time titled Here’s A Problem With The Theory That Android Is Taking Over The World (http://www NULL.businessinsider NULL.com/ios-android-shopping-traffic-2013-11), Yarow summarizes IBM’s conclusion as follows: “iOS traffic reached 28.2 percent of all online traffic, compared to 11.4 percent for Android. iOS sales reached 18.1 percent of all online sales, compared to 3.5 percent for Android.”

When the Black Friday, 2014 stats are seen in perspective with the same data for the previous year, iOS penetration of the total online consumer market merely increased 9.9%. As well, Android may actually have increased its portion of the market segment (I can’t make this claim as the numbers Ray provides in his article are approximate, whereas Yarow provided more specificity in his piece for Business Insider).

So one could easily recast Ray’s presentation into a recount of how online consumer markets are actually stabilizing and, despite reports of feverish consumer appetite for the new 2014 iOS models, Apple only grew its segment in the high single digits, etc.

Ray, in fact, takes a break from the otherwise glowing recount to note a telltale sign things may not be as sanguine as they seem: “That growth is actually below a 13% growth projection that Piper Jaffray’s Gene Munster had attributed to IBM as a forecast heading into the day.” Munster appears to be pointing to the total size of the online consumer buying experience for Black Friday, 2014 as a little more than half as large as IBM had originally predicted it to be. So much for predictive analytics, right?

Bottom line: Black Friday, 2014 wasn’t as much of a coast for Apple as Ray seems to be portraying it to be.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2014 All Rights Reserved

25
Nov

Android’s penetration of enterprise computing markets is constrained by a combination of limited upgrade options and too many distributions

It’s very late in 2014, but a lot of enterprise computing consumers still depend on a central support function. An enormous volume of content has been written on the topic of the consumerization of business computing, and how the role of technology leader has changed hands from the typical enterprise IT organizations, to power users playing any kind of role within the organization.

But when something breaks, whether the wreckage occurs at the Line of Business (LoB) level, or within enterprise IT, itself, it still has to be fixed. Fixing broken iOS devices, or Windows devices remains a preferred route. There are simply too many distributions of the Android operating systems, and too much difficulty bringing the ones in use within an organization up to the same level of functionality to make sense for most of the enterprise computing world.

So, with this notion of how hardware device standards, to some extent, still operate in the world of business computing, Samsung’s recent decision to partner with BlackBerry “to Provide End-To-End Security for Android” (http://press NULL.blackberry NULL.com/press/2014/blackberry-and-samsung-partner-to-provide-end-to-end-security-fo NULL.html) makes sense.

The BlackBerry Samsung partnership, should appear curious to anyone who reviewed the webcasts recorded at Google I/O 2014. After all, Google announced its plan to “[integrate] part of Knox right into Android” (quoted from Samsung and Google team up to integrate KNOX into Android’s next major release (http://www NULL.sammobile NULL.com/2014/06/25/samsung-and-google-team-up-to-integrate-knox-into-androids-next-major-release/), which was written by Abhijeet M, and published in June, 2014 on the SAMMOBILE web site)at its Google I/O 2014 event. So why would Samsung partner with BlackBerry on no less a mission than to provide the above-stated “end-to-end security for Android”?

A simple answer, in this writer’s opinion, would be to surmise Samsung has come to the realization enterprise IT organizations in the private and public sectors are still, for some reason, shrugging off Knox and passing on Android altogether. Bringing in BlackBerry, therefore makes sense. BlackBerry’s successful effort to convince the U.S. Federal Government, and some of its international peers to continue to use BlackBerry mobile computing devices as the most secure of any of their options. Perhaps some of this win can be attributed to the fact BlackBerry is built on proprietary IP, which, for better or worse, can be easily upgraded and is completely uniform in its presentation.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2014 All Rights Reserved