Recently I participated in a fun panel discussion on the Apple TV – what you can do with it now, and what might be next for Apple’s interesting hobby.
While everyone seems to be focused on iOS style apps or gaming as the obvious next step for the Apple TV, I actually think that what’s up next is getting the TV shows people love onto the platform faster without Apple first having to partner with our traditional broadcast channels. After that, it’s anyone guess, but I’m thinking what’s known as Smart Home style services is a greater opportunity than, for example, connecting bluetooth chipped cats.
Let me know what you think!
I grew up on a Rodgers and Hammerstein song being churned out by others and I, few of us who could sing. When I woke up this morning to catch up on yesterday’s Liverpool game, I watched citizens of the same country as those great Songwriters watch on as You’ll never walk alone Continue reading
I just read an excellent Article from Andy Green in the Guardian on the economics of Football clubs. Both he and David Conn have done a great job in exploring the failures of the recent takeovers of Football clubs in England.
Andy Green does however lend an ear to one salient point, which he then neglects to expand upon.
Such deals have proved a tragedy for English football as they have replaced community and success on the pitch as the priorities for clubs with the pursuit of profit.
Football clubs are not like traditional businesses, Continue reading
Sometimes you read articles which present such multifaceted arguments many of which are accurate and indeed entirely logical, but intersperse them with fables, exaggerations and stretched logic in order to support an argument.
I used to think I was neither an expert nor a strategist. And while I’m slightly one-eyed in the tech stakes, I’m now officially putting my hand up as an expert strategist. Lets see if you think my logic is as…logical…as Brandt Dainow’s.
Brandt started his article rather sensibly, so I was kind of confused by John Gruber was so sarcastic about his view. Then I read this;
…smartphones are subject to the multi-layered business model common to all computers. Technology manufacturers, such as Nokia and Samsung, build the physical hardware. Above them we have the providers of operating systems, of whom the major players are Apple, Google, and Microsoft.
Now, as I wrote above, I’m not an expert, especially not in Mobile. But even to the uninitiated, there is so much wrong with this statement, and following that the bulk of the rest of the article.
Lets start with the statement above;
- Nokia build an OS.
- Actually Nokia build/licence TWO OS’s – Symbian and Meego
- Apple are not an OS provider. exhibit 1: iPhone…yes they are, and continue to be a HARDWARE company.
- Microsoft are Continue reading
Yesterday I read a most excellent post on Facebook Privacy in Techcrunch by the ever interesting Paul Carr.
However I felt it was missing something. A reason why some of us might actually have a good reason to be Whiny, Entitled Dipshits
I think it’s best illustrated by the following Analogy;
Facebook is like the Mate who borrowed your records back in the 80’s and 90’s
You assumed that they would tape them, but it was unsaid.
What you didn’t think is they would sell your Records, give you back the Tape AND report you to the Home Taping is killing music people while they were at it.
For Illustrative purposes, here is a relative look at Google using a similar analogy;
They told you they’d sell the record on your behalf to make you money
They also told you that you wouldn’t want to keep the original anyway because the Cassette was “just as good quality”
Apple released the iPad in the US about a month ago and they have this week announced they already have sold more than 1 million devices. But what impact is that going to have on the iPhone, and have they factored it into their planning?
John Gruber points out that Newton sold just 200,000 in its ENTIRE lifespan, which means that despite the protestation of the envious geeks who just wish they could play with their toys how they like on an embedded device (just as they can on a Cable TV Box for example), it’s already successful.
Though, as I protested over at Delimiter yesterday, success in Business Terms is defined by Continue reading
*Updated version of a post originally published in August 2009 at You Want an Opinion?
Apparently a company called Techradium is suing Twitter (read about it at the Inquistr and ARN) I read it with a mixture of concern and contempt.
Concern because, even though Twitter often makes me feel shortchanged, I use it on a daily basis. It has become the ONLY way I communicate with some people and it has allowed me to meet a huge number of great people along the way.
Contempt because, as I wrote as a comment on the ARN site;
Someone has done something better in an open way, which beats what someone else has done. That’s called capitalism…if you haven’t monetised your system already and made it essential, shut up shop and move on
So with respect to Techradium, and without deepdiving into the specific Patent, I almost wish they would ‘go away’. Continue reading
My good friend Karalee Evans has just published an article for me over on her Blog about PR and Marketing. I like what I wrote and I’m stoked that Karalee wanted to pick it up.
I was at Media in the Pub last night mainly because I was interested in the debate advertised, but also because I’m hitting up on this writing lark again. It was an interesting and interested crowd, and the Speakers didn’t repeat themselves (too much) during the presentations and following debate. Which I felt was one of the failures of the recent Media 140 conference.
Unfortunately, at the end of the debate I still had the ongoing feeling that no one is being very radical at all in their suggestions. More detail of what was suggested by the panelists can be found over here at Mumbrella (with some interesting comments to boot), and while some of them seem logical and some touching on the interesting, I was disappointed that nothing revolutionary came out.
So while we are waiting for the rad new thing to take over (and no it isn’t Microsoft paying News Limited to Index their sites and block Google), I have my own observations on the subject;
- There needs to be an acceptance that ‘news’ and ‘journalism’ has pretty much always been funded by Advertising
- Take the Times of London until 1966 as an example or indeed every newspaper up until the recent past filling their front pages with advertising (and see it return recently)
- People and Businesses will always want to advertise their products and services
- Those people who wish to advertise know that news or interesting content will always attract eyeballs
- Give the Advertisers a reasonable number of return eyeballs and they will spend their money with you
- At present ‘old’ media is losing those eyeballs, but online and other ‘new’ media has yet to prove it has the recurring eyeballs
- And while they are doing that, newspapers and magazines can continue to overvalue the advertising space they offer
- However a tipping point is approaching and I think as well as ‘Media Owners‘, most journos know this and rightly fear for their future in this ‘inbetween’ time
In summary, advertisers will still want to Advertise somewhere, news will still be created and reported on, all that is changing is the delivery vehicle. So does the Business Model REALLY need to change?