On the face of it, there’s a reasonable argument — over to the Telegraph post:

The force must find £50 million worth of savings from its overall budget by 2015 and has already cut energy bills by 10 per cent.

I presume that someone has done the calculations — I wonder just how much money this policy would save? What is the cost of charging an iPhone for an hour? It must cost a few pence. This will add up if you take into account daily usage across the year — and thousands of people doing it?

At all the different offices I’ve worked at over the years, I’ve never once been told to ‘charge my personal devices at home’. Occasionally where it was warranted, I’ve asked permission, only to get a ‘well, duh, of course’ response every time. Even going to a friend’s house, I don’t think I’d even think twice about the *cost* of charging. I’d ask permission but I’d only be doing that out of politeness.

Being able to charge your phone (for free) is, I think, a basic requirement for everyone. It’s perhaps not a ‘human right’ — but it’s a seriously important one, especially in today’s connected environment and especially when safety (or, at least, the illusion of safety) is linked to that connectivity. And, even more so if you’ve got a recent smartphone that comes with wholly unsuitable battery performance.

I’ve no idea how much this stuff costs but let’s do a worked example on cost. Assume it costs £0.05 to charge your phone. Multiply that by 20 business days a month and that’s £1.00 per month. Or £12 per year.

I wonder if I’d be prepared to see a quid-a-month docked from my pay packet to cover my personal electricity costs?

Possibly. I’d certainly prefer the option.

But then how far do you go? You see I expect personal charging to be ‘thrown in’ as part of the deal. Well, normally, I don’t even think about it. So, should I also have to contribute £20 per month to ensure clean toilets? Or parking?

Parking’s a bit of a tray area isn’t it? I know some employers who do factor this into a pay package. Or who offer incentives for employees *not* to drive, to a) keep parking spaces available and b) add a nice paragraph to their Corporate Social Responsibility section in their annual report.

Thinking about it, I don’t know if many companies I’ve worked at actually had a ‘electricity for personal uses’ policy. I never bothered to check. Nobody has ever screamed at me for using an extra power socket. No one has demanded money for it. No one has screamed about how much money they’re losing in extra unnecessary costs.

I’m happy to be educated in this regard. Generally speaking I’ve only ever worked for large corporates (who factor the electrical cost into business-as-usual expenditure) or small outfits who’d never question it.

Does your company prohibit you from using electricity for charging your phone?

And have I got things all wrong? Is it more than 5p to charge a phone? Have I missed something?

It looks to me like the only thing Sussex Police are doing with this policy is seriously winding up their employees. How are they going to enforce it?

One possible solution: Take a one time capital expenditure hit and buy every employee a Proporta-style pocket charger (examples at Amazon) with instructions to charge it up at home. That might be equitable!

Update: I was just looking at Amazon some more — maybe what everyone at Sussex needs is a £3.45 wind-up pocket charger:

So.

Which phone (or girl) would you choose?

Would it be sultry and utterly sophisticated Nokia N900? The bold, assertive Apple iPhone? The HTC HD Mini bombshell? The desirous HTC Desire? Or the cheeky, fun Bold 9700 siren?

Just £35/month on an 18-month contract…

Update: One reader has taken issue with me for not adding a critique of sorts along with this post. I didn’t feel there was much need for a critique per se. I thought it was patently clear — as Tomi Ahonen commented just now, this is how you sell tech magazines.

I’m not concerned with propagating sexism to the MIR audience. You are all highly evolved people as you continue to prove, many a time. I am very confident not one of my readers will be seriously — in the cold light of day — equating a woman’s worth to society with that of a mobile telephony device.

My issue with T3′s Magazine’s front cover (yes, it’s intended to be eye-catching for it’s readers) is the inclusion of the Nokia N900 included instead of the Nokia N8 due out shortly. The N900 was never really meant as a prime time top-of-the-range look-at-me device. Indeed, the executives at Nokia even said so. I think next generation MeeGo devices may well stand-up to scrutiny, but the N900 (despite being a super device in terms of capabilities) isn’t what I’d consider a prime time Nokia device. I was rather concerned to see it being ranged by Vodafone as a consumer device. I’ve met quite a few consumers who’ve assumed it was the next step up from the N-Series they used to own — and found themselves rather limited.

I also don’t think the HTC Mini HD should be in the line-up either.

The other dimension to this post was Zinio. I seriously recommend checking out the app, particularly on the iPad as it’s a glorious experience. I’ll post more on that soon.

I know it’s hard to believe.

Very hard.

If you screw your eyes up really tightly and look at the Orange brand whilst tapping your heels together 3 times, the company does look pretty innovative.

But in the cold light of day, your average Orange experience is typically of damp-squid proportions.

This news, however, goes some way toward changing that viewpoint though: You can get a Blackberry from Orange on Pay As You Go.

Interesting.

Very interesting indeed.

Here’s a screenshot:

No details on prices yet. I wonder if they’ll be able to knock out the Pearl for less than £99?

AV230XL

We were at a lunch and the launch last week of the new personal video Vuzix iWear products, the OLED based AV230XL and the widescreen AV310. Effectively turning your mobile device into a 44-inch and 52-inch screen, respectively, and as if my magic. Tadarr!

These two new models update their range to offer their first, and the actual very first fully, 16:9 widescreen viewable headset in addition to the first OLED display too.

Fitting like a normal pair of glasses, if not a tad bulkier than normal but not uncomfortable, they connect to a mobile source and deliver an image to the onboard screen. If we do say so ourselves, it’s a rather cool and funky accessory to any mobile.

Although the AV230XL isn’t widescreen it makes up for it by offering the OLED display, whilst replicating a 44-inch screen. We were told on the day that a widescreen version is around 18 months away, seeing as they’ve only just introduced this tech in to their range.

As for the AV310, it is widescreen but doesn’t have a stunning image like the V230XL glasses – it’s still quite something to behold. It offers up a 52-inch screen as if viewed from 9 feet away, with Stereo 3D capable headphones.

Both of these new products have connectors for devices with TV Out such as Nokia, Sony Ericsson, LG, Samsung and HTC. It’s here for our dollars worth they really gain their usefulness. The sets are even bundled with an approved “Made for iPod” cable, besides leads for the likes of the Nokia N96 and N96.

Less not forget other devices such as Apple iPod range, MP4 players and games consoles like Wii. All of which are supported.

The usual retailers have them in stock: Firebox.com, Play.com, Applestore.com, Amazon.com or direct from www.vuzix.co.uk.

The AV230XL pitches up £129.99, whilst the AV310 Widescreen comes along at £149.99.

Having tried these out for a while, they do show off their usefulness and deliver a sharp image. What better way to get away from the family at Christmas, stick a movie on the phone and sit back whilst the arguments ensue all around you.

See more on the AV230XL and AV310 here and here

Ricky kindly sent me over a link to a piece of “why” news; O2 who recently stopped subsidising their top end phones, have decided to subsidise them again! Well, at least on two phones, the Samsung Tocco and Sony C902.

The Samsung Tocco, Sony C902 and Nokia N95 were all raised to a £75-per-month tariff, but only the Tocco and C902 have been reduced. They are now subsidised on a £35 tariff.

Amazingly O2 have decided against subsidising the Nokia N95, and as Ricky mentioned to me… Couldn’t this cause a stir between the giant manufacturer and the mobile network? Maybe even Nokia penalising O2 by not giving them exclusive launches or something dramatic along those lines.

Personally, I don’t quite understand what O2 were trying to achieve with this, yes okay, they were hoping that other networks were going to follow suit; but who in their business-thinking-right-mind would make existing and/or potential customers pay more in the current credit climate?

Vodafone made me question them the other week too, with their higher prices they’ve introduced. They may be trying to make money here, but surely out-pricing yourself from the high-street competition isn’t the best way to do it, is it?

As for Nokia and O2, what’s going to happen here! I fear O2 are making some risky moves here, which I seriously doubt will pay off; and if Ricky has guessed correctly, this could affect them in the future too.

I wonder what they will do next!

The impact of the medium of mobile is, in these types of situation, phenomenal.

Fantastic. There’s a lot more to read in Mike’s piece.

My cousin is one of those children who had a mobile at an extremely young age; I think she was eight or nine. And I always wondered why at that age does a child require a mobile phone? What possible need is there for one?

Well, obviously there isn’t. At that age you’re not off out on your own, and you certainly do not have a social life that requires constant access to the world.

What causes this desire is peer pressure, and idolising characters out of Hannah Montana, or whatever it’s called; and I think it’s wrong.

I’ll admit now, I got my first mobile when I was eleven, and even that was a struggle. But it was more for practicality than anything else; I would be starting high school, and gradually gaining more freedom. For a long time, my only contacts were my Mum and home number.

Then there is my cousin, who has just turned eleven, on to her second mobile, with dozens of contacts. All of her friends have mobiles too, and they have done from a similar age; but to all of their parents it seems perfectly fine.

Maybe this is me just showing my “grannyish” side, which I know I definitely have, but does no one else see any wrong in this?

Children are, as their name suggests, children. A mobile is not just a device to contact other people; it’s a responsibility, a liability, and maybe even a health hazard. The liability comes in the form of the increasing numbers of teenagers having their mobile phones stolen, and who’s to say that these young children are not at equal, or even greater threat?

The health side-effects are yet undetermined with mobile phones, and surely, don’t want to be exposing their young children to possibly dangerous electro-magnetic energies right? No, wrong, they do. They go out, spend money on mobiles, and not just the cheapest ones out of Woolworths, but camera phones, or walkman phones, for their “deprived” children.

This is by no means a new occurrence; I remember when I was around eight or seven myself, and a couple of girls in my year had mobile phones. At the time, most of us, were amazed at the sight, I mean, mobiles in the nineties, they were generally reserved for adults, the business, and important people of the world; and I saw my peers with them. But at that age, it was never necessary, most of the day is spent in school, and when you’re outside of School, you’re rarely fifty meters away from your parents’ sight.

I am by no means a parent, or anything of the sort; but it worries and shocks me to see such young children trying to grow up so quickly, but more so, the parents. I wouldn’t say giving eight year olds mobile phones is practical or necessary; and if anything the children are more prone to be in danger.

What do you think? Should young children have mobile phones? And is there any way to stop such young hands owning devices which could have adverse affects on them? Also, is this another sign that childhood is becoming extinct?

Feel free to e-mail me any thoughts too at samantha@smstextnews.com

Lets face it, it wasn’t the best of jobs. Kimi Räikkönen seemed a tad dull. Michael Schumacher made you want to smack something. Steffi Graff was the best of the bunch but even then you often found yourself planning shopping lists as you were talking to them.

In fact, the only perk is that you got VIP treatment at the British Grand Prix.

So, what do you do for a nice change? You suggest they make a phone instead.

Tag Heuer, the watch company with adverts of sports stars looking unhappy whilst wearing one, has had its first phone unveiled through the FCC.

It should be said that I do like Tags. They’re very beautiful, but also very out of my price range. So it should come as no surprise that the phone lives up to this. It is stunning, sleek, silver and £3000.

Yes, I did just say £3000. Just to make that clear, three thousand.

So, what do you get for this?

Ummm, a sapphire coating that makes it scratch-proof. A media player. A 2mp camera. Did I mention a sapphire coating?

The Meridiist is clearly for the fashion conscious and, no doubt, it will soon be seen in the hands of F1 drivers. But only those that win – of course.

It’s bad enough that quite a few technology/gadgetry websites and even magazines insist on having half-naked women plastered all over them. I’m not trying to unravel the mysteries of the male mind here, but what ever happened to not being able to multi-task?

Well, over the past couple of days I’ve been visiting, and revisiting a number of websites for gadgetry news and the like, and particularly feminine ones, just so I can see what the different views and news are. But on all the girly ones (which are hard enough to come by), they all have this will to impose pink on me. Then the news section is made up of “look, a Louis Vuitton case for your iPhone!” Why does everyone presume the female kind to be so shallow?

Now, I know I’m not exactly talking about mobiles here, but the same thing applies. I rarely read “Heat”, “Closer”, or any of that other rubbish which tries to qualify itself as news, and interesting. But, when I do, I’m always annoyed. There will be at least one mobile advert (normally), and it angers me.

I’ll give you three guesses the colour of the phone?

I don’t even have to say the answer; I know you know it already. Sometimes though, us female kind are also given the choice of purple or “baby blue” to enlighten our eyes too; that though is still just as bad.

It’s also the technology in such phones that annoys me. I know there is at least one exception to this rule, and that would probably be the pink the Blackberry; but all the others are to put it mildly, crap.

I’ve been into the Carphone Warehouse and Phones4U quite a lot over the past couple of months. I needed a new phone, and I wanted something that was technological, within my budget, and comfortable for me. The sales staff in these shops always ask, “What phone do you have”, and at the time it was a D600 – shock horror face – “that’s a male phone; you can’t have that, let’s find you a nice girly one”. So I go along with this idea, and I get old Motorola’s, or pink Samsungs flung my way. Then, dare I ask, “What about a phone that has a good camera, and some interest going on within it”… “But those are male phones, you’re a girl, stick to girl phones.”

I’ll admit some mobiles are a bit too “blokey” if you get my sense. But still, why does half of the population have to be deprived of quality news, and mobiles, because of this stupidity.

I say it’s stupid because it could be easily solved if more females were heading the campaign companies, and the mobile companies. Instead there are a bunch of middle-aged males, who think that making a phone in a pink version is enough to sell it to the female market. I’m telling you now, you’re wrong.

Not every female likes pink, and I’m the first to put my hands up to this, I hate the colour. There are some who do like pink, and I’m also sure there are some who are happy with their limited choice in over priced mobile telecommunications; but I’m not.

I’m not going to pretend I have all the answers here, and so I’m not going to offer any ideas or suggestions. I want the mobile companies to do that. Next year I want to be surprised by the innovation in the mobile industry, mobile phones that are equally likeable to male and females, and ones which maybe are specifically gender orientated, but don’t use pink to highlight this.

“Nokia expects the mobile device market to decline in value in Euro terms in 2008, compared to 2007. The change from our previous estimate of value growth for this market primarily reflects the negative impact of the recently weakened US dollar, the general economic slowdown in the US, and possibly going forward some economic slowdown in Europe,” the company said, and added that average selling price is expected to go down too.

There’s also discussions on how rising food prices will affect Nokia’s performance in emerging markets. According to Business Week, Nokia’s CEO said the chance there will be a knock on effect is “pretty remote. The mobile phone is a necessity item”. That sounds somewhat on the optimistic side to me, unless Nokia’s next line comes with Bluetooth, a two megapixel camera and a few loaves of free bread.

Kyte’s business model is all about distributing mobile and online video to destinations including phones, social networks and blogs for viral marketing campaigns. It’s currently being used by music industry figures like 50 Cent to distribute video to fans, who can then interact with the content by way of Kyte Player on their PC or, if they’re on a mobile, through the iPhone-optimised Kyte Mobile Web.

If Kyte’s backers are anything to go by – Telefónica, Nokia Growth Partners, DoCoMo Capital and Swisscom to name a few – the company’s video broadcasting will go down well with the operators.