By Alexandra Kenin, Google mobile ads
In December, we launched ads for iPhone and Android devices. This feature allows advertisers to target their standard AdWords text and image ads to the iPhone, Android devices, and other mobile devices with full (HTML) Internet browsers. Before that, advertisers who wanted to reach mobile users had to create mobile-specific text and image ads that would only show on phones with mobile Internet (WAP) browsers. Now that mobile ads can be targeted for both full HTML and WAP browsers, some of you advertisers may be wondering, "which mobile ads are right for me?"
Standard mobile ads show on mobile devices with WAP browsers and usually direct users to a mobile website -- most likely written in a mobile markup language such as XHTML, WML, or CHTML. Standard mobile ads also offer a click-to-call feature, which lets you direct users to a business phone number instead of a mobile website. If you have a mobile website or want to collect leads via phone, standard mobile ads may be right for you. You can learn how to create standard mobile ads here.
High-end mobile ads show on iPhone and Android devices and don’t require a mobile website. High-end mobile ads don't have a click-to-call option, but they do allow advertisers to direct users to various other properties such Google Maps, the iPhone App Store or Android Market, or YouTube. If you specifically want your ads to show on iPhone or Android devices, these ads might be right for you. They are also a good choice for new mobile advertisers because they are easy to enable through your campaign settings.
Of course, depending on your needs, you can also use both types of mobile ads. To summarize, here's a table with information on standard and high-end mobile ads.
Saturday, 18 April 2009
Which mobile ads are right for me?
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
RIM Launches BlackBerry App World
By Marin Perez
Its over-the-air store for Blackberry applications puts Research In Motion on par with Apple's App Store and Google's Android Market.
Monday, 30 March 2009
Skype for iPhone: It's official
By Jessica Doulcourt
Months after teasing us at CES with an announcement of Skype's native VoIP client for the iPhone, the free Skype for iPhone will finally be available to download from the iTunes App Store sometime on Tuesday. We got a chance to sit down with the application's principal engineer before the announcement was made at CTIA 2009, to see Skype for iPhone do its thing. While most of the features aren't too surprising--Skype does want to maintain some consistency across its mobile applications, after all--there are a few capabilities that are notably missing, and a few iPhone-only perks that are refreshing to see.
Skype on iPhone
At long last, Skype has come to the iPhone.
(Credit: Skype)
In terms of navigation, Skype's VoIP app for iPhone looks more like your traditional iPhone app than it does Skype 4.0 for Windows. For many who already prefer Apple's sleek interface archetype, that's a triumph, but those who enjoy Skype's branding may feel disappointed.
Skype's screens are well organized and use the iPhone's ability to add filters, for instance, to sort your contacts alphabetically, or by who's online. There's chatting as well, though Skype's flagship feature is its VoIP calling that's free to other Skype users and an inexpensive per-minute fee to landlines. Calls on Skype for iPhone work only if you're in range of a Wi-Fi network, so your call quality will in part be at the mercy and strength of wireless networks nearby--calls will not work over the cell phone network on the iPhone (but chatting will.) Assuming your connection is solid, you can dial a number or quickly call a contacts stored in your address book. iPod Touch users will need earphones with an embedded mic to talk. During a call, you can mute the line, go on hold, or put the call on speakerphone. In the My Info window, you can follow a link to buy more SkypeOut credit online.
Taking a photo from within Skype to serve as your avatar image, or pulling a picture in from the camera roll are two iPhone-only features that makes use of the phone's hardware attributes. Another imperfect, but still neat, feature is the ability to accept incoming conference calls. While you won't be able to initiate a call, we're told, you will be able to jump on one if a buddy invites you in. We hope the next version includes placing conference calls from the iPhone.
Skype left a few more skills out of its maiden iPhone voyage. SMS, setting up a conference calling group, purchasing SkypeOut credit directly, and being able to field a second incoming Skype call are a few. File transferring and getting Skype voicemail native on the phone are two more. We expect to see at least two of these added in the next version, but we'll hope for more.
Skype versus the competition
Here's the big question on our minds: will Skype's iPhone app replace competitors like Nimbuzz and Fring, which focus on cross-network IM but also include VoIP calls with Skype pals even though they've been available for the iPhone for months? Kurt Thywissen, the principal engineer for Skype for iPhone, thinks so. He says what the other apps use is a workaround that requires them to channel calls through a server and transcode audio, resulting in poorer-quality calls than Skype can do in its own app. He may be right, but those who IM more than they vocalize probably won't ditch the likes of Fring too soon. They might, however, let Skype handle the calls and let another app take care of the multinetwork chatting.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
More Details on the Next-Generation iPhone Leaking Out
By Ed Hardy
Rumors are flying fast and quick about the new iPhone model that is widely expected to be released this summer. Some of these say this device will be faster in several ways.
For example, there is a report that this phone will offer much faster Internet access. Specifically, a move to a faster version of 3G cellular-wireless networking which offers 7.2 Mbps downloads and 2 Mbps uploads... under ideal conditions, of course.
The current model offers 3.6 Mbps downloads, but AT&T is in the process of upgrading its 3G network to support the faster speeds. Many European carriers have done this already.
It's also possible this device could support 802.11n, a faster version of Wi-Fi. The previous models have 802.11b/g.
A 1 GHz Processor?
In addition, there have been persistent reports that the next-generation iPhone will have a faster processor. According to new but unconfirmed reports, this will be a 1 GHz chip from Marvell.
When the PXA168 was unveiled, Marvell promised that will offer the processing capabilities of an entry-level laptop in a phone, including Adobe Flash playback, image processing, and video conferencing. However, just because a device's processor is capable of handling these tasks doesn't mean the device will include the necessary software.
Still, Adobe says it and Apple are working on a Flash player for the iPhone, and if the third-generation model is based on the PXA168 it would have the horsepower for this job.
An OLED Screen Too
There have been some earlier rumors about the next iPhone. Among these is one that says it will have an OLED display from LG. This will allow the device to be thinner while using less power.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
Letter to Katherine Boehret of WSJ
Dear Mrs. Boehret,
Thank you very much for your interesting insight published in the WSJ of 25th February 2009.
Although you made a valid statement, my recommendation to your readers would be the following: buy a wireless handheld that syncs with MS Outlook and/or Google Mail.
As a result, your readers will preserve their contacts 1) for free, 2) independent of any carrier or service provider and 3) accessible to any other PIM service requiring that information.
Even better, over 80% of the cellphone manufacturers provide this synchronization capability. While carriers are still figuring out how to deploy it as a retention tool!
Kind regards,
Robert Voogel
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Saturday, 24 January 2009
Market rebels and radical innovation
Interview with Hayagreeva Rao by The McKinsey Quarterly
Activists who challenge the status quo play a critical but often overlooked role in both promoting and impeding radical business innovation. Their importance stems from the very nature of innovation, which frequently challenges existing interests, norms, values, social practices, and relationships. As a result, the joined hands of market rebels—activists and their recruits—have with surprising frequency exerted significant influence on market acceptance of breakthrough products and services.
For example, nearly all of the technical aspects associated with personal computing were available by 1972, but the PC didn’t take off until a few years later when hobbyists, rebelling against centralized computing, organized groups such as the Homebrew Computer Club. These clubs were spawning grounds for actors—such as inventors, founders of companies like Apple, and developers of programs and games—who collectively established the market for personal computers and eventually stimulated the entry of larger companies. Similarly, the hybrid car succeeded partly because market rebels in the environmental movement paved the way by arousing collective enthusiasm for “green” causes among consumers and regulators.
By contrast, radical innovations (such as the Segway personal transporter) have often floundered because their developers overlooked the social and cultural mobilization needed to excite their targeted consumers. More striking, the deaf rights movement slowed adoption of the cochlear implant—thought of by its makers as a cure for deafness because children who used it could more easily acquire language skills—by painting it as an innovation that presaged the loss of sign language and the destruction of the deaf community. In France, for example, a deaf coalition called Sourds en Colère (Deaf Anger) organized demonstrations against doctors who promoted cochlear implants.
These examples and many others hold valuable lessons for executives pursuing innovation. The costs to consumers of adopting such innovations are high because adopters have to topple existing conventions. Stimulating collective endeavors that initiate social change can be a critical part of reshaping markets.
To do so, companies must understand how market rebels forge a collective identity and mobilize support. Crucial for many activists is articulating a “hot cause,” which arouses emotion and creates a community of members, and relying on “cool mobilization,” which signals the identity of community members while sustaining their commitment. Companies also can boost their odds of harnessing the power of collective action by employing the right tactics, such as emphasizing two-way communication with consumers. Above all, a mind-set shift is needed: managers hoping to foster and encourage the diffusion of radical innovation need to start thinking like insurgents. Those who do so are likely to become more effective at influencing their own organizations too.
Hot causes and cool mobilization
Activists face a conundrum: should one concentrate on changing beliefs first or modifying behavior first? Hot causes and cool mobilization help to address this issue. Hot causes mobilize passions and engender new beliefs, and cool mobilization triggers new behavior while allowing new beliefs to develop. Together, they foster the development of new identities and the defense of old ones.
By hot causes I mean those that inspire feelings of pride or anger. These emotions can be critical for overcoming another important challenge activists face: arousing to action individuals who are usually busy, distracted, uninvolved, or apparently powerless—and therefore reluctant to invest time and energy. A classic example is the quality movement that transformed the American automobile industry in the 1980s. One could have expected quality improvements to be undertaken by companies as a result of normal profit incentives. However, American automobile producers overlooked quality and initially disregarded Japanese innovations concerning quality circles. It was only after a threat was named—the death of the American automobile industry—that quality activists were able to mobilize support for quality institutes and initiatives.
Like hot causes, cool mobilization activates emotion and enables the formation of new identities, but it does so by engaging audiences in new behaviors and experiences that are improvisational and insurgent. The origins of the word cool can be traced to jazz musicians revolting against the legacy of Louis Armstrong, who had become synonymous with “hot jazz.” I use the word here to capture the insurgent and improvisational dimensions of the jazz of such rebels as Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, and Miles Davis. The key to cool mobilization is engaging audiences through collective experiences that generate communities of feeling, in which audience members don’t just have their emotions roused but encounter what literary critic Raymond Williams has called “social experiences in solution.” Consider the recycling movement, which seeks to promote sustainable use of resources and rests on the daily ritual of carefully segregating glass, plastic, and paper so they can be put to later use.
Together, hot causes and cool mobilization power collective action, and collective action creates or constrains markets. Hot causes intensify emotions and trigger new beliefs. Cool mobilization also evokes emotion, but it does so by engaging participants in new collective experiences that transform beliefs. Hot causes are highly defined, and their definitions give them emotional resonance. Cool mobilization is less clearly defined and requires conscious participation—indeed, participants have to “fill out” the experience through their actions and experimentation. Both underlie the formation of new identities.
In the personal-computing movement, the hot cause was the tyranny of the central computer; the sources of cool mobilization were hobbyist clubs and, arguably, the PC itself. In the deaf rights movement, the hot cause was the cochlear implant—billed as a tool of cultural genocide. The cool mobilization came from deaf rights groups that used unconventional techniques—such as performing mime skits depicting French doctors performing operations on blood-covered children—to arouse public interest.
Market rebels in action
The joined hands of market rebels can make or break radical innovations by exploiting hot causes and cool mobilization in many of the markets that affect our daily lives. It’s easy to forget as we drive cars, drink beer, and take medicine that these markets have been shaped by social movements.
Rebels in new markets: Cultural acceptance of the car
The car, a radical invention that promised to transform the experience of transportation, was an extremely hot cause. In 1895, when the automobile industry was just beginning, the gasoline-powered car was poorly understood, notoriously unreliable, and reviled by vigilante antispeeding organizations. Colonel Albert Pope, a bicycle manufacturer who went on to make electric cars, could not fathom why anyone would use gas-powered ones, asserting, “You can’t get people to sit over an explosion.” And a lawmaker in Massachusetts suggested that motorists fire Roman candles at approaching horse-drawn carriages to warn them of the arrival of the car.
Yet as early as 1906, commentator Frank Munsey noted that the “uncertain period of the automobile is now past. It is no longer a theme for jokers, and rarely do we hear the derisive expression, ‘Get a horse.’” Henry Ford is widely regarded as the man who established the automobile industry by automating production and driving down prices so the car could reach the masses. But it wasn't until 1913 that Ford installed the moving assembly line in Highland Park, Michigan, to produce the Model T—long after the car became taken for granted. What’s more, Ford benefited from laws licensing drivers and mandating speed limits—and he didn’t lobby or otherwise agitate for those rules.
Ford didn’t need to, because a social movement powered by automobile clubs comprising car enthusiasts played a central role in legitimating the automobile and presenting it as a modern solution to the problem of transportation. These enthusiasts (primarily doctors and other professionals) were rebels who flouted convention, abandoned the horse-drawn carriage for the automobile, and sought to popularize its use. Neither sponsored nor financed by car manufacturers, the clubs were both social in nature and focused on improving quality, shielding car owners from legal harassment, and promoting the construction of good roads. Club involvement enabled members to construct an identity built around a new consumer role. By 1901, 22 clubs had mushroomed in cities from Boston to Newark to Chicago.
In addition to working with state governments to draft laws licensing cars and mandating speed limits, automobile clubs organized reliability contests that pitted cars against one another in endurance, hill climbing, and fuel-economy runs. Each contest—a cool mobilization if there ever was one—was widely viewed as a test that proved to audiences that the automobile was reliable. The first reliability contest was in 1895; by 1912 the contests were discontinued because organizers recognized that the automobile had become a social fact.
Even Henry Ford needed to win a race in order to achieve the transition from engineer to entrepreneur. In a celebrated 1901 race, Ford, then an upstart producer, defeated the better-established Alexander Winton. Ford’s wife, Clara, later described the scene after Ford took the lead in a letter to her brother, Milton Bryant: “The people went wild. One man threw his hat up, and when it came down, he stamped on it. Another man had to hit his wife on the head to keep her from going off the handle. She stood up in her seat . . . screamed, ‘I’d bet $50 on Ford if I had it.’” The public acclaim that Ford received enabled him to create the Ford Motor Company in 1903.
Rebels in established markets: Microbrewing
September 26, 1997, was a watershed day in the history of the modern brewing industry in America: the Institute of Brewing Studies announced that the number of breweries in the United States exceeded those in Germany. In comparison to the 1,234 breweries in Germany, the United States boasted 1,273 breweries, and of them 1,250 were microbrewers—up from 8 in 1980.
Why did microbreweries start proliferating in the 1980s? An important piece of the puzzle was the legalization by the US Congress of home brewing, on February 1, 1979. This legislation legitimated a movement that had been gaining steam for several years. By 1984, the American Homebrewers Association had 3,000 members and its goal was to democratize the production of beer. It assailed the stranglehold of the leading US beer producers. Their “industrial beer”—disparaged as thin and overcarbonated—was the hot cause of the microbrew movement.
In addition to exacerbating discontent among beer aficionados about the lack of choice and the dearth of fresh, tasteful beer sold at bars, restaurants, and other gathering places, the home brewing movement educated consumers about traditional beers and artisanal techniques. Brewing, frequenting brewpubs, and attending beer festivals became forms of cool mobilization. In 1982, Bert Grant opened the first brewpub (which both brewed and sold beer and served food on its premises), in Yakima, Washington. That same year, the Great American Beer Festival drew about 40 brewers and 700 beer enthusiasts.
The passion to make tasteful beer with traditional artisanal techniques induced more microbrewers and brewpub owners to enter the industry. Their spirit was exemplified by Bob Connor of the Independence Brewing Company, whose billboard read: “Independence—enjoy it while it lasts.” As Anchor Brewing owner Fritz Maytag put it in an interview, “The more breweries there are, the more it will help all of us. We are like bacteria in a bottle. Alone we mean nothing, but if there are a lot of us, we can make a difference.” The number of new microbreweries and brewpubs increased in tandem: microbrews and brewpubs legitimized each other and enhanced each other’s cultural acceptance.
By 1994, close to 500 establishments were part of the $400 million craft beer movement in the United States. Although microbrewers crafted more than two million barrels of beer, their revenues were much lower than those generated by Michelob Light. Microbreweries and brewpubs weren’t about volume: they were an expression of a new identity, one premised on small-scale, authentic, and traditional methods of production, and fresh beer with myriad tastes.
Rebels in opposition: Biotechnology commercialization
In 1972, Germany’s Federal Research Ministry established a national biotechnology laboratory to promote research. By the early 1980s, Germans were applying for more biotechnology patents than Americans were. However, by 1990 German pharmaceutical companies either had plants sitting idle (like Hoechst AG’s $37 million facility in Frankfurt) or had delayed construction of new ones. Meanwhile, 75 percent of German biotechnology investments flowed past German borders, especially to the United States. BASF established a lab in Massachusetts; Bayer and Henkel targeted California. What happened?
For starters, German antibiotech activists made their cause a hot one by depicting biotechnology as a Faustian bargain that risked resurrecting Nazi eugenics and genetic discrimination. This emotional appeal enabled a small group of core activists to recruit a wide range of allies and sympathizers such as workers within pharmaceutical companies, schoolteachers, neighbors of scientists, church groups and leaders, politicians across the political spectrum, and part of the scientific community.
By reducing biotechnology to genetic engineering and connecting it to Nazi eugenics, the antibiotech activists made biotechnology a matter of basic principles and a technology imbued with “incalculable risk,” a term borrowed from the parallel debate about nuclear energy. As early as 1984–85, a parliamentary commission entrusted with writing a report on biotechnology titled it, “Opportunities and Risks of Genetic Technology.” By contrast, the Office of Technology Assessment in the United States released a report titled “Commercial Biotechnology,” which reviewed the economic prospects of the technology and how the federal government could support the industry.
At the same time, activists in Germany fostered cool mobilization. To arouse public concern, they held protests at large physical structures, such as corporate fermentation plants, rather than small university laboratories. Protests and marches often were local exercises, and activists staged dramatic spectacles to garner TV coverage and make the dangers of biotechnology more vivid: headless chickens strutting before demonstrations, disabled protestors holding signs against reproductive genetic screening, and deformed mutant mice in animal-testing cages. Emotion-laden tactics left the pharmaceutical companies reeling because they relied on a strategy of presenting “facts.” As one public relations veteran confessed:
I went to a panel at the nearest high school with a Green member of the state parliament. There were 500 people in attendance and it was packed. I was winning the argument, and suddenly [my opponent] started to scream and cry. So I said to her, “Don’t you think we should stop being so emotional and be more objective about this?” At that point a 50-year-old lady in the audience stood up and said, “Are you only a brain or do you actually have a heart in this issue too?”
The challenges and delaying tactics of activists created uncertainty regarding both the future of regulation and the speed with which companies could bring products to market, effects that had serious implications for likely returns on investment. As one executive noted, “The question often was, ‘Why spend money on this biotech thing, where we may make some money in ten years or not, when we could spend it on a chemical product or a product line extension, where we can make money within two or three years?’” By shaping the terms of this debate, market rebels inhibited biotech commercialization efforts in Germany.
Thinking like an insurgent
Social movements represent a double-edged sword for companies. Capitalizing on preexisting movements can create enormous opportunities. Nike, for example, owes its early success—indeed, its existence—to the running movement powered by Oregon track coach Bill Bowerman and doctor Kenneth Cooper (who pioneered aerobics) to athletes like Frank Shorter and to a network of running clubs that dotted the country.
But social movements also pose threats. The antitobacco movement drew on a coalition of health researchers and attorneys who played a central role in placing restrictions on the market for cigarettes. Similarly, the organic-food movement, which emphasizes an alliance between environmentalists and proponents of locally available foods, has created a formidable challenge for food companies purveying standardized products.
The challenge for managers is to start thinking like insurgents, which for many will require effecting a serious mind-set shift. As the examples below emphasize, executives who are able to do so boost their odds not only of shaping market acceptance of innovative products but also of stimulating radical change, when it is needed, inside their own organizations.
From deliberate cognition to automatic cognition
Many managers rely on deliberate cognition—that is, the ability of the human mind to process and analyze information—and an appeal to reason. By contrast, insurgents realize that audiences rely on automatic cognition, or shortcuts, to make sense of the world. Hence, they use symbols to communicate their point of view. Nissan’s Carlos Ghosn employed this approach when he took over the dispirited company.1 Ghosn initially spent two months walking the halls. He found that while line workers knew how long it took to build a car, they did not know how much it cost to build a car. And he was shocked when he asked Nissan dealers, “Who’s your biggest competitor?” to hear their answer: “The Nissan dealer down the street.”
Such findings convinced Ghosn that far-reaching social and emotional mobilization was necessary to turn Nissan around. The first change he made, therefore, was symbolic: English would be the company’s language. It was a shock to the whole organization, and Ghosn’s way of seizing neutral ground. He wanted to signal that Nissan was a global company—not a French or Japanese one—and to highlight transparency: no interpreters, no translation. Soon all employees received a small dictionary that defined key terms like “target” and “performance.” The point was to make being a global company more than just rhetoric. The introduction of English was the first step in a social movement to restore pride and innovation at Nissan.
From information to emotions
Managers believe in disseminating information. Insurgents realize that emotions of pride and anger are essential to “unfreeze” and move inert organizations forward. One organization that has used emotion to effect change is Gujarat Gas (an affiliate of British Gas), which supplies gas services to a small city in India. The managing director wanted to make the organization into a customer-focused enterprise, but it was a group of activists—young, mid-level managers with a fierce commitment to change—who led the charge. They believed that being responsive to the customer didn't mean doing something to a customer, it meant doing something with customers.
To persuade others, they made employees go through the experience of being a customer. The employees were sent outside the company office and learned when they sought to visit the office that they had to run a series of gauntlets: first, the sentry at the gate who interrogated them and made them wait; then several clerks delayed things. Who played the role of the sentry and clerks? Customers! Following the role play, employees and customers came together in a large room, and all 400 narrated their experiences. Articulating these experiences amplified the moral shock felt by employees—the shock of self-recognition.
From one-way to two-way communication
Many managers prefer one-way communication; thus, they organize road shows and town hall meetings in which they unveil PowerPoint presentations. Insurgents rely on two-way communication. They reverse the structure of the town hall; the audience asks questions and becomes engaged. Managers can try this online through “jams,” or giant conversations. IBM has had several online jams featuring thousands of employees. In the Values Jam, 320,000 employees weighed in over a 72-hour period. The values that emerged—dedication to clients, innovation that matters, and trust—gained currency because they were crafted through mass mobilization, rather than being chosen and transmitted by executives.
From roll-out to WUNC
Most managers are concerned with rolling out a change and preoccupied with overcoming resistance to it. Insurgents go where there is energy and are concerned with drawing in people. By getting their audiences to do things collectively, insurgents sustain emotion and foster worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment (WUNC—a term coined by Charles Tilly to describe the source of strength for social movements). Feelings of worthiness and unity, along with large numbers of committed members willing to take collective risks, are essential if a movement is to have impact.
Consider PSS World Medical, a company that provides medical supplies to physician practices through its network of drivers and warehouses.2 It believes in open-book management and recognizes that employees “fire” bosses by disengaging emotionally from the business. When it acquired a company called Taylor Medical in Dallas, Texas, the PSS World Medical manager in charge of integration, Gary Corliss, asked Taylor employees to join him for an all-hands meeting to discuss PSS values. The first question he asked employees was, “Tell me everything you hate here.” As he suspected, they pointed to cameras that the Taylor warehouse manager had installed to monitor employees and deter theft. Corliss, who had walked into the meeting with a baseball bat, smashed the camera, and invited others to do the same (with a blanket to protect them from shards of glass). Employees then destroyed the cameras. This cathartic act enabled them to express pent-up emotions and have a conversation about cultural change. Within six months, turnover—which had been a problem—fell to zero.
Market rebels aren’t Molotov cocktail–throwing World Trade Organization (WTO) opponents. They are groups of individuals who together shape markets through hot causes, which arouse emotions, and through cool mobilization, which allows participants to realize collective identities. Executives that understand the roles and practices of market rebels are more likely to be successful innovation leaders.
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
MediaFLO USA to expand mobile TV market coverage during 2009
By Jeff Orr
MediaFLO USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Qualcomm Incorporated, announced plans to make its FLO TV service available to more than 200 million consumers across more than 100 markets in 2009. The market launch schedule will commence within weeks of the February 17, 2009 digital television (DTV) transition date and continue throughout the year.
Broadening its FLO TV footprint, MediaFLO USA plans to work with its wireless operator partners to introduce the service in major markets including Boston, Cleveland, Houston, Miami and San Francisco. The government’s forthcoming DTV transition will free spectrum across the country for the delivery of advanced wireless services, creating new opportunities for mobile subscribers to experience FLO TV.
MediaFLO USA’s market research and viewer usage data confirms that consumers are progressively adopting mobile TV services and, once adopted, using their services with increasing regularity. Metrics show that FLO TV viewers are spending an average of more than 20 minutes per day watching television on their phones. This is comparable to the average time U.S. cell phone users spend per day talking on their cell phones, according to CTIA’s Semi-Annual Wireless Industry Survey.
FLO TV’s most dramatic viewership increases in 2008 occurred during live events, illustrating the service’s immediacy and its resonance with today’s mobile consumers:
* Viewership increased 103 percent over the daily average during this year’s epic U.S. Open golf championship playoff featuring Tiger Woods and Rocco Mediate.
* FLO TV’s dedicated Olympics channel, available exclusively on AT&T Mobile TV, was the most-watched channel on the AT&T Mobile TV service during the live Olympics coverage.
* Live coverage of Hurricane Ike helped spike viewership by 31 percent during the storm.
* On Election Day, FLO TV subscribers spent an average of 22 percent more time watching TV on their phones.
“These findings demonstrate the power of being connected in real-time to the news, sports and entertainment events consumers care about,” said Gina Lombardi, president of MediaFLO USA.
“In collaboration with our carrier partners, MediaFLO USA will continue to lead the evolution of live mobile television and extend FLO TV to tens of millions of previously unreached consumers in dozens of new markets across the country.”
All programs featured on the FLO TV service are available to consumers through leading wireless operators in more than 65 major metropolitan areas nationwide, including Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle and Washington, D.C.
Monday, 12 January 2009
Skype 1.0 beta for Intel-based MIDs
By CIOL Bureau
Skype announced the availability of Skype 1.0 Beta for Intel-based Mobile Internet Devices (MIDs). This new version of Skype software is the result of working with Intel Corporation to develop a new mobile Skype experience for MIDs based on the Intel Atom processor and Moblin-based Linux OS (www.moblin.org).
MIDs are an emerging category of small, truly mobile consumer devices enabling a rich Internet experience, coupled with the capability to communicate with others, enjoy entertainment, access information, and be productive on the go, all without sacrificing mobility or performance. MIDs typically come with 4"-7" screens, a camera, GPS and WiFi connectivity. Select MIDs also provide WiMax or 3G/4G support for wireless broadband connectivity on-the-go. ABI Research expects 86 million Linux-enabled MIDs to ship by 2013.
Skype 1.0 Beta for MIDs empowers these devices with a rich communications capability through a new, optimized interface which is designed to deliver a great experience and fast, smooth kinetic scrolling support on the touch screen displays of MIDs.
The software enables you to make free Skype-to-Skype voice and video calls to anywhere in the world, in addition to cheap calls to landlines and mobiles. It also includes instant messaging, group IM, SMS, call forwarding, voicemail, presence (seeing when your contacts are online) and the ability to receive calls from other Skype users or to your personal online number. MIDs' faster performance and wireless connectivity also enable Skype users to experience an excellent mobile video calling experience.
"Today's introduction of the first, complete Internet communications offering for MIDs bridges the gap between the phone and PC and underscores our vision of 'Skype everywhere' and our commitment to open access," said Scott Durchslag, Skype's COO. "By supporting WiFi, WiMax, 3G and 4G, this development expands Skype's mobile portfolio and further illustrates the broad accessibility to Skype that we offer on a multitude of mobile devices."
"Mobile Internet Devices enable users to enjoy the full Internet experience and stay connected with their friends and family wherever they go," said Pankaj Kedia, director of global ecosystem programs in the Ultra Mobility Group at Intel. "Our collaboration with Skype to deliver Skype 1.0 Beta for Mobile Internet Devices based on the Intel Atom processor and Moblin-based Linux OS will provide new ways for users to communicate anywhere, anytime."
Skype is working with Intel to deliver its application software for MIDs through Original Device Manufacturers (ODMs) and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). By offering the Skype software on their devices, device manufacturers can provide consumers with an array of rich internet communications experiences, instant messaging, group IM, voice and video calls, right out of the box.
Cisco study: U.S. wins TV and mobile-watching world olympics
By Tam Vo
Cisco Systems has released results from its new Visual Networking Index survey looking at video consumption habits around the world, and some of them may surprise you. Among other things, it gauged people’s attitudes toward online, mobile and television viewing of video content in the U.S., China, Germany and Sweden. Below, we’ve broken down the report’s findings for optimum factoid digestion:
* American internet users spend 2.5 as much time watching professionally-produced content (shows and movies created by studios and distributed through sites like Hulu and Joost) than they do the user-generated clips dished up by sites like video giant YouTube. This seems counterintuitive, considering the hype surrounding instant online starlets and user-submitted material in general, but NewTeeVee shares some interesting thoughts on why this is happening here. One reason is that full TV episodes and movies make for much longer viewing times on sites like Hulu, as confirmed by comScore.
* The trend is reversed in Germany, where viewers spend twice as much time with user-generated than professional video — then again, Hulu has yet to reach Deutschland (a potentially ripe market). The site is blocked in many places abroad because TV rights differ from country to country, and the company has to negotiate individual deals for all the rights holders.
* The U.S. may lay claim to the explosively popular “Evolution of Dance” and the “Numa Numa” Guy, but China is actually the leader in time spent watching online video — the average Chinese viewer sitting in front of two hours of it a day. This even beats out the time the Chinese spent watching actual television: 1.8 hours a day. Why is this? After all, internet content in China is subject to the same (if not more stringent) censorship standards. Maybe it’s because there are several YouTube-style goliaths in the online video space there, including rivals Youku and Tudou, making it more ubiquitous. Maybe it’s because TV never caught on in China as much as it has in the western world (compare that 1.8 hours in front of the tube to the 3.8 enjoyed by the average American). Remember, America invented the TV dinner.
* The report notes general apathy when it comes to watching online video on traditional TV screens. Not even Americans seemed particularly excited at the prospect — which could spell disappointment for set-top box innovators striving to bring a mix of broadcast and internet content to living rooms everywhere. Consider Roku and Boxee (I would say Apple TV, but really, what does Apple have to worry about?), two companies that have placed their bets on this trend taking off. It could be that the market is still warming to the idea, but 2009 may be the make it or break it year.
* About 23 percent of American video consumers watch content on their mobile phones, way more than in any of the other countries surveyed, where only about 8 to 12 percent do so. Impressively, those in the U.S. who use their phones to view video spend about 36 minutes a day at it. Predictably, the 25 to 34 demographic indulges in this activity the most (40 minutes a day). There are some bizarre stats out of the other countries on this count, however, with Swedish viewers in the same bracket typically spending 193 minutes watching video on their phones — contrasted with 15 minutes for 18 to 24-year-olds and 11 minutes for 35 to 44-year-olds. In China, 35 to 44-year-olds actually spent the most time (39 minutes daily) on mobile video. This last fact points to greater familiarity with video among older users, which may explain why online video has gained so much traction there as well.
The report goes into deeper detail on gendered and age-related patterns that you can decipher for yourself by downloading it here as a PDF. It was produced in partnership with the Center for the Digital Future at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication, and represents just the first phase of what will likely be a series of results. So stay tuned, or at least glued to your computers and mobile phones.
Monday, 29 December 2008
Eric Schmidt's Vision on Internet Development
Interview by James Manyika - The McKinsey Quarterly
The Quarterly: The Internet has radically changed the world. What are the kinds of developments you see ahead?
Eric Schmidt: When people have infinitely powerful personal devices, connected to infinitely fast networks and servers with lots and lots of content, what will they do? There will be a new kind of application and it will be personal. It will run on the equivalent of your mobile phone. It will know where you are via GPS, and you will use it as your personal and social assistant. It will know who your friends are and when they show up near you. It will remind you of their birthdays. It will entertain you. It will warn you of impending threats and it will keep you up to date. It will use all of that computing power that’s in the cloud, as we call it.
So, for example, when you go to the store this device helps you decide what to buy at the best price with the best delivery. When you go to school it will help you learn, since this device knows far more than you ever will. So this vision of nearly infinite computing power, network power, and these powerful devices is the basis of the next generation of computing.
The Quarterly: Armed with all this technology, what happens to how people live and work in the world?
Eric Schmidt: There's such an explosion of content, and yet there’s so little understanding of it. So, I think the gap between what computers do—which is very high volume analytical and replication work, and the things that humans can do, which are essentially insightful—is a large gap. In our lifetimes, we will not see that gap close very much. Corporations will change the way they sell products to people who are increasingly computer assisted. But ultimately, we still run the world.
The harsh message is that everything will happen much faster. Every product cycle, every information cycle, every bubble, will happen faster, because of network effects, where everybody is connected and talking to each other. So there's every reason to believe that those who are really stressed out by the rate of change now will be even more stressed out.
However, there's a new generation who are growing up with this as the normal pace of their lives. They will develop the social norms. As leaders they'll figure out how they want to organize their world, when you and I are sitting around watching them from our retirement.
For full text, see The McKinsey Quarterly
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
The “New Deck” in Mobile
By Kim
In mobile we have talked about “on deck” and “off deck” with the terms being all about carriers and whether or not a particular carrier was offering your content. The “new deck” is all about applications and app stores.
And contrary to what you might think, Apple’s iPhone app store isn’t the only new deck in town. Palm has announced a new application store and already has 5,000 offerings that work on more than two dozen devices including their Windows Mobile devices. Blackberry has an app store debuting in the spring and of course Google’s Android Market is already going gangbusters as well.
The proliferation of app stores impacats consumers, businesses and the mobile industry as a whole. For consumers it means that whatever your mobile device is, you can now do more with it. I predict that consumers will begin to shop for their next device based on the apps they can get and/or stick with a particular device for the apps they have already integrated into their daily life.
What the new deck means to businesses is that having an application store strategy is clearly necessary. Knowing which devices are most used by your target audience is a critical foundation step. And ignoring the application market will not work for long.
How do you think the “new deck” will impact our industry?
