Surface Encounters
Dallas Cowboys' Dez Bryant faces 2nd lawsuit, for $615K
Surface Encounters
<b>News</b> Effects | HiLobrow
News videographer Dan Chung's footage of the tsunami devastation is moving, literally and morally. Shot on assignment for the Guardian, the work has attracted a good deal of attention—and no small amount of criticism, ...
Surface Encounters
Heavy Fire Afghanistan coming to Kinect Xbox 360 <b>News</b> - Page 1 <b>...</b>
Read our Xbox 360 news of Heavy Fire Afghanistan coming to Kinect.
Surface Encounters
With few surprises, techies were underwhelmed with Apple’s iPad 2 announcement, but I’m confident that consumers will be thrilled with the product. Apple already had a massive lead in the consumer tablet market it created, and these “underwhelming” upgrades should keep the company comfortably ahead. Apple has given competitors an opening by sticking to 3G, and it did not further pressure them with a lower entry price point or higher-resolution display. However, Apple has three critical advantages.
1. Brand: When consumers are thinking about tablets, they say they are buying an “iPad,” not a “tablet.” The iPad was already the category and volume leader, and the iPad 2 builds on that. In this respect, Apple actually benefits from the crowd of new tablets hitting the market. If there were only one or two strong competitors, consumers would be able to weigh the pros and cons of each offering, but with dozens and dozens of options hitting the market over the next few months, decision paralysis can set in and many consumers will throw up their hands and make the “safe” choice: the iPad.
2. iTunes: The iPad is still the only tablet on the market with a huge digital marketplace for movies, TV shows, and music. Some competitors are taking steps in this direction (e.g., Samsung’s Hub), but iTunes remains a significant competitive advantage.
3. App Store: If all you want to do is browse the Web and check e-mail, any tablet will probably suffice. However, Apple has an enormous lead in purpose-built apps. The Android ecosystem is strong and app availability should improve significantly over time, but the iPad 2 is considerably more versatile than any of its competitors right now, and it appears unlikely to lose its lead any time in the near future.
So if you are competing with Apple, what should you do? Rather than copying Apple’s products, copy its old advertising tag line and Think Different.
Apple’s brand is focused on creative types (or those who aspire to be), which is why it spends so much effort creating things like GarageBand. Competitors should target IT managers, knowledge workers, outdoorsy people, or some other group and build software and hardware combinations better suited to those use cases. Of course, this will take imagination and the ability to tie hardware, software, and services together to build unique experiences. There are some companies thinking outside the box (HTC and RIM have clearly differentiated products on their roadmaps), but for the vendors who are trying to out-Apple Apple… good luck. Here are some pointers, you’re going to need them:
• Based on Apple’s financials, it is clear that the iPad with WiFi is Apple’s volume product and 3G versions are merely gravy. Why is the competition only targeting the gravy?
• iTunes remains a significant competitive advantage for Apple – I cannot easily explain to novices how to get a movie onto the XOOM. Rivals need an “iTunes” of their own, but having one just achieves parity with Apple, so partnering is an acceptable approach. However, half measures are not enough; digital media stores must include movies (including rentals) and TV shows and music. If multiple partners are used, the tablet vendor still needs to provide a common interface and single account/billing relationship.
• Nintendo has a significant base of game developers targeting the 3DS; if you cannot muster equivalent resources (for gaming, media playback, or some other use), adding 3D to your tablet is just a gimmick.
• Apple’s rivals can compete on 4G, higher-resolution displays, or a lower price. Even speed is a potential differentiator from a technical perspective; NVIDIA has quad-core processors sampling this month, so rivals could build even faster tablets for this holiday season. However, I must still caution vendors that all of these factors are irrelevant if consumers do not want your product.
I read an interesting article this morning that suggested Apple would change its mind and put Adobe’s Flash technology on its iOS devices within a year. I don’t think that’s going to happen.
In an open letter to users, Apple CEO Steve Jobs gave several reasons why he didn’t want Flash on the iPad, iPhone or iPod touch. They are: Flash isn’t open; the full web; reliability, security and performance; battery life; and touch.
Adobe began shipping Flash Player 10.1 for Mobile last June, but even Laptop magazine admitted that “Steve Jobs was right,” and that “Adobe’s offering seems like it’s too little, too late.” Granted, that report was from six months ago, but it still doesn’t bode well for the technology.
There is no doubt that Adobe is making advances with Flash on mobile devices, but I don’t believe future changes will be enough to get Apple to adopt the technology.
Jobs has been very clear that Apple supports HTML5, an open technology that is controlled by a standards committee, not one company. By building support for that technology into Webkit, Apple is ensuring that mobile Web browsers will be able to access what we’ve come to know as the “full web.”
Webkit is used by Google, Palm, Nokia and RIM, so it has a pretty solid base.
One of the arguments often bantered about when the discussion of the “full Web” comes up is video. There is no doubt that Flash made huge strides over the years in having sites like YouTube encode their videos in Flash. But that’s for the desktop.
As Jobs points out, almost all of this video is also available in H.264 format (a format Flash also supports), so it’s viewable on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.
“Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video,” wrote Jobs.
You may ask why other companies adopted Flash for their mobile devices when Apple won’t. That’s easy, they are looking for something they have that Apple doesn’t. Considering how hard it is for tablet makers to compete with Apple, any perceived advantage will work.
I’m not an Adobe hater—I know quite a few people that work at Adobe and I think they’ve done some amazing things over the years. Flash for mobile devices isn’t one of them.
Chris Dawson said he gives “Apple a year until they cave [and adopt Flash]. Android tablets will just be too cool and too useful for both entertainment and enterprise applications if they don’t.”
I have been using my iPhone for years and my iPad for one year. I honestly can’t remember the last time I went to a Web site that wouldn’t load because I didn’t have Flash installed. I can load videos from YouTube and a host of other sites too, no problem.
Apple has sold more than 160 million iOS devices and there are no screaming, angry hordes of users breaking down the doors at 1 Infinite Loop demanding Flash on their devices.
In order for Apple to change its mind and adopt Flash, the technology has to be proven to be indispensable and that it will benefit its users. Apple has proven just the opposite is true.
Editor’s Note: Jim Dalrymple has been writing about Apple for more than 15 years. You can follow him on Twitter @jdalrymple and on his Web site at The Loop.
Surface Encounters
Surface Encounters
Recognizing Women's History Month, New Deal 2.0 tells the surprising story of how women became citizens -- and how their economic lives have evolved along with their rights. Allida Black urges action on UN Resolution 1325, which ensures equal citizenship for women across the globe.
The monumental elections of Presidents Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (Liberia), Roza Otunbayeva (Krygyzstan), Dilma Rousseff (Brazil), and Prime Minister Julia Gillard (Australia) and the game-changing appointments of Dr. Michelle Bachelet as Under-Secretary General of the United Nations and Executive Director of UNWomen and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State proved that women can govern, run preeminent human rights organizations, set international policy, and place women at the center of diplomacy, development, and peace.
But the question remains -- if women can be president, why can't they be citizens? Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights." Yet it took another twenty years after its signing to get the international conventions on political and civil rights and on economic, social and cultural rights -- and, in the United States, another twenty plus years for Congress to adopt legislation ensuring women's political and economic rights. It took another thirteen years for the United Nations to ratify (without the support of the United States) the Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination against Women. And in 2011, the US House of Representatives and other foreign governing bodies still toy with legislation essential to women's identities, ranging from limiting access to reproductive health services and marriage to crafting sentencing guidelines that treat girls and women as felons and charges those that have abducted and abused them with misdemeanors.
In a 1946 column, written before she joined the UN Commission on Human Rights, Eleanor Roosevelt urged women to "call on the Governments of the world to encourage women everywhere to take a more conscious part in national and international affairs, and on women to come forward and share in the work of peace and reconstruction as they did in the war and resistance." More than fifty years later, at the dawn of a new century, the UN Security Council -- pressured by a well-organized international women's lobby, Hillary Clinton, and other stateswomen and embarrassed by the rampant use of rape and genital dismemberment as tools of war -- adopted Resolution 1325. It urged "Member States to ensure increased representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional and international institutions and mechanisms for the prevention, management, and resolution of conflict."
Now ten years later, the campaign -- indeed the struggle -- to enforce this resolution rages across the United States as much as it does across Egypt or the Congo or Afghanistan.
It is tempting to construct this resolution narrowly -- to see it as a tool of armistice rather than reconstruction, as a vehicle to protect women rather than empower them. To do so, to paraphrase Albus Dumbledore, would be to do what is easy rather than what is right.
UN1325 is on the front line in the campaign for women's citizenship. It is a battle to ensure that economic, social and cultural rights cannot be divorced from, or considered separately from, political and civil rights. It is the struggle to reclaim democracy promotion away from post-Cold War politics, self-interested development and the campaign against terror and place it at the heart of citizen participation.
Just as important, it is a campaign to ensure women's rights as citizens as much as it is a campaign to force governments to act responsibly to all its citizens. While equality and human dignity have no sex, policy designed without taking stock of gender differences often perpetuates discrimination.
As Eleanor Roosevelt would say, both citizens and governments must "recognize that the goal of full participation in the life and responsibilities of their countries and of the world community is a common objective" and one "which the women of the world should assist one another" in achieving.
This post originally appeared on New Deal 2.0.
Surface Encounters
Small Business <b>News</b>: Social Media Brand
What is your social media brand? Do you have one? Sure, many small business owners and entreprene...
Surface Encounters
Surface Encounters
Surface Encounters
Murder Victim's Parents Sue Facebook Over Crime Scene - AOL <b>News</b>
The family of New York murder victim Caroline Wimmer has filed a civil suit against Facebook and others, including ex-EMT Mark Musarella, who posted a graphic picture of their daughter's body to the social networking website.
Surface Encounters
No comments:
Post a Comment