environment
Source: http://gizmodo.com/5582559/osmos-for-ipad-ambient-gaming-tailor+made-for-the-tablet
When the iPad was unveiled and I started to imagine the types of games a 9″ touch screen might engender, I envisioned gorgeous, intuitive and, above all, immersive experiences. Osmos for iPad is one of the best I’ve found yet.
The game, which is adapted from a well-regarded PC version and costs $5 in the App Store, puts you in control of a tiny blue organism, a mote, which you direct around the screen, growing in size as you absorb the smaller blobs around you. Of course, all sorts of challenges, including bigger motes trying to absorb you, complicate that mission.
But what’s really special about Osmos is the experience of controlling that game play. Tapping behind your mote scoots him around the screen, predictably, but at any time you can pinch to zoom in or out, allowing you to navigate a tight passage or survey the level at a distance. Additionally, you can swipe with one finger to alter time—drag left and all the motes slow to a crawl, drag right and they shoot around like bouncy balls. Different speeds and levels of zoom have situations in which they’re uniquely useful, and these elegant controls are the perfect complement to the game’s polished visuals.
Osmos teaches you these gestures in early levels, but after that there’s little instruction. You’re given a basic goal and left to your own devices to go about achieving it. Depending on your style, the game play can be rambunctious or meditative, and often it’s both in the course of one level.
There’s not a huge variation in the game play, admittedly, and it’s so engrossing that I imagine most players will zip through the Odyssey track pretty quickly (there’s an arcade mode that lets you play levels one at a time, too). But in some ways this simplicity is the game’s biggest asset, because it allows for a remarkable cohesiveness between all of its elements, from game play and visual style down to the soundtrack and menus. It’s not only a “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” type thing; here, the whole is so dazzlingly packaged that you don’t really think of the “parts” as parts at all.
For me, Osmos on the iPad is an experience first and a game second, and it uses the iPad to achieve game play that would be impossible—or, at least, not nearly as compelling—on any other platform. At its best, the iPad isn’t just an app machine or a gaming device but a portal into some other environment all together, and I hope that developers will follow Osmos’ lead and strive not just to adapt familiar gaming experiences to the tablet but to create new ones for it entirely. [iTunes]
Tags: all sorts, app, arcade, arcade mode, asset, blobs, bouncy, bouncy balls, cohesiveness, complement, control, course, crawl, device, distance, engender, environment, experience, finger, game, game play, gaming, gestures, goal, instruction, iPad, level, machine, mdash, mission, mode, mote, motes, Odyssey, organism, Osmos, passage, Platform, play, Portal, right, screen, simplicity, size, soundtrack, Source, store, style, sum, swipe, Tapping, thing, time, Touch, touch screen, track, type, types of games, variation, version, visual style, visuals, whole
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/05/ios-has-a-bigger-dev-army-than-android-but-will-cross-platform/
We oftentimes hear raw numbers of apps bandied about in mobile OS comparisons, but we rarely get any idea of just how many developers are behind the scenes working for each platform. This is the void of knowledge filled by AppStore HQ today, who have gone to their dev directory — claimed to be a complete listing of all 55,000+ coders whose work is currently available for consumption in the Apple App Store or Android Market — and stacked them into neat piles of Apple, Google and Gapple programmers. It’s immediately apparent that single-platform development is the norm (with Apple holding the predictable edge), but AppStore HQ also provides a list of some of the most well known (and well funded) apps doing the cross-platform dance, and suggests that a movement is afoot toward making software available for both sets of users. Then again, the BNET article below points out the difficulties faced by smaller outfits, who might struggle to find the resources required to port their content over and maintain the skills required to be multi-platform, resulting in them sticking to one environment, irrespective of what allures others might throw their way. Give them both a read, we say.
iOS has a bigger dev army than Android, but will cross-platform apps rule the day? originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 05 Jul 2010 04:17:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink 
VentureBeat | 
AppStore HQ | Email this | Comments
Tags: android, apple, Apple App, apps, AppStore HQ, army, article, BNET, coders, Consumption, content, Dance, day, dev, dev directory, developers, development, directory, EDGE, EDT, email, Engadget, environment, Gapple, google, idea, iOS, Jul, knowledge, list, listing, market, mobile os, Mon, movement, nbsp, norm, outfits, Permalink, piles, Platform, platform development, Port, programmers, raw numbers, Read, software, Source, store, today, use, VentureBeat, void, way, Work
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/symbian-3-reviewed-in-exquisite-and-ruthless-detail-by-eldar-mur/
No folks, those mythical N8 review units still aren’t on our doorsteps, but we can offer you the next best thing: a thorough (we mean thorough) overview of the Symbian^3 environment that will be front and center on Nokia’s next great phone. Eldar Murtazin of mobile-review reports on everything from the sophisticated handling of contacts and caller ID pictures, through the noticeable speed improvements, past the limited utility of online widgets that display only two lines at a time, beyond the “weak spot” web browser, and all the way to Symbian’s unhealthy habit of “clinging to continuity.” It’s an enlightening read, which pulls no punches with its conclusion: Symbian^3 is an evolutionary step up from S60 5th edition, which brings nothing new to the market and offers no comparative advantages. Strong words from Eldar, paricularly when he doesn’t disclose what build of the OS he’s using; his rationale, however, is that his analysis relates to overarching design decisions and ignores software bugs and version-specific foibles. Make of that what you will.
[Thanks, scotsboyuk]
Symbian^3 reviewed in exquisite and ruthless detail by Eldar Murtazin originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:15:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | mobile-review | Email this | Comments
Tags: analysis, browser, caller, caller id, Center, comparative advantages, conclusion, continuity, design, design decisions, detail, display, doorsteps, Edition, EDT, Eldar, email, Engadget, environment, everything, evolutionary step, foibles, front, habit, handling, Jun, market, Murtazin, nbsp, Nokia, nothing, online, overview, Permalink, phone, punches, rationale, Read, review, scotsboyuk, software, software bugs, Source, speed, speed improvements, Spot, step, Symbian, thing, Thu, time, unhealthy habit, use, utility, way, weak spot, Web, web browser, widgets
Getting Back to Basics – Why Web Advertising Needs Traditional Media Metrics
posted Mon, Jul 06 2009
by Young Bean Song MSFT
Trying to build a brand marketing campaign without traditional target reach and Gross Rating Points (GRP) estimates is like trying to diet without the concept of calories. The analogy of dieting and advertising works on many levels.
My response…
RE: “Patty Wakeling, an industry veteran who leads Unilever’s Global Media Insights Group, recently reminded me that in today’s retail environment, the choice between the branded versus the generic option are separated by less than an inch on the shelf. It was a sobering reminder of the power of branding, and why so many companies are willing to spend so much to build their brand equity.” But in the case of Whole Foods’ own store brand, 365, many people perceive it to be better than branded options (or at least equivalent). So they tend to choose to buy the 365 product instead. In other cases, what used to be brand equity/value is now perceived as an undesirable premium. Take another example — the rise and popularity of Trader Joe’s where 80% of the products sold are house brands. Consumers care about the product and its quality and value; consumers no longer care (as much) about the brand that is slapped on the package if the contents inside suck.
A brand used to be a mark or symbol burned onto a cow’s butt to signify what ranch it came from. And if people knew the ranch had a good reputation for raising healthy cows, they would buy the cow. The brand helped simplify the purchase decision. These days, advertisers carefully manicure “brand messages” and shout them at target consumers using various one-way channels such as TV, print, radio, and banner ads. But like Scott Cook, Intuit, said, “A brand is no longer wht we tell the consumer its – its what the consumers tell each other it is.” So branding as we know it (advertisers shouting claims at target customers) is less relevant or even unwanted entirely by modern consumers. And brand equity, which used to be a large, fungible item on the balance sheet (technically known as “good will”) may be far less valuable today. Consumers don’t just take the advertisers’ word for it; they will do their own research and buy what is actually valuable and useful.
Companies that actually develop useful and valueable products or services that consistently deliver on their promise — Apple, Drobo, Zappos, JetBlue, etc. — can even cut out their brand advertsing entirely because their brand IS their consistent delivery on the promise of value and usefulness. For example, has Apple EVER claimed they have awesome design and are easy to use? NEVER! But their products consistently deliver on those 2 attributes. So that’s how modern users would describe Apple’s brand to their friends.
A “brand” is earned over time. “Branding” is no longer a useful activity (and furthermore it is damned expensive — media costs — and ineffective — because it is the advertiser making claims that modern consumers don’t believe, assuming they saw the ad in the first place).
From AdAge — people buying private label, generics, or store brands (quality of which are pretty comparable to name brands)
What do you think?
Tags: advertising, advertising works, analogy, analytics, Apple EVER, Basics, Bean, blogs, brand, brand equity, brand marketing, brand messages, calories, Campaign, case, choice, concept, cow, diet, dieting, environment, equity, equity value, estimates, example, Foods, Global, global media, Gross, gross rating points, Group, GRP, house brands, inch, industry, industry veteran, Joe, Jul, marketing, marketing campaign, Media, media metrics, metrics, Mon, MSFT, option, Patty Wakeling, power, private labels, Product, promise, purchase decision, quality, ranch, Rating, reach, reading, reminder, response, retail environment, Scott Cook, shelf, Song, store, target, target consumers, today, trader joe, Traditional, traditional target, Unilever, value, value consumers, veteran, Web, web advertising, whole foods, Young
in a budget-constrained environment, the best thing an advertiser can do is shift more attention (notice, I didn’t say money) to social marketing and stimulate social actions among target users and customers. While paid media used to just get people to some place (like a website), social marketing is about stimulating social actions — so the people actually do something — share, rate, comment, recommend, etc. These actions lead to an accumulation of value over time such that future visitors will get the benefit of all of the actions that went before (e.g. I only watch the highest rated or most viewed videos on YouTube; I don’t have to wade through and find the good stuff myself). Furthermore, social actions are free to the advertiser — think “advocacy.” When real people carry the message forward to their friends, it is free amplification for the advertiser — social amplification.
Tags: accumulation, advertiser, advocacy, amplification, attention, benefit, budget, digital strategy, environment, good stuff, marketing, message, money, notice, place, rate, real people, share, share rate, shift, social actions, social amplification, social marketing, something, stuff, target, target users, thing, time, value, website, WOM amplification rate, YouTube
The new digital landscape and modern consumers are dramatically different
The new “digital landscape” is dramatically different from the environment into which TV, print, and radio ads were launched no more than two decades ago. Even today’s Web 2.0 environment is different than the Web 1.0 environment of a decade ago. As the Internet led to the more facile accumulation and dissemination of information and as social networks brought even mainstream consumers online, the power of consumers has increased significantly relative to advertisers. For example, they will search for information when they want it and ignore all other forms of interruption media pushed at them. They will look for independent and objective reviews of products or services and distrust brand messages put out by advertisers touting their own virtues. And they will rely on the actions of the community to help them filter and prioritize the best “stuff” from the ocean of available content.
Audience fragmentation caused by the proliferation of niche cable channels (e.g. the fly fishing channel) and abundant online video channels means that ”mass media” is not so
“mass” any more – there are no longer massive audiences tuned into a single television
program at the same time. ”Media” is now two-way or many-to-many – i.e. consumers tend to talk amongst themselves. But many advertisers and their agencies still rely heavily on one-way tactics - pushing a carefully crafted message out at target customers.
Globalization, information proliferation, and socialization have irreversibly changed industries
Other macro forces are also re-shaping the industries, in particular the advertising, marketing, and communications industries.
Globalization means that, for example, coding can be outsourced to India, graphic design to Australia, or television production to Asia, all at a fraction of the cost of “in-house” resources. The wide availability of tools like online photo editing tools (picnic.com), video editing sites (motionbox.com), and even high-end 3D and special effects software (Blender.org) — all of which are open source and free — fuel the perception that such digital capabilities and services should be lower cost, if not free. These trends mean that agencies whose revenues were derived from these services are facing constant downward pricing pressure.
The proliferation of information has also irreversibly changed the perceptions, behaviors, and habits of consumers. The abundance of information online conditions users to search for information and form their own opinions through research. They also expect more detailed information than can be typically delivered through TV, print, or radio ads — e.g. they want to see the product brochure online, do price comparison shopping across dozens of retailers, and read peer and expert reviews before buying. And they will do the above on their own time (e.g. planning a family cruise vacation at 1 am when the kids are asleep), which destroys the concept of targeting using day-part or show content.
The socialization of consumers online means that the conversations that used to happen among a few people around the watercooler are now happening online for all to see. The collective complaints or praises of products and services now become inputs to many other users doing research online before their next purchase. Furthermore not only is the spread of information much faster online, but the impact could also be dramatically larger — for example, 1) by the end of opening weekend, hundreds of user reviews of a movie can immediately determine its fate — a mega hit or a “straight-to-DVD” movie, and 2) the action of a single person who found an unsavory clause in AT&T’s Wireless’ “fine print” and posted it online caused such a community uproar that AT&T made a public statement that it would be removed.
Traditional agencies rely on old business models (and other challenges for traditional agencies)
Despite the new landscape conditions of no more mass media and consumers doing their own research online, many advertisers are still doing traditional advertising. And many of their agencies are still relying on old business models (agency of record) and being paid for production. Creative ideas are still being given away for free during the pitch process; if the pitch is won the agency then gets to bill against production of assets. But freely available tools or production and abundant lower cost producers are causing clients to question costs.
Other challenges plague traditional agencies. All clients want to “go digital;” but digital is seen to be a “bolt on” capability among big agencies and smaller agencies are perceived to be more digitally savvy. Further, ”clients find it hard to know how much digital stuff costs,” says Peter Cowie, Managing Partner of Oyster Catchers, a search consultancy based in London. “Many clients are using in house capability to save costs and retain control.” Cowie continues, “many clients are deeply insecure about digital marketing” partly because of its novelty, but also, practically because of the wide array of new disciplines, including for example, social networking, mobile, gaming, search, analytics, user interface, Flash, AJAX, e-commerce, online ad networks and media buying, etc.
The new digital agency plays the role of a strategic advisor and subject matter expert
So what is the role an agency can and should play in this new landscape? We believe, the role of a strategic advisor to calm clients’ insecurities and ensure a cogent and smooth incorporation of digital. Smaller agencies that grew up in digital may not have the expertise in traditional disciplines nor a global footprint and enough staff to handle large global clients. However, large traditional agencies, with a few key changes to business model, organizational structure, and internal processes will be able to guide clients through the shift towards digital, by changing the marketing mix and ensuring that all channels are integrated, working together, and reinforcing to each other.
These changes may include 1) managing a network of independent specialists (who serve on SWAT teams for client projects) instead of in-house FTEs, to account for the wide variety of new skills and disciplines 2) shifting away from the business model of being paid for production to being paid for managing a network of geographically disperse low-cost providers, and 3) providing thought leadership as subject matter expert in digital disciplines, strategies, and tactics.
Tags: accumulation, advertising, advertising marketing, Agency, amp, Asia, audience, Australia, brand, brand messages, business, cable, capability, com, communications industries, community, content, cost, decade, digital landscape, dissemination, dissemination of information, distrust, editing, environment, example, facile, filter, fly fishing, fragmentation, Globalization, independent, India, information, Internet, interruption, landscape, London, mainstream, mainstream consumers, mass, massmedia, movie, niche, objective, objective reviews, ocean, online, online photo editing tools, Peter Cowie, photo editing, pitch, power, print, prioritize, production, proliferation, radio, radio ads, research, social networks, socialization, stuff, Television, television production, time, today, video, video editing, virtues, Web
When the iPad was unveiled and I started to imagine the types of games a 9″ touch screen might engender, I envisioned gorgeous, intuitive and, above all, immersive experiences. Osmos for iPad is one of the best I’ve found yet.
Recent Articles by Dr. Augustine Fou
