mass

More Evidence That The iPhone 5 Is Going To Have A Very Thin Screen (AAPL)

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/businessinsider/~3/aaZBkjKpEWU/more-evidence-that-the-iphone-5-is-going-to-have-a-very-thin-screen-2012-8

artist render of iphone 5 white

For months, there have been rumors that the next iPhone would have a thinner screen. Several reports have said that Apple’s supply partners were developing a new process called in-cell technology, which integrates touch screen sensors directly into the LCD screen, thereby eliminating a layer from the screen.

Now, we have the biggest proof yet that this is in fact happening.

LG confirmed during a press event on Wednesday that the company is now mass producing new display panels that use this in-cell technology, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“We had some hard times (in developing the new in-cell technology) at first…but it seems those hard times have finally ended,” said Han Sang-beom, LG Display’s CEO, according to The Journal. “The in-cell technology is the industry’s latest development. (But) we will be able to supply the panels without any fail.”

LG has supplied display panels for Apple products in the past, and previous reports claimed that LG would be one of several companies producing the new thinner screens for the next iPhone. Given that LG’s announcement comes just a couple weeks before Apple is expected to unveil the next iPhone, it seems a pret! ty safe bet that the screens are for that.

So, what will a thinner iPhone screen actually mean for users? Two things, probably:

  • A thinner phone, overall.
  • A more expensive repair, if the screen breaks. That’s because the touch sensors will be built into the glass. If you crack an iPhone 4 screen, you can keep using your phone. That probably won’t be the case with the iPhone 5.

A thinner screen may also make more room for a bigger battery.

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

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

Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 news No Comments

Reed Hastings’ Netflix spinoff isn’t about DVD success, it’s about hedging the stream

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/19/editorial-reed-hastings-netflix-spinoff-isnt-about-dvd-succes/

If you’ve just casually glanced over the mass reactions to Reed Hastings’ decision to split the DVD-by-mail business of Netflix into its own brand and company, you’ve probably been duped into thinking that it’s the second questionable move that the world’s most famed movie delivery service has made this year. But is it? Is a man who turned a red envelope into a symbol of near-immediate gratification really a moron? Did he really just bury the company he worked tirelessly to create? I highly, highly doubt it. Knee-jerk reactions are always fun to watch, but they’re rarely on-point. As with most things in life, the truth usually resides somewhere in betwixt the extremes. And in the case of Qwikster — the DVD-by-mail service that precisely no one asked for — the truth is hiding in exactly the place that Reed said it’d be: the future.

Continue reading Editorial: Reed Hastings’ Netflix spinoff isn’t about DVD success, it’s about hedging the stream

Editorial: Reed Hastings’ Netflix spinoff isn’t about DVD success, it’s about hedging the stream originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 19 Sep 2011 02:19:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |   | Email this | Comments


drag2share – drag and drop RSS news items on your email contacts to share (click SEE DEMO)

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

Monday, September 19th, 2011 news No Comments

Supercenters, E-commerce Will Gain CPG Dollar Share

Source: http://feeds.marketingcharts.com/~r/marketingcharts/~3/gSjrzv-Kt6Q/

The mass supercenter and e-commerce retail formats will gain substantial CPG dollar share in the next five years, according to the “Retail 2015 Forecast” from The Nielsen Company.

Mass supercenter, which had a slightly less than 10% dollar share of the CPG retail channel in 2009, will grow its share to about 12% by 2015. E-commerce […]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/marketingcharts/~4/gSjrzv-Kt6Q" height="1" width="1"/>

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

Monday, June 21st, 2010 news No Comments

Made-Up Word Advertising — “Retina Display” — is how Apple Launches New Products

A made-up word “retina display” had every major blog and news outlet scrambling to help explain what it was. Nearly 1.1 Million search results in 19 hours. It was covered on every evening news; look closely at the thousands of related news articles, etc.  And all the major, powerful sites like Gizmodo, MacRumors, Engadget, etc. covered the event.  Similarly 1.2 million search results on the “one more thing” feature — video calling on the iPhone called FaceTime. All entirely free primetime coverage — talk about the tens of millions of impressions achieved with NO media cost — they can definitely used the money saved to ensure Steve Job’s next keynote will have sufficient WiFi bandwidth for all those live blogging the event.

Look at the following graph of relative search volume. The spike in search volume for All-You-Can-Jet (in red) is about 4X higher than the orange line (Footlongs). And the blue line for “retina display”  is 8X. Consider the cost of the paid TV media campaign supporting Subway’s Footlongs compared to the cost savings of the social media launch of JetBlue’s All-You-Can-Jet Pass and the no cost media for Apple.

Of course, not all companies will achieve the same mass coverage, but the techniques for product launches can be the same. Footlongs is an expensive paid media campaign by Subway and note how low the orange line is compared to the TWO no-cost launches.

And one more graph that shows Drobo plus 2 social media success stories — Groupon and FourSquare that even blow away Apple’s retina display — all for FREE.

Other notable examples of using made-up word advertising include JetBlue’s All-you-Can-Jet Pass and Subway’s Footlongs. Further details about JetBlue’s launch of the All-You-Can-Jet Pass is here – http://go-digital.net/blog/2009/08/jetblue-all-you-can-jet-pass/

Earlier unfiltered results on Google within 10 hours of launch — there are 3.9 Million results which will be de-duped overnight.

Day 1 Stats – page 1 position 3 in 44.6 million results

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

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010 Branding, integrated marketing 1 Comment

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

no, twitter will NOT be the next google

Every year around SXSW, there’s a surge in interest about twitter. This time around people have even gone as far as to proclaim twitter to be “the next google” or “the future of search” etc.  Bullocks!

Here’s why:

1) distant from other social networks – While we are seeing a massive surge in interest and usage of twitter, it is still a long way off from the number of users of other social networks; it will take a long time to get to critical mass; and this is a prerequisite for twitter to assail the established habit of the majority of consumers to “google it.” — Google’s already a verb.

2) no business model – It remains to be seen whether Twitter can come up with a business model to survive for the long haul. Ads with search are proven. Ads on social networks are not. And given the 140-character limit, there’s hardly any space to add ads.

3) lead adopters’ perspective is skewed – Twitter is still mostly lead adopters and techies so far; so the perspectives on its potential may be skewed too positively. As more mainstream users start to use it, we’re likely to see more tweets about nose picking, waking up, making coffee, being bored, etc….  This will quickly make the collective mass of content far less specialized and useful (as it is now).

4) too few friends to matter – Most people have too few friends. Not everyone is a Scott Monty ( @scottmonty ) with nearly 15,000 followers. So while a user’s own circle of friends would be useful for real-time searches like “what restaurant should I go to right now?” the circle is too small to know everything about everything they want to search on. And even if you take it out to a few concentric circles from the original user who asked, that depends on people retweeting your question to their followers and ultimately someone notifying you when the network has arrived at an answer — not likely to happen.

5) topics only interesting to small circle of followers – Most topics tweeted are interesting to only a very small circle of followers, most likely not even to all the followers of a particular person. A great way to see this phenomenon is with twitt(url)y. It measures twitter intensity of a particular story and lists the most tweeted and retweeted stories.  Out of the millions of users and billions of tweets, the top most tweeted stories range in the 100 – 500 tweet range and recently these included March 18 – Apple’s iPhone OS 3.0 preview event; #skittles; and the shutdown of Denver’s Rocky Mountain News.  Most other tweets are simply not important enough to enough people for them to retweet.

6) single purpose apps or social networks go away when other sites come along with more functionality or when big players simply add their functionality to their suite of services.

twitter

twitturly

Am I missing something here, people?  Agree with me or tell me I’m stupid @acfou 🙂

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

Wednesday, March 18th, 2009 digital, social networks No Comments

The new role of the digital agency

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008 digital No Comments

Dr. Augustine Fou is Digital Consigliere to marketing executives, advising them on digital strategy and Unified Marketing(tm). Dr Fou has over 17 years of in-the-trenches, hands-on experience, which enables him to provide objective, in-depth assessments of their current marketing programs and recommendations for improving business impact and ROI using digital insights.

Augustine Fou portrait
http://twitter.com/acfou
Send Tips: tips@go-digital.net
Digital Strategy Consulting
Dr. Augustine Fou LinkedIn Bio
Digital Marketing Slideshares
The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing