 Baekdal.comThe Magazine about the great experience http://www.baekdal.com рекомендовать друзьям >> |
- 3D Printing is Starting To Become Mainstream - (by @baekdal)
It's been a while since I published anything about 3D printers, but it is a very interesting development. In time, 3D printing is likely to lead to the replicator. A device that can recreate any physical product right inside your home.
This will lead to the same market conditions for physical products as we have today with digital ones. Just as we no longer need a thousand newspapers to write the same story, we will no longer need a thousand farmers to produce similar crop.
I wrote about this shift in the article, "The Future of News And The Replicators". It is fascinating to think about just how much the world will change once we have invented the replicator. Not just for the future potential of physical things, but also because it teaches us a lot about the shift that we see today in the digital world.
3D printing is still a long way from that future, but it is moving forward at a steady pace.
One problem we have, apart from the resolution being too low and the limitation in materials, is that it is too hard for 'normal people' to use.
Back in 2008 I wrote about Shapeways where you can upload a 3D model which they will then print for you. They have since expanded their service to also include an Etsy-type store where you can sell your own 3D printed objects, and there are some cool ones out there like this 3D printed iPad stand for $20.
You can also go out and buy a relatively cheap 3D printer yourself (there is one on Amazon for $4,449).
But the problem in both cases, is that you still have to figure out how to make the 3D model in the first place. And as we all know, 3D applications are hideously hard to use for normal people.
A couple of days ago I received an email from a startup that is planning to solve this problem. But they plan to take this a step further and make 3D printing fun for kids. They are doing it with an iPad app and trying fund it via Kickstarter.
Take a look:
I think this is a brilliant concept that has a ton of potential. Arguably, the novelty of making pottery is going to wear off fairly quickly. But imagine, for a moment, that you could create your own toys? You know, funny animals like...Mmmm...a tiger-giraffe with big lumpy feet called Flumpy :)
Переслать - Transparent Employee Meetings - (by @baekdal)
In this ultra-connected world, one thing that many (including myself) encourage brands to do is to be much more transparent. The act of hiding behind print advertisements simply doesn't work in a social world dominated by two-way connections.
You have to open yourself up, because social success equals the feeling of being a part of something.
So here is an idea. Why don't you live-stream your next employee meeting to everyone on the internet?
Okay, okay...I know is probably not such a good idea, but it is interesting to think about, because what is preventing you from doing it? What arguments do you have for not allowing that to happen?
Here are some of the arguments that I have heard in the past:
We don't want our competitors to know what we are doing!
This could be a very valid argument, but it's often one put forward by companies who are not doing anything that special. And companies who are competing with other companies who are also not doing anything special.
Think of it like this. When it comes to great brands, a big reason people buy their products is because of the brands themselves. If you like Nike, you don't buy a pair of sneakers from Adidas.
The brands who are afraid of their competitors are usually the type of companies who doesn't really have a brand to begin with. That is their real problem.
If what you create is the same as everyone else, then yes ...letting your competitors know before you launch is a big concern, but it is rarely a problem if what you create is unique and you are known for that.
We see the same problem, for instance, with newspapers. One suggestion that many have put forward is for newspapers to open up what kind of stories they are working on, because that invites reader participation and might lead to better informed stories.
But newspapers don't want to do that, because they know if they post an idea for a story, 100 other newspapers will steal it (which is true). But consider this, if David Pogue writes that he will review a new camera next week, it doesn't matter if 100 other newspapers steals that idea. You are not reading David Pogue's article just to hear about the camera you are reading to hear what David Pogue thinks about it.
Preventing your competitors from knowing what you are doing is only a concern when you are not unique. The problem is not your competitors the problem is with yourself.
We don't want people to see what our brand is really like
This is also a legitimate concern for many brands. The problem is that, in the past, marketing was in charge of taking your average product and creating a brand image around it that made it more than it really was.
It was a good strategy...in the 1980s. But in today's social world, people don't share your advertisements, people share your products based on how they feel about them.
If you are afraid of letting people see how you work, you have a serious problem on your hands. If your brand image doesn't reflect the spirit within the company, then you are living in the past world of branding.
The problem is not to live-stream your employee meeting the problem is that you are living a lie. You are telling people one thing, while doing another.
If there is one thing that people don't care about, it's when something is faked - and people are extremely good at identifying false brand images.
A much bigger question is, why would people care? What are you doing that would make people interested in watching you work?
There are many other examples of why brands don't want to live-stream their employee meetings, but the point is that the reason is rarely the live-stream itself, but rather problematic business practices and lackluster employee spirits.
If your brand is unique, and every employee believe in what they do, live streaming would be a great way to "open up". For instance, look at TWiT.tv. Not only are they live-streaming their shows, they are also live-streaming anything that goes on in between the shows. This sometimes leads to some awkward moments, but they great fun for the rest of us.
Now, I wouldn't recommend that you live-stream your meetings. But it is interesting to think about the things that prevent you from being open and transparent, mostly because the answers are usually shortcomings in yourself.
It's not about being fancy. It's about being real. it's about being true to what you do and it's about aligning the purpose of your company with the people who work there.
Переслать - BBC Future is Blocking...Itself - (by @baekdal)
I have seen some pretty strange things when it comes to publishers blocking content, but the BBC has just taken this to the extreme. Instead of blocking everyone else, they have decided to block themselves.
Last month, BBC launched a new site called BBC Future. It is absolutely brilliant, with top notch and focused articles. I just love this new site, and if you haven't seen it yet, you should!
But there is a catch. Everyone in the world can see this site, except anyone in the UK. From England, you will instead see this:
Note: Thanks to stef for the screenshot.
The BBC, as you might know, is owned by the UK Government, which essentially means that it is owned by the citizens of UK. It's monetized, via taxes, in the form of public licensing fees and as such has to be provided openly and freely to everyone in the UK.
But because this particular site is operated by the division within the BBC in charge of international expansion, and is monetized by advertising, the BBC has to block it for everyone in the UK.
That just makes no sense. Why don't they just block the ads?
As I wrote on their Facebook Page:
As a publisher (from Denmark), I don't understand why BBC Future isn't just removing the ads for people in the UK. You are not losing any money by allowing UK citizens to see it, all you do is to antagonize the entire UK population.
And, you are disrupting the flow of social sharing. When we share your links, we have no control over who sees it. I shared an article earlier, and one of my followers complained to me about it. You are making me look bad, because I shared a link that only some could see. It's social discrimination.
Your site is extremely interesting, and very well done. But the decision to block UK citizens is daft. Please do something about it...
I have seen some pretty strange things when it comes to geolocation blocking. But this one just boggles your mind.
I can understand why the BBC, for years, has blocked people *outside* the UK, because only people in the UK have paid the licensing fee. That makes kind of sense, even though it is still a stupid way to solve the problem - give people outside the UK a way to pay too.
But blocking people in the UK (who have all paid for the BBC through government taxes), while giving everyone else free access, is just one of those things my brain simply cannot comprehend. It goes against all forms of logic.
The problem, of course, is that I don't think this decision was made by some clueless manager. I think some government legislation is prohibiting BBC Worldwide from competing other media companies in the UK, and that is why they have to block the site.
Not that this explanation is any better. In today's connected world, BBC Worldwide would compete directly anyway.
Update: The BBC has responded confirming my suspicions that this block is the result of government legislation.
... making the content available to UK audiences is not as simple as removing the ads. bbc.com/Future is a commercial website produced by BBC Worldwide. Under the BBC's fair trading rules, commercial websites are not allowed to receive unfair promotion from the BBC's public services. This prevents us from being able to provide Future on bbc.co.uk
Переслать - 2015: The Transformation of the Newspaper - (by @baekdal)
A couple of weeks ago I wrote the article "RESET: What If You Could Start Again?" In it I encouraged you to define what your world would be like if you could start *again*, from scratch, in 2015. As an example I promised to look at three different industries, starting with newspapers.
Baekdal Plus: Read the rest of this article in Baekdal Plus
Переслать - Newspapers are like Mobile Phones in 2004 - (by @baekdal)
In 2004, the mobile phone market was, just like newspapers are today, heavily over saturated with many but very similar phones. This oversupply of similar products caused the demand for mobile phones to be so low that you could buy one for just $1 (+ a contract).
There was no market for yet another mobile phone manufacturer. But Apple looked at this market and identified a number of big problems. Problems that all other mobile manufacturers were reluctant to solve because it didn't fit their traditional mindset.
Fast forward to today, and Apple is the most valuable company on the planet. Nokia, once king of the hill, is in deep trouble. Apple is of course no longer alone, because Google quickly realized the same problems and created Android, and Microsoft created Windows Phone 7.
The problem with the phone industry was that the old companies where all focusing on the hardware design. The innovation was in the form-factor and how phones where presented to the public. Apple, Google and Microsoft, however, didn't focus on the design (even though the iPhone is quite beautiful). They focused on the utility of the phones themselves - that was the missing link. Nokia only focused on the hardware. The real power of mobile is not the package, but what you can do with it.
This is very noticeable when you compare product pages from Nokia and Apple. Nokia only talks about the hardware (the package), while Apple's product page is all about how the iPhone can be used.
Nokia failed to see the problem, because they believed their product was the package. Apple won because they realized the package was only a small part of the solution.
If you are in the newspaper industry, this should sound familiar. The newspaper industry is, like the phone companies of the past, defined around the concept that their product is a package, the newspaper itself. And what's within that package is just a collection of random news.
This is also why many traditional newspapers are so excited by the iPad. With it, they can take their box of random news and wrap it into a new form factor - thinking they are being innovative.
Newspapers are making the exact same mistakes that Nokia did with phones. Instead of looking at how their products could be used and extended, newspapers are only looking at the package.
Whenever newspaper editors talk about innovating for the future in the form of redefining the format, I'm reminded by Nokia. Nokia was the absolute master of creating new and beautiful phones. But Nokia never asked, "why do people need a phone? What do people want to do with it? What kind of environment are they in when they are using it? Can it be more than a phone?"
Just as the newspapers today never ask, "why do people need a newspaper? What can people *do* with the stories we write?"
If you really want to succeed in the connected world, you have to change the very foundation your product is based on. Putting on a fresh coat of paint, or putting it on a new device isn't going to change anything.
What should newspapers do? Read "The newspapers in 2015"
Переслать
 | Женский Интернет-журнал Модные тенденции, пропорции фигуры, какой цвет одежды выбрать, стиль Присоединиться → |
| rss2email.ru |
| rss2email.ru | отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329 управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1 |
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario