sábado, 25 de agosto de 2012

Baekdal.com - Good Job Apple, You Fucked the World - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • Good Job Apple, You Fucked the World - (by @baekdal)

    Apple won the patent case against Samsung and has been awarded more than one billion dollars in damages. You can read about the details over at MacRumors.

    Apple's response: "We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story, and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trial showed that Samsung's copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung's behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn't right."

    Samsung's response: "Today's verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple's claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer."

    I'm appalled by this. We all knew that Samsung was copying Apple, but that's not the point. What I'm appalled by is that it is now illegal for more than two people to come up with the same idea. The things that Apple has highlighted are not inventions. It's simply solutions to common problems.

    Like the tap-to-zoom. That's not an invention. That's what we do when we use touch. You see something you want to look at it so you tap on it. Did Apple make it first? Maybe. But look at the behavior of a toddler when they see something. What do they do? Yep, they tap on it. It's not an invention. It's normal human behavior.

    The idea that one company can own non-inventions is absolutely appalling to me.

    Another example. Apple apparently holds the patent for click-to-call. Meaning that if you see a phone number, you can click on it, and it will call that number.

    I'm sorry Apple, but I came up with that idea before you created the iPhone. A friend of mine and I were working on a custom browser, and we needed it to be able to access resources outside the browser itself. So we implemented a special protocol that, once called, would open the external app with the command supplied with it. This way, we could match any string using Regex, and assign the result to an action outside the browser.

    And that is exactly how click-to-call works.

    Why didn't I patent it? Well, because it's not an invention. All I did was to find a solution to a problem. If you had the same problem you would have found the same solution. I didn't invent anything. I only looked at what we had and said "hmmm ...we need to be able to click on that..."

    The idea that one company can own a solution to a problem is absolutely insane.

    It's the same with Amazon's one-click patent. That's not an invention either. That is a person noticing that more clicks lead to a lower conversion rate, so..."hmmm ...maybe if we make it one-click we would sell more?"

    Amazon didn't invent anything. They just solved a common problem, but now, because of the idiotic patent system, they can claim to own that solution -- despite the fact that many people are coming up with the same solution to the same problem.

    And here is another one: A company actually owns the patent for making a LED light turn green during a biometric login. Here is how that works. You use a biometric device, like a fingerprint reader. It scans your finger and tells the system if it can recognize you or not. Then:

    if (scanner.status = Accepted) led.color = green else led.color = red

    Someone actually owns the patent for this. Changing the color of a LED light upon login. That's not an invention. That's one line of code that everyone would make if they tried to solve that problem.

    Apple is really good at finding solutions to problems. I wrote about this in"Apple Never Designed the iPad - They Undesigned it" ...but that doesn't mean they invented anything.

    Samsung obviously copied Apple, we all know that, and I don't have a problem with Samsung getting slammed for not thinking for themselves ...they deserve it. The problem is that this case legitimizes the patent system. It proves to the world that Apple (and other companies) can own ideas and solutions that other people would come up with as well.

    We cannot have a world where one company can say, "I'm the only one who is allowed to have the solution for this common problem" (like with Amazon one-click, or Apple tap-to-zoom).

    If you ask 100 people to solve a problem, many of them are bound to come up with the same solution. Saying that only one of them is allowed to own it is just insane.

    As Nilay Patel, from the Verge said "In the long term, we're sure to see lots of UI behaviors change across Android -- most companies have already moved away from the bounceback scrolling behavior protected by the Apple patent in this case, and we're sure to see tap-to-zoom and multitouch scrolling behavior affected on new devices as well. We're also sure to see new handsets adopt highly differentiated designs, as Apple has proven both its design patent and trade dress claims are strong enough to persuade a jury."

    In other words. Only Apple is allowed to own the solution to the same problems that we have with every phone. Everyone else has to focus on building suboptimal workarounds. Like not being able to click on a phone number to call it ...or to make a phone with symmetrically rounded corners

    One might think that this will be the beginning of the end for the US patent system, but it's not. Apple is a highly profitable US business, while Samsung is one of those foreign ones. In the minds every member of congress, the patent system is protecting US interest against those pesky outsiders.

    And that's what the President and the politicians see as their most important job. To protect the interests of the US against the alien invaders. They have no reason to change the system.

    Good job Apple. You fucked the world...

    --

    Head over to my G+ post to discuss and comment.



    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

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

martes, 21 de agosto de 2012

Baekdal.com - What Comes After Facebook? The Future of Social Media - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>





 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

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

sábado, 18 de agosto de 2012

Baekdal.com - Twitter is Game Over - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • Twitter is Game Over - (by @baekdal)

    You might have heard about Twitter's recent policy changes, which effectively kills the future for third party apps. They are limiting the API and turning optional guidelines into obligatory requirements.

    As TheNextWeb wrote: About the api changes "That means that no third-party client can ever have more than 100k users, unless given special permission by Twitter or it already has over 100k right now, in which case it can have double the amount it has today. This move puts a life span on most for-pay clients, as they'll reach a point where there is no longer any reason for them to continue offering these apps for sale."

    About the policy changes "Read as they are, this would also eliminate any clients that displayed tweets alongside other updates like comments and updates from outside social networks like Facebook. Section 3b. is also an interesting one, as it says "no other social or 3rd party actions may be attached to a Tweet."

    When I read this, the first thing that came to mind was Flipboard. It's an app that I use several time every day to read my varies streams. But with Twitter's updated policy, I don't see how newsreaders like Flipboard could include Tweets. The entire purpose of Flipboard is to turn a tweet into a much more detailed (and useful) social newspaper.

    By saying, "no 3rd party actions may be attached to a tweet" they are effectively eliminating any reason to use a third party app. From now on, they will all be required to have exactly the same functionality ...and look ...as Twitter itself.

    Why doesn't Twitter just go out and ban 3rd apps altogether? That's clearly what they want. These incremental cuts are hurting not only Twitter but everyone around them. It puts the entire Twitter ecosystem into a state where people say "I can't trust this" and "I cannot rely on Twitter".

    Of course, what Twitter is doing is that they trying to turn themselves into a destination. Creating rules that outlaw 3rd parties from adding extra functional is a clear sign of their future strategy.

    The problem is that they are moving in the wrong direction. I wrote about this in "What's Comes After Facebook? The Future of Social Media"

    Social is all about the connected world. But what Twitter (and Facebook) is doing is that they trying to disconnect you from the connected world, and instead force you to live exclusively inside their own bubbles.

    I see it the same way as when a magazine creates an iPad app, in which you can only consume and engage with the content from within that app. Twitter is trying to do the same with tweets.

    I believe this is game over for not just 3rd party apps and social readers, but also for Twitter itself. Its very format of 140 characters means it serves is a facilitator of a connection, not the connection itself. You cannot turn that into a destination. Facebook can do it, because they have a much wider range of formats, but Twitter cannot.

    And even with Twitter Cards, in which they take snippets of content and display it along a tweet is not the answer either. If you see a link to the NYTimes on Twitter, you get a short Twitter Card summary, but when you look at the same Tweet in Flipboard, you can read the original article as a signed-in NYT subscriber.

    Twitter is not a destination because it's very purpose is not to be one.

    As I wrote in my article: "Twitter will not go away anytime soon, but without the destinations, their future will be a social niche. Great for sharing quick things you want people to see, but not really a part of the larger social revolution."



    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

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

martes, 7 de agosto de 2012

Baekdal.com - What's Comes After Facebook? The Future of Social Media - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>





 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

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

domingo, 5 de agosto de 2012

Baekdal.com - We Never Believed in it Anyway - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • We Never Believed in it Anyway - (by @baekdal)

    A huge problem in the media industry is the 10 percenters. It's the kind of people who create strategy plans that are so short-term that they never have a real chance of making a difference.

    I wrote an article about this a while back, called "Failure at 10%"

    In it, I used the example of a race car: If you want to be a race car driver, you cannot just show up in your regular car thinking: "I will try it first with my regular car, and then if I win the race I will go out and invest in a real race car!"

    If you want something to succeed, you have to be in it to win it...and you have to give yourself enough time to learn the game and make a real difference.

    Earlier this week, I came across a perfect example of this. In June, Huffington Post announced that they would publish a premium iPad magazine for 99 cents per issue. I won't go into whether that was a good idea or not...but it was a plan, right?

    Only one and a half month later, with no more than 115,000 downloads (and a substantial amount of those as free trials), they announced that the magazine would now be free.

    They dropped their plans after only one and a half month. That's not a strategy or even a plan. That's just a waste of air. That's a short term reaction in the extremes.

    This is sadly something we often see in the media industry. Everyone know that they have to change, but most experiments are not part of a long term strategy. Instead, it's a kind of panic reaction that they need to do 'something'. Often, it ends with the experiment being cut before they even have a chance to learn what went wrong (or if it could have gone right).

    You might say that this is a good thing. You know the old saying: "fail fast and fail often". But not that fast!

    You might also say that this is because the digital world moves too fast for long term planning, but consider this: Google's strategy plan usually looks 10 years into the future - 10 years!

    ...or just look at my publication plan. My articles are designed to help you think at least five years into the future. That's what my RESET series is about, where I look at what you need to do in 2015 and forward.

    1. RESET - What If You Could Start Again?
    2. 2015: The Transformation of the Newspaper
    3. RESET: Advertising Agencies in 2015
    4. RESET: Ebooks in 2015 ...beyond the page
    5. RESET: Analytics in 2015 ...(Coming soon!)

    For Huffington Post to drop this after only one and a half month, can only be a sign that they didn't believe in it to begin with ...or likely that management hadn't signed off on the idea before launch.

    Look ahead, understand the shift, and imagine the right solution five years from now. Then do it!

    As Yoda says: "Do. Or Do not. There is no try."



    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

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

miércoles, 1 de agosto de 2012

Baekdal.com - Newspaper Business Model: Wow, I Need More - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • Newspaper Business Model: Wow, I Need More - (by @baekdal)

    We often talk about that the end of print caused by lack of relevancy to the readers. But many people probably don't realize how long this has been going on.

    Here is a cutout from a comic from 1973 (39 years ago), and even back then newspapers were in trouble.

    Note: Clifton, The Laughing Thief, 1973, Cinebook Ltd.

    We have to remember that for something to appear in a comic, it would have had to be a common theme otherwise the reader wouldn't feel an association. Comics are great this way. They are like caricatures in the form of visual stories. And a caricature is an exaggerated version of what's already known.

    I just love this cutout because it brings together all the common issues with print.

    • We have the pride of newspapers, which is that they are "waiting for you every day".
    • We have the frustration, "being on the last grasp" and the "press in crisis".
    • We have the common reaction that it's the readers fault, with "nothing interests anyone anymore"
    • The common excuse: "It's not for lack of trying"
    • An example of one of the stories: "The new odorless tobacco ...PAH!" nailing the point home that the real problem is that the stories they bring are not relevant or even believable to the reader.

    This is exactly what we still see today. These five points pretty much sums up what newspaper executives say at every conference.

    Finally it ends with that moment where the reader is surprised to find something important (or at least highly interesting). That one story (!?) that you want to read.

    We accepted the package of mostly irrelevant news, because of those few stories that made it worth it (the mass market model)

    Now we have the connected world, and one of its biggest effects is how content is being atomized. We now have a choice. We can decide to follow only the content sources that give us that "!?" moment. We see this on every social channel, but old media is still trying to sell us that package with everything.

    The problem is not that people don't want news. We do. We are desperately seeking those "!?" articles, meaning "Wow (!), I need to know more (?).

    The problem is that, in an atomized world, we don't have the patience for content of little relevance, or worse, content that is relevant but has been pageview optimized so much that it is unreadable.

    A very visual example is what we see happening with TV. In the past, you could sell a package with mostly crappy content, but as long as you included a few really good shows and movies every week, you could persuade people to buy for the whole deal.

    Today we subscribe to Netflix and watch only the content that we believe will give us that "!?" experience. Why subscribe to the Discovery Channel if you only care about Mythbusters? Why subscribe to CBS (or one of the many TV stations licensing CBS content) if you only care about watching NCIS.

    It's exactly the same thing that is happening to the newspaper industry. Why subscribe to the New York Times if you only care about a few specific areas of personal interest?

    The problem with newspapers is that because they have been focusing on one package for a mass-market, they have turned themselves into the 'jack of all trades, master of none'. When a new electric car is launched they will write about it, but it's immediately clear that they don't really understand what it is about. So instead, we turn to dedicated car blogs that employ writers who have passion and expertise for what they are writing about.

    There is no way for newspapers to split up their package, because each section don't have the quality or level of insights to be able to stand alone. The value of a newspaper today is that one occasional article on page three that captivates people's attention.

    But this model doesn't work in the connected world of atomized content. The newspapers have to learn how to become experts, instead of being a jack-of-all-trades talking about nothing.

    We need the news industry to do that, because everyone is desperately seeking those "!?" stories.

    And that...is your new business model!



    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

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