June

HTC quarterly profits improve by a third, beat even its own lofty expectations

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/06/htc-quarterly-profits-improve-by-a-third-beat-even-its-own-loft/

10x07063kh4vb64v HTC quarterly profits improve by a third, beat even its own lofty expectations

We were impressed with HTC back in April when it forecast a record $1.6 billion revenue for itself over the second quarter, but lo and behold, the Taiwanese superphone maker has gone and outdone that with a $1.88 billion income over the period between April and June. Reporting a very solid 33 percent improvement in profits year-on-year — $268 million versus $202 million 12 months ago — the company points to strong sales (no doubt catalyzed by Android‘s growing popularity) as the chief culprit for its newly increased tax bill. Guess that shows that having a wide catalog of high-end devices doesn’t preclude raking in the cash, provided they’re all desirable enough to garner mind and market share.

HTC quarterly profits improve by a third, beat even its own lofty expectations originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 06 Jul 2010 06:19:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  post label source HTC quarterly profits improve by a third, beat even its own lofty expectationsWall Street Journal  | Email this | Comments

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010 news No Comments

Apple sells 1.7 million iPhone 4s through Saturday, June 26

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/28/apple-sells-1-7-million-iphone-4s-through-satruday-june-26/

10x0626oub23532aa Apple sells 1.7 million iPhone 4s through Saturday, June 26

There you have it. 600,000 pre-orders turned into 1.7 million iPhone 4 sales through this Saturday — the Sunday transactions haven’t even been tallied up yet. One more reason for Steve and company to look smug. That eclipses the 3GS’ already phenomenal 1 million units sold over a weekend, and stands pretty much head and shoulders above any other launch the mobile world has yet seen.

Continue reading Apple sells 1.7 million iPhone 4s through Saturday, June 26

Apple sells 1.7 million iPhone 4s through Saturday, June 26 originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:34:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 28th, 2010 news No Comments

Microsoft Is Still Huge

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5573995/microsoft-would-like-to-remind-you-that-theyre-still-quite-ginormous

Sure, Microsoft may have given away its lead and legacy in mobile and probably jumped into too many hyper-competitive sectors, but they still have the widest reach in technology. And they’re still pretty damn successful.

In recent years, Microsoft may be a step or two behind, but they’re relevant in nearly every sector. And with Office 2010, a new Xbox 360, Kinect, and perhaps most importantly, Windows Phone 7, all receiving substantial upgrades this year, 2010 is shaping up to be absolutely huge for them. And that’s coming off a 2009 where Windows 7, Bing and the Zune HD were introduced. We’re just so used to Microsoft being around that we sort of take them for granted for all the good that they do.

So Microsoft revealed some numbers to serve as a reminder:

• 150 million Windows 7 licenses sold

• 7.1 million projected iPad sales in 2010
• 58 million projected netbook sales in 2010
• 355 million projected PC sales in 2010

• less than 10% of US netbooks ran Windows in 2008
• 96% of US netbooks ran Windows in 2009

• 16 million subscribers to the largest 25 US daily newspapers
• 14 million Netflix subscribers
• 23 million Xbox live subscribers

• 173 million Gmail users
• 284 million Yahoo Mail users
• 360 million Windows Live Hotmail users

• $5.7 billion Apple net income for fiscal year ending in Sept 2009
• $6.5 billion Google net income for fiscal year ending in Dec 2009
• $14.5 billion Microsoft net income for fiscal year ending in June 2009

Yes, they’re patting themselves on the back a bit but the numbers are just staggering. If you’ve forgotten, now you know: Microsoft will always be a very, very big deal. [Official Microsoft Blog via Bits]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, June 27th, 2010 news No Comments

TV Ad Revenues Drop 12% Online ad revenues grew 8% from 2008 to 2009

With the greater efficiencies of digital, the overall “pie” will shrink because fewer dollars are needed to achieve the same effect. In other terms — for every DOLLAR pulled out of traditional and general advertising, 20 – 50 CENTS is put back into “digital” channels and tactics. Thus the overall pie will continue to shrink while some parts grow and other parts shrink dramatically.

wasted ad dollars TV Ad Revenues Drop 12% Online ad revenues grew 8% from 2008 to 2009

Source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/print/magazine-ad-revenues-pages-fall-in-q1-2010-12574

pib logo2 TV Ad Revenues Drop 12% Online ad revenues grew 8% from 2008 to 2009

Ad pages also declined in Q1 2010 compared to Q1 2009, falling 9.4%, according to the Publishers Information Bureau (PIB).

Source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/tv-ad-revenues-drop-12-12613/yankeegroup-media-averages-apr-2010jpg/

yankee group logo TV Ad Revenues Drop 12% Online ad revenues grew 8% from 2008 to 2009

Total US TV and online advertising revenues dropped 12% in 2009, although online revenues independently grew, according to research from The Yankee Group.

TV Revenue Decline Worse than Expected
In 2009, the total US TV and online advertising market totaled $67 billion, compared to $77 billion in 2008. TV advertising, by far the largest portion of this combined market, was hit especially hard by reductions in spending during 2009.

The TV ad market declined 21.2%, from $52 billion to $41 billion, between 2008 and 2009. This was significantly more than the 4% (or roughly $2.1 billion) decline The Yankee Group originally forecast in June 2009. As highlighted below, a shift in consumer attention primarily drove the steep decline in the TV ad market.

TV’s Loss is Internet’s Gain
Internet advertising grew during 2009, as a result of consumers spending more time online and less time watching TV. Online ad revenues grew 8.3% between 2008, when they totaled $24 billion, and 2009, when they totaled $26 billion.

yankeegroup media averages apr 2010 TV Ad Revenues Drop 12% Online ad revenues grew 8% from 2008 to 2009

Media Consumption Dwindles
The total amount of time consumers spent on media per day actually declined 14.3% between 2008 and 2009. Consumers spent about 14 hours per day on media in 2008, but only 12 hours per day in 2009. Most of the decline in media consumption was represented by declining TV viewership.

Americans spent an average of three hours and 17 minutes per day consuming TV and video in 2009, compared to an average of four hours and 13 minutes a day consuming online content. In addition, average daily mobile phone use reached one hour and 18 minutes. Thus Yankee Group advises marketers and advertisers to increase their focus on online and mobile promotions.

Annual US Ad Spending Falls 12.3%
Total US advertising expenditures (including print, radio, outdoor and free standing inserts) fell 12.3% in 2009, to $125.3 billion, as compared to 2008, according to Kantar Media.

Some of Kantar’s findings echo findings from the Yankee Group. Internet display advertising expenditures increased 7.3% for the year, aided by sharply higher spending from the telecom, factory auto and travel categories. Meanwhile, spot TV advertising fell 23.7%, Spanish language TV advertising dropped 8.9%, network TV fell advertising 7.6%, and cable TV advertising only fell 1.4%.

About the Data: Statistics are taken from the updated Yankee Group “2009 Anywhere Advertising Forecast.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 15th, 2010 news, statistics 1 Comment

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/Jp9ZubAuXTE/dude-drops-his-kindle-2-convinces-amazon-to-replace-it-and-pay-him-200-for-his-troubles

500x kindle lines2 Behold, the power of a scary-sounding letter from a lawyer! Paul dropped his Kindle 2 and it broke. Amazon wanted $200 to replace it. Instead, they replaced it and gave him an additional $200. Damn, son!

Seriously, how badass is this letter he sent to Amazon?

Paul Gowder
[Address omitted]

August 12, 2009

Amazon.com Inc.
Legal Department
1200 12th Avenue South
Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98144-2734

Dear Sir or Madam:

On June 21, 2009, I purchased an Kindle 2 e-book reader from the Amazon.com website. I purchased this device based, in substantial part, on the expectation that it would be reasonably durable. In particular, I expected that it would be approximately as durable as is ordinary in the consumer electronics market.

Amazon.com advertises the Kindle 2 on the basis of its durability. Notably, Amazon.com displays a “drop test” video on the web page for this product. That video displays the device being dropped twice from thirty inches onto what appears to be tile. That video displays a fall with sufficient force that the device visibly bounces, and deliberately creates the impression that the device will function after impacts similar to that sequence of drops.

Despite those representations, the Kindle 2 is far less durable. On July 26, 2009, I dropped a messenger bag containing the device onto the sidewalk, from approximately two feet above the ground. It was dropped only once, and the messenger bag absorbed enough of the shock that nothing else in the bag, including a Macbook laptop, suffered an! y damage whatsoever. (Unlike the drop displayed in Amazon.com’s video, for example, nothing actually bounced.) Moreover, there was no visible damage on the exterior of the Kindle 2. Nonetheless, the Kindle 2 became completely unusable, with over 50% of its screen no longer able to display any text.

I called Amazon.com support and was told that, because of the accidental drop, you would not be willing to supply a replacement device under warranty. You did, however, offer to sell a new device at a discount, for $200.00. I took advantage of that offer under protest, and explicitly reserved my rights to bring a claim against you based on the unreasonable fragility of the device and the misrepresentations in your advertising. It is that claim that forms the subject of this letter.

I am prepared to offer an immediate settlement of my claims against Amazon.com for a payment of $400.00. That sum represents the $200.00 replacement fee I paid plus $200.00 to compensate me for the diminution of utility and value of the device as well as of the e-books I have purchased for that device, in light of the fact that the replacement device, too, can be expected to be far more fragile than advertised and prone to destruction under the slightest stress. This offer expires thirty days from your receipt of this letter. If you do not accept this offer, I intend to bring suit either individually, or, if I decide it is warranted, as representative for a class of similarly situated plaintiffs. At that time, I will seek the amount noted above, plus punitive damages under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code §1750 et. seq., costs, fees, and such other monetary damages as provided for by law, including without limitation Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et. seq., the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and other relevant law.

Also, you have demanded the return of the broken device as a condition to the unreasonable discounted replacement offer which I accept! ed under protest. Your agent has informed me that you will charge my credit card for the full price if the broken device is not returned to you. I am considering seeking a protective order placing that device in the custody of the Court pending litigation. However, should I instead return the device, you are hereby notified that it is evidence in the anticipated litigation to which this letter refers. Should you modify, destroy, or resell the broken device, I will ask the Court to treat that as deliberate spoliation of evidence and make adverse inferences as appropriate.

Very truly yours,

Paul Gowder

And here’s Amazon’s response:
500x amazonuncle Pretty awesome. Just goes to show that if you put your somewhat-unreasonable request in an official-looking form and also threaten to sue, big companies will be happy to toss a token amount of money your way to make you go away. [Consumerist]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

Google Grows, Yahoo & Bing Decline

Source: http://feeds.marketingcharts.com/~r/marketingcharts/~3/eGi2lbpaZDQ/

Google accounted for 71.08% of all US searches conducted in the four weeks ending Oct. 3, 2009, while Yahoo Search, Bing and Ask.com received 16.38%, 8.96% and 2.56%, respectively, according to an analysis by Experian Hitwise.

Despite a significant challenge from Bing since the alternative search engine’s introduction in June, Google’s share of search increased [...]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/marketingcharts/~4/eGi2lbpaZDQ" height="1" width="1"/>

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 10th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

Bing is bigger than CNN, Digg, Twitter? Not so fast!

Compete shows that Bing’s unique users in June 09 is bigger than Twitter, CNN, and Digg.

This is not because people are voluntarily going to Bing.com.  It is because Microsoft redirected all traffic from live.com and search traffic (results pages) from msn.com to bing.com.

bing twitter cnn digg unique visitors Bing is bigger than CNN, Digg, Twitter? Not so fast!

This is what it looks like when a site changes domain names and redirects all rtraffic from the old site.  By next month Compete will show the same “X” for Live.com vs Bing.com

dailymakeover makeoversolutions unique visitors Bing is bigger than CNN, Digg, Twitter? Not so fast!

Already starting to see the decline of traffic from live.com which is entirely redirected to bing.com

live search vs bing unique visitors Bing is bigger than CNN, Digg, Twitter? Not so fast!

bing compete Bing is bigger than CNN, Digg, Twitter? Not so fast!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 9th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

What is Web 3.0? Characteristics of Web 3.0

2009 06 16 What Is Web 3.0

2009 06 16 What Is Web 3.0 – Presentation Transcript

  1. What is Web 3.0? Dr. Augustine Fou June 16, 2009. June 16, 2009.
  2. Evolution of the Internet microprocessor 40 yrs 10 yrs 20 yrs 5 yrs present web internet 2.5 yrs social networks e-commerce 1.5 yrs Web 1.0 Web 2.0 Web 3.0? June 16, 2009.
  3. Evolution of the “Web” content commerce search social networks social content social search social commerce As each stage reaches critical mass, the next stage is tipped into present June 16, 2009.
  4. Key Characteristics present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • Speedy
    • more timely information and more efficient tools to find information
    • Collaborative
    • actions of users amass, police, and prioritize content
    • Trust-worthy
    • users establish trust networks and hone trust radars
    • Content
    • content destination sites and personal portals
    • Search
    • critical mass of content drives need for search engines
    • Commerce
    • commerce goes mainstream; digital goods rise
    • Ubiquitous
    • available at any time, anywhere, through any channel or device
    • Individualized
    • filtered and shared by friends or trust networks
    • Efficient
    • relevant and contextual information findable instantly

June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – retail/shopping present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • what friends bought or want to buy
    • drag-to-share items which friends know friends are looking for
    • item collections
    • value in the aggregation

overstock.com amazon.com FB app: MyFaveThings

    • contextual reviews
    • reviews of reviews
    • what others bought
    • individualized recommendations

June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – social networks present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • aggregates all your online identities
    • syndicates all your updates to all social networks
    • social actions visible to friends
    • trust networks across geography, time, and interests
    • collection of personal homepages

geocities.com facebook.com peoplebrowsr.com June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – restaurant reviews present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • Yelp content vetted through a user’s trust network and individual recommendations made based on situation and need, in real-time
    • user submitted reviews
    • related items based on similarity of user preferences
    • infrequent publication
    • centralized editorial control

zagat‘s yelp need reco for great Italian + GPS + Yelp 5-star Babbo, been there, love it June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – photos present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • real-time, contextual “do you like this knit shirt?”
    • friends give immediate feedback
    • share photos with friends and strangers
    • enable visitors to tag and comment
    • individual albums

kodakgallery.com flickr.com ? June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – real estate present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • information vetted by fellow users, recommended directly an in context
    • listings plus relevant information like school zones, comparable sales, alerts
    • listings based on parameters

corcoran.com streeteasy.com trulia iphone app June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – encyclopedia present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • content is ubiquitous and available through any channel or device
    • trust network proactively forwards relevant info to user who needs it
    • created, updated, and edited (policed) by user actions
    • digitized version of printed encyclopedia

britannica.com wikipedia.com chacha.com June 16, 2009.

  1. Illustrative Examples – online coupons present web 1.0 web 2.0 web 3.0
    • coupons delivered contextually and proactively when user needs it (without the user even asking for it)
    • instant feedback
    • community action makes it more accurate and useful for others
    • collection of online coupons – value in the aggregation

dealcatcher.com retailmenot.com June 16, 2009.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,