Posted byHarry McCracken on April 6, 2009 at 9:58 am
I’m happy to report that Technologizer is helping Modern Media plan TWTRCON SF 09, a conference on how businesses can join the world of Twitter to make their customers happier, at San Francisco’s Hotel Nikko on May 31st. I’m happy about it because I think it’s a good idea–and I think it’s a good idea because…well, it was my idea.
Among the confirmed TWTRCON speakers are Porter Gale of Virgin America, Seth Greenberg of Intuit, DanceJam founder MC Hammer, Twitterville author Shel Israel, Silicon Valley renaissance man Dave McClure, and PR blogger Steve Rubel. The event is cohosted by Gina Smith and Modern Media’s Tonia Ries. And I’ll be there too, providing the official Twitter feed of the day’s doings.
I’m looking forward to attending the event, sharing ideas, meeting people, and–most of all–learning from it. If you’re going to be there, lemme know. And you can keep tabs on news about the conferencing by following @TWTRCON at Twitter.
T-Mobile has been one of Google’s biggest supporters in the US when it comes to Android. Confidential documents obtained by the New York Times indicate that the carrier plans to take that partnership even further with at least two new devices due to launch in 2010.
The first of the two would be a home phone unit that would plug into a docking station and would have some type of additional device for data synchronization. It sounds very similar to the Hub that Verizon Wireless has begun selling recently.
As for the tablet, it is said to be a 7-inch device without a keyboard. While it’s exact specs are not known, it would likely act much like the netbooks that have seen increasing popularity in recent months.
Spokesperson Peter Dobrow would not confirm the report, but did share that the company plans to release “several” Android devices in the future. It will be interesting to see if T-Mobile’s gamble on Android pays off, if/when the OS takes off.
Posted byHarry McCracken on April 6, 2009 at 12:22 am
Over in the comments on my post about Microsoft’s new “Giampaolo ad,” blogger/Microsoft employee Bob Caswell asked me how I’d market Windows. I didn’t give a full-blown answer–hey, I’m grateful that it’s not my problem. I was, however, inspired to pose the same question to my pals over on Twitter (where I’m @harrymccracken and a feed of all Technologizer stories is available at @technologizer). After the jump, you can see what they (and a Facebook friend or three) had to say. Continue Reading →
Posted byHarry McCracken on April 5, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Can we all agree that it’s always a bad idea to mistake advertising for rational discourse? Axe deodorant won’t cause armies of gorgeous women to throw themselves at your feet. I know of no evidence that cows who live in California are any happier than those in other states, nor that their mood impacts the quality of their milk. Cigarette companies would still be claiming that their products were good for your throat if they could get away with it. After thirty years, I’m still unclear about the benefits of being a Pepper. That’s all fine. (Okay, not the part about the cigarette ads.)
The format of the commercial is the same as the “Lauren” one–Microsoft tells Giampaolo that if he finds a laptop that meets his needs, it will pay for it. He wants something with portability, battery life, and power, and brags about his “technical savvy.” He comes across a MacBook and says it’s “so sexy” but then dismisses Macs as being about aesthetics, and says he doesn’t want to pay for a brand. (He may have been chatting with Steve Ballmer, who recently advanced the similar theory that there’s a $500 price premium for Macs based on the logo alone.)
Ultimately, like Lauren, he decides on an HP–the HDX X16, which sells for $1099. I’m not sure if HP should be happy that both of Microsoft’s laptop hunters end up choosing its wares, or ticked off that Giampaolo, especially, seems to be implying that HP computers aren’t as aesthetically pleasing as Macs, and the HP brand isn’t something that people value enough to pay extra for.
Once again, there’s a reasonable message here: Windows PCs offer far more choices than Macs, and it’s possible to get a Windows machine with a lot of features for far less money than the cheapest Macs. (Although Giampaolo, who ranked battery life as one of his key criteria, may be disappointed by the HDX X16–Laptop’s review says it has subpar battery performance.)
Even more than Lauren’s laptop quest, Giampaolo’s boils down to speeds and feeds: He runs around the electronics store (a Fry’s, by the way) talking about clockspeeds and hard drive capacities, and a salesperson talks about discrete graphics with 512MB of memory. Lots of people buy computers this way, and when they’re out to get the biggest numbers for the lowest price, a low-cost Windows computer will always beat the cheapest Mac. Always.
But the weird thing to me about these ads is this: They never mention Windows or argue that the presence of Windows on a computer is a selling point. Instead, they treat the OS as being pretty much irrelevant to the buying decision. That’s how they can get away with suggesting that the price of Macs is all about wasteful cool factor: If you treat the OS as a boring commodity, you can neatly sidestep addressing how Windows Vista compares to OS X. Whether it’s easier to use or less so; whether it has more annoyances or fewer of them; whether security is a bigger issue or less of one; whether the bundled applications are better or worse. And so on. The questions, in other words, that most sharply define the differences between Windows PCs and Macs.
I also still can’t quite understand why Microsoft’s ad campaign harps on the notion that Windows PCs provide more variety at lower price points than Macs. It’s pretty much self apparent to anyone who’s ever stepped foot in a store that sells computers, and it’s in large part responsible for Windows’ giant market share and Apple’s small one. I keep coming back to variations on this metaphor, but it’s kind of as if Chevy ran ads showing economy-minded car shoppers choosing a Cobalt or Malibu over an Audi Q5 or A6. The folks in the ads would be making the right decisions for them. But you gotta wonder how many actual people in the real world there are whose buying decisions would be affected by the comparison.
Several of our readers have confused our previous coverage of the CWA/AT&T contract ratification with what is going on with another CWA/AT&T spat, this one having to do with wireline workers. It now appears that if a deal cannot be reached here, these workers may strike as early as Sunday.
88 percent of union members have voted to authorize a strike, which would affect AT&T East, AT&T Midwest, AT&T Southwest, AT&T West and AT&T Legacy, a nationwide unit.
Another division, AT&T Southeast, would not strike as their contract expires on August 8. However, the union has lumped negotitations for that contract with the those that are set to expire.
CWA Executive Vice President Annie Hill said that negotiations are ongoing, however prodded AT&T management to “get serious” if they wanted a deal before the expiration date.
Hill pointed to the company’s success even in this recessionary environment as reason enough for it to agree to the union’s demands. At issue are health care cuts, and access to higher-tech jobs for current workers.
While the union is talking bad, let me remind everybody the CWA reps for the AT&T Mobility negotitations were doing the same. So, it very well could be that workers may do business as usual under the old contract while the two sides continue negotiating.
AT&T customers can expect degraded technical support and repair service during any strike, and it may be problematic to start new service. In a strike, typically companies will focus first on existing customers before attempting to take on new ones.
You have problems, I have answers, and that’s what I’m tackling in this week’s story: Two of your gnarly issues.
I can see you now, quickly composing a message with your long-repressed computing crisis. Don’t start hyperventilating. I gave up answering e-mailed PC troubleshooting questions years ago. However, some computing hassles, aka kvetches, are broad enough to benefit everyone seeing the solution. BTW, if you do write, I’ll definitely read the missive. Worst case, you’ll get my best personalized boilerplate response (an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one).
Wired has an interesting feature on MySpace Music, which was supposed to be a boon for the music industry when it launched a half year ago. Free streaming music from all four major record labels and support for playlists seemed like a good idea.
Unfortunately, the service had some serious usability issues, such as limits on playlist size and a slow music player, and the song selection wasn’t comprehensive. Courtney Holt, who stepped in to lead MySpace Music in January, three months after launch, is candid about the problems in his chat with Wired, calling the original service “plumbing and a playlist.” He covers similar ground as he did in a New York Times Bits interview from March, when the service started adding new features and improving the interface. Perhaps Holt is trying to get the word out that MySpace Music isn’t all bad anymore.
And for a free service, it could be worse. The ability to search for bands and build playlists directly from the results is nice, and I like the pop-out player. I’m wondering why playlist management is stunted — it can’t be done in real-time and new songs add themselves to the top of the list, rather than the bottom — but as a tool for discovering new music, it’s functional enough. Links to the Amazon MP3 download for each song are enticing, too.
Holt is also looking to “bring back the album,” as Wired puts it. Entire pages will be dedicated to individual albums, packed with bonus features and a forum for fans to discuss the music. With greater support for indie bands, MySpace Music is starting to look pretty robust.
If I were the record labels, I’d be looking to duplicate this service on other social networks. Design-wise, I’ve always found MySpace to be sloppy, and that’s keeping me away more than the content or the way it’s managed. Obviously adding streaming music to my network of choice (Facebook) can’t happen overnight, but I’d much rather get two dozen streaming track recommendations from friends than read 25 of their obscure personal details.
Posted byDavid Worthington on April 3, 2009 at 4:39 pm
International financial services company Credit Suisse has burst Google’s bubble: Its analysts report that YouTube could be on track to lose $470 million this year due to outrageously high operating costs and a poor business plan.
Credit Suisse estimates that YouTube has a gross income of $240 million a year, but that its expenses far exceed that, totalling an astonishing $711 million. According to the report, about half of YouTube’s expenses come from meeting bandwidth demand, while the remainder derives from licensing costs, hardware, marketing, and other operational expenses.
The analysts determined YouTube’s bandwidth costs by assuming that 375 million unique visitors would visit the site in 2009, with 20 percent of those users consuming 400 kilobits per second of video at any given time. That works out to 30 million megabits being served up per second. That’s a heck of a lot of bandwidth to devote to videos of sneezing pandas.
However, Credit Suisse’s revenue forecast deviates from other reports. In March, Jefferies Co. said that YouTube would earn $500 million, and Screen Digest predicted $120 million in earnings earlier this week.
The Credit Suisse analysts’ proposed path to profitability is for Google to change YouTube’s business model to place an emphasis on premium content over user-generated content–like Hulu. NewTeeVee, a blog dedicated to online digital media, reported that Google is poised to unveil a site redesign that will do just that.
That would be the end of YouTube as we known it, but we are living in a new economic reality. YouTube built its business without ever having any viable way to become profitable in the short term, and it cannot continue to lose money just because its users are accustomed to receiving free entertainment. That just does not cut it anymore– shareholders won’t tolerate white elephants forever. Even Google shareholders.
I’m happy to report that Technologizer is helping Modern Media plan TWTRCON SF 09, a conference on how businesses can join the world of Twitter to make their customers happier, at San Francisco’s Hotel Nikko on May 31st. I’m happy about it because I think it’s a good idea–and I think it’s a good idea because…well, it was my idea.
T-Mobile has been one of Google’s biggest supporters in the US when it comes to Android. Confidential documents obtained by the New York Times indicate that the carrier plans to take that partnership even further with at least 
It’s baseball season, everybody! Finally!
Over in the comments on my post about Microsoft’s new “Giampaolo ad,” 
Can we all agree that it’s always a bad idea to mistake advertising for rational discourse? Axe deodorant won’t cause 
You have problems, I have answers, and that’s what I’m tackling in this week’s story: Two of your gnarly issues.
Wired has an 
International financial services company Credit Suisse has burst Google’s bubble: Its analysts report that YouTube could be on track to