Corning, makers of one of the most popular types of glass used to make screens on modern smartphones, is apparently planning to make it even better. Already famous for the Gorilla Glass that offers tough, highly impact-proof screens which can be curved to provide an ergonomical form factor for phones against the ear, Corning are now reportedly working on a new iteration of Gorilla Glass with an anti-microbial layer.

By “anti-microbial”, what Corning mean is the glass will contain a chemical that acts as a constant disinfectant on the screen. Supposedly able to kill 99.9% of common germs found on a phone, the chemical is always reacting with the screen’s surface and, so Corning claim, can completely disinfect a typical smartphone screen in two hours, meaning a phone could be left on a table for a while and then could be picked up and be clean and safe to use without ever needing to touch a disinfectant wipe or cleaning cloth. Given the wide variety of places a smartphone is used nowadays – many people never allow it to leave their hands for long and constant exposure to one’s hands – plus the added bacteria that could be picked up if a person regularly uses it near food or takes them to less hygenic places such as toilets – phones can easily get dirty surprisingly quickly, so a technology that can help to clean a phone screen by itself is incredibly clever.

Corning aren’t stopping there, however. Also on the agenda for the next iteration of their glass screen technology, the company apparently want to improve the clarity of the glass so as to make the screens as transparent as possible, which would help to improve colour and visibility of what’s on the screen. Reports from the company suggest that they already expect the new screens “to be as transparent as purified water” – which, if true, would be some amazingly clear glass indeed.

While Corning are giving no words as yet as to how close the screens are to being shown off or when they’ll go into mass production, people are already highly excited and eager to see it on the next wave of smartphones. The real question though, is how much of a premium will have to be added to the cost of each phone to subsidise what is unlikely to be a cheap new technology, for which only time will tell. More news as we get it!

[via Technically Motivated]

After a legal battle lasting several months, on Febuary last year Apple lost a landmark case filed by parents across the United States, which claimed iOS Apps targeted to younger children were often including downloadable content or extra features that required in-app purchases to unlock; for which the apps were actively encouraging the children to purchase the extra content without adequately explaining that they cost actual money. Many of the children were of too young age to understand the concept of in-app purchasing; and the claim by parents that Apple did not offer enough protections to prevent unauthorised purchases by the children of parents who owned iOS devices or explain that they were about to actually purchase items with real money was upheld in court.

As per the terms of the settlement, Apple were instructed to offer parents worldwide the ability to make claims as individuals for compensation as a result of the negligent practices. Today, Apple sent an email to the press announcing that they will now accept compensation claims made directly to the company from individual parents who have been affected by this case.

Parents can claim for the total cost of any string of in-app purchases made within 45 days of each other, up to the date where Apple implemented repeat password requests or disclaimers to counteract such activity. Of course, there IS a catch: Claims for under $30 will qualify only for a $5 iTunes Voucher as compensation; however, larger transactions may have the total of all valid disputed transactions refunded as cash. What's more, there's a deadline of January 13th, 2014 for at least some types of claim.

When the XBox One was revealed at E3 earlier this month, many details were revealed about the console that caused widespread criticism of the console by both players, press and gaming journalists alike. I’m sure by now you’ve read the myriads of articles about it; but if not, here’s a quick recap: The console would require an internet connection every 24 hours to check validity of licences to play any games stored on the console (possibly being unusable for gaming if a connection could not be established); used games could only be transferred to a new owner once; reactivating a third-hand game would cost a fee and games could not be resold for less than 90% of their original value (meaning buying used games could end up MORE expensive than buying them new); and so on.

After soon being followed by Sony’s announcement of the PS4 allowing full sharing of disk-based games just by giving the game away like you would do today, lack of online requirement and £100 lower price tag, Microsoft were looking like real losers in this year’s “console wars” (an endearing term given by the media to explain the concept of gaming consoles battling for control of the market by selling the most consoles). Even Nintendo got a pot shot in, with Satoru Iwata revealing in an interview his view on controlling the trade of used games:

“The best possible countermeasure against people buying used product is making the kind of product that people never want to sell. Taking as an example Mario Kart or Smash Bros., even though you might think, ‘I’ve done enough with this,’ you’ll still have second thoughts. ‘Wait a minute. If one of my friends comes over, I might need this again.’ You’re never going to want to sell these games. That’s something that always occupies our minds. We need to make software that players don’t want to sell.“

It seems Microsoft have finally thrown in the towel and admitted their plans to control usage of their console AND trade of used games just isn’t going to work. On Wednesday, in an official posting on XBox Wire, Microsoft announced a complete reversal of their strategy, ditching the online requirement and removing control over used games.

Read the rest of this entry »

Twitter says it is bringing in an optional two-step login process for its users to improve the security of each account, following recent high-profile breaches within the social network.

The news comes after a number of high-profile Twitter accounts were illegitimately accessed, including those of major news organisations such as the Financial Times and the Associated Press (AP), the latter causing widespread panic when hackers sent a fake news tweet claiming US President Barack Obama had been injured. This followed an attack against Twitter itself in February, which led to 250,000 users having their passwords stolen.

Mr. Jim O’Leary (product security head of Twitter) explained the new two-factor authentication system thusly:

“You’ll need a confirmed email address and a verified phone number. After a quick test to confirm that your phone can receive messages from Twitter, you’re ready to go.”

A message containing a verification code would then be sent to the account holder’s mobile phone that can be used to log in. However, he also reminded Twitter users of the importance of strong passwords:

“Of course, even with this new security option turned on, it’s still important for you to use a strong password and follow the rest of our advice for keeping your account secure.”

However, Kim Dotcom – owner of Mega.co.nz file sharing site, itself the spiritual successor of the controversial former file upload website MegaUpload – is threatening a patent lawsuit over the Social Network’s newfound use of two-factor authentication. Extending the threat to Google, Facebook, Twitter, Citibank and other companies that have implemented the system, he claims the use of mobile devices to offer a second layer of security for website logins infringes a patent describing an SMS-based two-step-authentication process he filed with the US Patent Office in 1998 and was granted in 2000; with Dotcom claiming registrations also exist in twelve other countries.

“I never sued them. I believe in sharing knowledge & ideas for the good of society. But I might sue them now cause of what the US did to me.”

The BBC reports that he is not alone in these claims, however:

A New Jersey-based firm called Strikeforce is currently suing Microsoft over its use of two-factor authentication tech based on a patent it filed in 2004.

And another British company, SecurEnvoy, recently announced it had been granted patents for a “business grade” SMS-based two-factor authentication process.

However, let’s look beyond the arguments and focus on the security. Will you be turning on two-factor authentication for your Twitter account?

[Via Technically Motivated]

In 2009, an antitrust agreement in Europe ruled that Microsoft weren’t playing fair with internet browsers. By including Internet Explorer into Windows by default; making their own software prefer to use it over alternative browsers; and not providing an easy mechanism to get alternative browsers, the European Union (EU) decided that Microsoft was abusing its widespread use on European computers to favour its own internet browser. As a result, Microsoft were fined $1.44 billion US Dollars; but that’s not all. They also agreed that for five years, Microsoft would have to offer a Browser Choice screen to European users of Windows, providing a choice of the five major browsers and a reasonable amount of other alternatives, so that EU customers could choose how THEY wanted to access the internet; and if they wanted to choose other than Internet Explorer, could find out more about or quickly download any of the alternatives.

An example of the “Browser Ballot” screen Microsoft implemented to provide European customers the required choice of browser.

For a long time, Microsoft honoured this promise. But when Windows 7 SP1 was released over a year ago, a series of complaints – now known to have included reports from Google and Opera – were submitted to the EU claiming the ballot was no longer being shown. After discovering it had been gone for 16 months, Microsoft claimed the problem to be a “technical error” and restored it – but according to the EU, this resulted in 15 million Windows users not seeing the ballot box and instead defaulting to Internet Explorer, which broke the agreement.

Today, the EU fined Microsoft for breaching the agreement, ordering them to pay 561 million Euros (approximately $732 million US Dollars, or £487.7 million British pounds) for the “mistake” – which may not sound like a lot for a multi-billion-dollar company, but actually accounts for 3% of Microsoft’s profits for the entire 2012. Microsoft, for its part, has claimed it will not appeal the fine and takes all responsibility, offering this quote:

“We take full responsibility for the technical error that caused this problem and have apologized for it. We provided the Commission with a complete and candid assessment of the situation, and we have taken steps to strengthen our software development and other processes to help avoid this mistake – or anything similar – in the future.”

This has got to be one of the more expensive “technical errors” in recent tech world history.

[via Technically Motivated]