The issues that Google Books present have been cause for contention between authors, artists, publishers, Google, the Justice Department, and other interested parties since its introduction to the public as Google Print at the Frankfurt Book Fair in 2004.  When a user searches for a term on Google.com, it is known in the industry as a “keyword.” Google displays up to three book results in which that keyword or phrase appears. Alternatively, a user may directly enter Google’s Book Search by going to http://books.google.com/ and receive only results from within relevant books per search. There, Google’s advertising (paid search results) appears similarly to the Google Web Search results page. That is one form of monetary value Google will receive from Google Book Search as it currently exists.

When the search results come up for the books in which a user’s search term appears, the user may choose to see the pages in which those search terms, or keywords, appear. While Google calls the pages for view “limited” so as not to destroy the value of purchasing the book, one could argue that the value of purchase is diminished by providing multiple page access to user-specified content. Much like Pandora Internet radio is not allowed to play songs on-demand, one might argue that Google Books could provide books in which one’s interests appear, but not provide the specific page (like a song) on-demand.

Along with the results by book in which the user’s search term appears, Google also provides links by which users may purchase the select books. By knowing that one’s specific keyword/s appear within the book (and see how many times and to what effect that keyword is used in context), one may be more likely to go ahead and purchase that book online right then and there. Prior to Google Books or Amazon Preview, the reader was arguably more likely to wait and go in-person to the physical bookstore to flip through to book to ensure the purchase is needed and applicable to one’s specific interests.  Thus, Google Book Search is potentially providing many additional purchases for online book retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-a-Million, etc.

Another potential benefit from Google Book Search is for readers to uncover the “unexpected” from their searches. For example, I just typed in “Bookstore” within the Google Book search-bar.  I was expecting to see certain types of books given my recent research into this topic of Google and the online bookstore. However, to my surprise (and delight), there was a result for “The Mystery Bookstore” – a book from the Boxcar Children series, which was a favorite of my youth.  I re-realized my joy for those books and my heart took extreme pleasure in reliving a memory from days of carefree reading divorced from goals or studies. That experience is priceless.  But could I have just walked into the “juvenile” or “children’s” section of a local physical bookstore and gotten the same result? Perhaps that could happen, although highly unlikely personally. Now, I’ve clicked through the link and am excited to purchase the box sets, garnering previously untapped additional revenue for either Amazon or Barnes and Noble. That is a valuable experience both for the reader (emotionally) and the publisher/seller (financially).

So, then, what is the problem with Google Book Search? Sure, Google makes some money from the ads, but they deserve it for providing such a service, don’t they?

Well, Harvard saw a problem with their practices and so do I. Harvard renounced their deal with Google back in 2008 even after Google “agreed” to pay out over 125 million dollars to publishers and authors because the “Do No Harm” Google had been illegally scanning and digitizing works still in copyright. Google would continue to scan in-copyright works and that is where one big issue lies: copyright.

Google planned to continue digitizing books still in copyright even after the Association of American Publishers (representing over 300 publishing houses) sued Google over massive copyright infringement.

PROFIT: “Do No Harm” Google has been misleading us for quite a while. Ever since its conception, Google’s founders have been working on a “Library Project,” an attempt to create one enormous digital library of all information, including books (copyright or not).  What’s the profit benefit? Selling subscriptions to actual physical libraries – both public and academic. Who will regulate Google’s fees? I say, the courts should mandate free academic and public library access to Google Books’ subscription model. If private, for-profit institutions (not excluding academic institutions) want a subscription, they should be able to pay a fair fee for access to unlimited content akin to academic institutions.

But then what about Joe Consumer – who will regulate how much Google charges for a copy of an orphaned work (a work whose author cannot be located) that is otherwise out of print? If Google ‘owns’ the only copy, what prevents the Giant from selling it at exorbitant cost?

I believe that is what we traditionally call a monopoly here in the United States:

A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation). In such an industry structure, the producer will often produce a volume that is less than the amount which would maximize social welfare.[1]

That brings us to the third problematic legal issue with Google Book Search. Right now, there is a huge (HUGE!) barrier to entry in this industry of total book digitization. The amount of money Google has invested up to this point is astronomical and even Microsoft gave up trying to compete in the Book Search industry due to the complex copyright issues. If Google Book Search Settlement is approved as-is, Google will get a “Get out of Jail Free Card” in this game of Monopoly in that they will be unaccountable for any copyright suits brought forth from previously scanned books to date. Since no other companies are even close to Google right now in terms of widespread book digitization, no other company could also be “grandfathered in” at the same time as Google. Instead, if another company were to viably compete with Google, that company would face prosecution for violating copyright law.

My recommendation would be to amend the current proposed settlement from as it now stands due to issues of copyright infringement and monopolistic advantage. In addition, as Doug Newcomb wrote in the SLA Public Policy Connections blog, “Along with excitement about the good that could arise from the settlement (see Google Book Search Will Expand Access), there are also fears that it could compromise basic library values such as equal access to information, privacy, and intellectual freedom.” (Hane, P.)

I would recommend that the Settlement change to protect other companies with the same rights as Google has for scanning works. If there are authors who come forward with copyright concerns in the future, competing companies should receive the same free pass Google now has when it comes to not being sued. However, all companies should be forced to take down content which authors do not see appropriately ‘fair use.’

In addition, the Settlement should also include free subscriptions for all educational facilities and public libraries. Thus, schools would be enhanced by Google’s work and all persons would have equal access to that information. That would assuage fears I have, and others have expressed as well, such as Pam Samuelson, UC Berkeley Professor of Law. She said “Libraries everywhere are terrified that Google will engage in price-gouging when setting prices for institutional subscriptions to ‘the works.’”[2]

In addition, what needs to be changed is the legalities involved with the proposed Book Rights Registry (BRR). Right now, the Settlement would give Google unfair advantage because the deal only grants Google an involuntary “virtual compulsory” license to the works within the BRR whereas future potential competitors are left out in the cold. This needs to be changed to include a statute stating that competitors also get whatever license Google has, and if copyright owners object, Google’s digital copies get taken away as well. The orphan books are a huge factor, as earlier mentioned, and make up an estimated 70% of all books. The orphaned works, whose owners cannot show up to license competitors, should not be privileged to Google alone, but given to every digital publisher in the marketplace.

With these amendments made, I would recommend a further review prior to approval, but would be comfortable giving the go-ahead to settle with those changes made. Hopefully the Honorable Judge Denny Chin will have similar insight into the matter and demand such fairness is written into the Settlement prior to approval.

[1] http://www.investorwords.com/3112/monopoly.html

[2] Samuelson, P. (October 2009) “Google Books is not a Library” Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pamela-samuelson/google-books-is-not-a-lib_b_317518.html

Sources:

Drummond, D. (October 2009) “New Chapter for Google Book Search” Google Blog http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-chapter-for-google-book-search.html

Duffy, G. (March 2005). “Google’s Cookie and Hacking Google Print”. Kuro5hin.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/3/7/95844/59875

Dye, J. (2006). Scanning the Stacks: The Digital Rights Issues Behind Book Digitization Projects. ECONTENT -WILTON-. 29 (1), 32-37.

Investor Words- definitions for business terms- here for “Monopoly” http://www.investorwords.com/3112/monopoly.html

Hall, G. (2008) Digitize This Book! The Politics of New Media, or Why We Need Open Access Now. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Hane, P. (July 2009) “Update on the Google Book Settlement” InfoToday

http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/Spotlight/Update-on-the-Google-Book-Settlement-54998.asp

Howard, J. (2009). Authors and Colleges Choose Up Sides to Love or Hate the Google Books Deal. Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(5), A12.  From EBSCO

Mirviss, L. (October 2008). “Harvard-Google Online Book Deal at Risk” http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/10/30/harvard-google-online-book-deal-at-risk/

Singel, R. (November 16, 2009). Google Submits Second Proposal for Library of the Future. Wired. Retrieved from Wired.com

Timmer, J. (October 28, 2008). Google Settles with Book Publishers, Becomes Bookseller. ARS Technica. Retrieved from ARSTechnica.com

United States Department of Justice. (September 18, 2009). Justice Department Submits Views on Proposed Google Book Search Settlement. Retrieved from Justice.gov

Waters, R. (April 29, 2009). US Justice Department examining Google Books Settlement. Financial Times. Retrieved from FT.com

Melissa Bird-Vogel

UW Com 597

Company: Flowers 2 Go

Current Market State:

Women used to buy flowers regularly to brighten up the home. But when the economy started to slump in 2008, business went down and flowers went the way of luxury items – a “nice-to-have,” but not a “need-to-have” for consumers. Flowers became a special occasion luxury versus standard procedure – for both men and women. Thus, business has been hurting and we’re looking to improve sales.

Target Audience:

Women are not the ones we need to get to buy more flowers. They rarely have someone to buy for who will sincerely appreciate the flowers. There’s no motive. Men, on the other hand, are the target consumers. Women appreciate receiving flowers as giving flowers is associated with love and romance. It shows the woman she’s valuable, appreciated, and thought of.

Company Problem concerning Target Audience:

Most men typically reserve flowers for “special occasions” especially with the current economic situation, as outlined in ‘Current Market State.’ Think back to the last time you either received flowers (female) or bought flowers for your significant other (male). Was it just a random Tuesday? Or, was it when an apology was needed or it was Valentine’s Day or a birthday? More than likely, the latter is your answer: it was a “special occasion” whether that’s an illness, an anniversary, a holiday, a death, or other markedly important event.

Target Audience Problems:

a. Men forget which days are important to send flowers. (Women are obviously capable of forgetting important dates too, but remember – our target here is the male audience.) The dates men think to send flowers are not the only important days to a woman. TODAY is an important day to the woman. So is the anniversary of your first date. Or child’s birth. Or a parent’s death. Showing her you care may be important to you but remembering those dates as they come up can be troublesome. We can help our consumer remember those dates and be known as the partner who always remembers to send flowers – what a thoughtful guy!

b. When romance dies, a lack of intimacy can ensue. Single men get this ‘issue’ solved with tips for single guys on how to score with the ladies. But committed men often wonder how to bring back intimacy – and women want romance. How is this solved? One way is to surprise her with romantic gestures that show he’s thinking of her often and cares about making her happy, showing her she’s loved and appreciated.  We can obviously help with this since we’re a florist and our owner is a woman tuned into romantic gestures.

Solution:

Mobile Application: “The Real Man’s Guide to Lasting Romance”

By Creating a Mobile App for men in committed relationships, we can solve the consumers’ problems – and in turn, help solve our company problem of selling more flowers & floral delivery services.

Application Contents:

“The Real Man’s Guide to Lasting Romance”

(Hint: Ladies, You can sign your man up for the service)

•Quick link to purchase flowers by price or occasion

•Tips for a lasting romance – Tip of the day available on application & option for SMS subscription for daily or weekly tips sent to your mobile.

•SMS reminders for important dates

Important to her – not necessarily to you. Don’t know? Have her BFF help you fill in the calendar. You’ll score bonus points by asking for help and showing her friend that you really care.

•Links to the message you’re trying to get across:

1. “I forgot our anniversary until the day of”
2. “I forgot our anniversary until the day after”
3. “I remembered our anniversary so I want the flowers delivered promptly the morning of”

•Store Locator

Vital to include in all mobile efforts – often the key info consumer needs

•Personalize-able calendar to synch with your mobile calendar

So even if you don’t send flowers, you can remember to at least send a text

•“When you accidentally imply she’s fat – send chocolates instead”

Links to other products if flowers aren’t the perfect gesture

•Forgot to get a card? We have those too.

Feel free to email/fax a signature or come into the store to keep it on file with us. Or we’ll handwrite a romantic note for you.

•Answers to difficult questions – like “why are you so thoughtful?”

Because you’ll need them once you employ our tips!

•Flower meanings – so you can sound really, really smart when you the exact bouquet that expresses a sentiment without words. Don’t know how? Don’t worry, we do.

Why Mobile?

a. Mobile is a way to connect with consumers in a personal, 1:1 communication. It’s the perfect means to send direct messages that no one else is likely to see. The intimacy of communication with mobile applications and SMS will be a great way to talk to our target and help remind him of important dates while providing a fun, interactive application to make romance and buying flowers fun.

b. Mobile is becoming ubiquitous, as we all know. Consumers now expect to be able to perform tasks on the go – without sitting down at the computer to fulfill to-do’s which includes buying flowers. If we’re not ready in the mobile environment, we’ll miss out on impromptu sales. If we are ready, we can capture a lot of the local audience as other local florists do not have mobile-optimized sites. Nor do they have mobile-optimized search results telling consumers “we’re here with a mobile site – come click & buy now.”

Components:

1. a. Mobile Website
2. b. Mobile Application
3. c. SMS
4. d. Mobile Advertising + On- & Offline Advertising

Strategy & Ecosystem: Mobile Website

First main component in fleshing out mobile strategy – the mobile website.

A mobile-optimized site is vital for on-the-go consumers.

Include:

Store Locator; Click-to-Call; WAP and M dot versions; device recognition/optimization; Option to receive MMS photo previews to customers of the perfect bouquet for the occasion & budget; Easy navigation & big buttons to choose by price or occasion; Credit Card OR PayPal OR Google Checkout for mobile-commerce comfort (save info with login available too); Promotion of Mobile App (Android; BlackBerry; iPhone/iPod touch/iPad – once those are created).

Work on:

Facebook connect; Twitter integration; email a floral arrangement; MMS a floral arrangement; SMS the site info

Content Owner: Our Company:

1. Create brand message

2. Create Essentials for Mobile Site borne out of online site (store locator;

3. Prioritize necessities/wants for site capabilities

4. RFP for lowest price on experienced site developer, leveraging in-house capabilities and interns from local University

Site Developer:

1. Find Site Developers & RFP for lowest price

2. Work with site dev to test across devices

3. Integrate calendar synching and phone # upload for easy communication

Consumer:

1. Discover via website, blog, mobile site, mobile search, App store, in-store promos, etc. –> PURCHASE! Have great experience and:

2. Receive text confirming flowers delivered, promoting mobile app/share experience with friends

3. Share app via Social Share buttons (FB; Twitter; email, SMS)

Strategy & Ecosystem: Mobile Application

Content Owner: Our Company:

1. Look for in-house resources or student interns who can help create basics for low or zero cost.

2. Create brand message

3. Create Essentials for App

4. RFP for App Developers to create iPhone; BlackBerry; Android

App Developer:

1. Create Application for iPhone; Port to BB; Android

Leverage developer resources online:

• iPhone: (http://developer.apple.com/iPhone/program)
• Android Phones: (http://developer.android.com)
• BlackBerry: (http://na.blackberry.com/eng/developers)

2. Work with our company to test app

-Consider certification for reliability on behalf on consumer (True North or other)

3. Submit to App Stores in conjunction with our company; together, make any necessary revisions

OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers):

1. BlackBerry; Google; Apple for application hosting and “billing” even though we will offer free app
2. Try to work with OEMs to integrate floral delivery billing to cell phone account

Content Exposure:

Create discoverability via advertising (blogs; magazines; product placements; mobile site; online and mobile search) and within application stores

Consumer:

1. Discover application from above means + WOM

2. Share app via Social Share buttons (FB, Twitter, email, SMS)

SMS

To support Mobile Application; must be opt-in; must include “STOP”/”HELP”/data & msging rates may apply verbiage as well for MMA compliance

Steps:

1. Work with Shortcode Company such as Neustar (or other cheaper options)
2. Set up SMS delivery for opt-in Romance Tips
3. Set up Notifications on specific dates for consumers

Set up MMS capabilities and build database of arrangements that are easily duplicated to send to consumers – make photos small enough K-weight to easily send via mobile but high-res enough to display beauty of arrangements.

Advertising

Word of Mouth is not enough.

We must work with existing offline capabilities such as in-store (both our store locations and other brands such as Chocolatiers whose products will we also offer via Application) and product placements, like on the floral delivery business cards inserted in deliveries.

Online:

Use website to cross-promote mobile efforts.

Twitter Account: find romance tip providers and advice-givers on Twitter; find other entrepreneur strategies and leverage learnings

Facebook Page: use to promote; create replica of application on Facebook page and give links for different device-specific application downloads.

Contest – promote on Facebook and Twitter to get submissions (build database for promotions) – “Best Romance Tip” and get free bouquet of dozen roses delivered.

Facebook advertising: keywords and targeting to leverage minimal advertising budget; offer discount coupon to increase profile fanning

Search Engine Optimization (SEO): get a mobile information page link onto our main website; choose SEO words carefully

Paid Search: CPC vs. CPM – use zipcode or location-based services to decrease costs (google; Bing)

Local Papers: The Stranger etc; look into advertising on the Stranger’s mobile application.

Mobile:

Mobile search – use GPS in phone to provide relevant search results (and minimize costs) –  paid search: CPC vs. CPM; work with Bing/Google representatives to check into paid mobile results vs. any search; search result includes “Mobile site” so users know they’re getting a good mobile experience

Mobile advertising: look into AdMob etc to find affordable geo-targeted advertising opportunities

Choose good keywords (and optimize based on search queries/downloads for searches in App Marketplaces such as iTunes Store and Android marketplace.

FourSquare – look into creating a link to FourSquare so any purchase or delivered flower counts as a “virtual-check-in”; create “Casanova” badge on Fourquare for users who sign up for SMS tips delivered daily

PR:

Send flowers and synopsis of application to local and national bloggers; magazine editors and column writers; newspaper advice columnists; etc.

Associated Costs/Fees:

-All the above will cost us, except for Facebook and Twitter accounts.

SMS:

Shortcode: ~$250/mo

MMS/SMS Delivery: ~$250/mo

We may need to nix SMS if we don’t get many signups and utilize MMS/SMS on a one-to-one basis.

Mobile App:

~5-10K

Mobile Site:

~5-10K

OR, leverage: http://campaignmobile.com/index.html to create our own low-budget site.

(Which is why we must leverage in-house resources for the site & application development. Contact University of Washington, MCDM to email students for internship/résumé-building opportunity)

PR efforts: the cost of flowers + delivery; owner will write up synopsis of application and catchy pitch to promote app.

Advertising is a high cost as well and we may scale back to rely heavily on social media if funds are tight. Mobile search results would be where we’d focus the dollars.

Challenges:

*Cost – this is our greatest challenge. Look to VC funding for assistance.

-How do we stand out in the marketplace?

-Will users find and use our application?

-Collecting a substantial SMS Userbase to justify cost of Shortcode and SMS service fees

-Media exposure – again, how to advertise without great costs to company

-Competitors – other florists will look into mobile soon too

-Content Selection –“Content is King” – need to be “catchy” and “fun” without being offensive; need to provide useful information but also entertain

-Measurement – how do we know it’s working?

Justification for costs:

-Void in marketplace: no other applications like this; no other local florists with mobile-optimized site.

-Necessary to be in mobile space; just like a website was expensive, but increasingly necessary (and now it’s a definite necessity for any successful business), mobile site/app is increasingly vital for companies to succeed.

Measurement:

Measure success by number of mobile coupon codes redeemed (sent with the tip of the day/week SMS).

Measure number of application downloads and subsequent “opens” per unique user. We would consider success if majority of downloads opened app once a month or more.

Orders from mobile site: consider using alternate phone number/routing from mobile site to track which phone orders stemmed from web vs. mobile. Ask users when they call from this alternate number if they know about our mobile application or if they want to save a login for easy mobile ordering.

Questions?

Contact me here or at: mbbv@u.washington.edu

Slide 11 is especially useful to figure out how to update status via text message.

And although Slide 13 will let you know about how to link your Facebook page to Twitter, I would *strongly* recommend a separate Twitter strategy from Facebook. Why? Contact me and we’ll chat It’s important to realize that fans differ from followers – people are on Twitter and Facebook for different reasons and expect different kinds of communication.

(That’s a question I’d love to hear back from re: blog comments – thanks!)

What’s funny is that, despite my affinity for Bing, I oftentimes use the built-in Google Search bar within the Safari Browser just because I have an iPhone. I have a Bing app for that, but I’m lazy. Truth be told, I can’t even think of what I searched for beyond the last search on mobile web.

My last search was sitting in the car just outside Vancouver as we’d spontaneously decided to hit the Olympics on “the way home” (not really on the way) from Sun Peaks – up by Kamloops, BC.

Now, I didn’t search – I used a site I’d seen advertised on a road sign coming into the city: know before you go – TravelSmart2010.ca – so I plugged in the url and then turned off data roaming block, then we were in business. But my travel partner Reid utilized Search and did so within the Google toolbar right in the browser. I still think a great deal of Google’s dominance is due to their monopoly on the iPhone search bar. Not sure what default search is for other devices – but obviously with the Android phones, it’s going to be Google-preferred since it is a Google product. Wonder if there’s any option on those phones? or if Google would object to an Opera Browser app vs. using the default Chrome as I’m assuming that’s what’s built in.

This browser war is an interesting one. I’d be interested to see what would happen on the iPhone if the search bar was Bing as default. I’m guessing we’d see that Bing’s now 0.3% of page views would increase.

What do you search for (specifically mobile)? and why do you use the Search Engine you do?

Google Search Accounts For 9% Of All Pageviews On The Mobile Web: Opera

by Robin Wauters on Feb 25, 2010

In their January 2010 State of the Mobile Web report, Opera Software looked at social networking on the mobile Web and concluded that Facebook dominated that aspect by a margin throughout 2009, while Twitter was the fastest-growing.

This month, the company looked at Mobile Web search in the United States, and claims Google is – perhaps unsurprisingly – leading the pack.

According to Opera’s report, Google Search accounts for more than 9% of all page views on the mobile Web in the United States, outpacing rivals Yahoo! and Bing, who respectively command 4.3% and 0.03% of all page views.

Opera, as usual, also provided some numbers about the growth of its own mobile browser Opera Mini, and general page view stats.

The company says that in January 2010, 50 million people used Opera Mini, a 7.4% increase from December 2009 and up 149% compared to January 2009. Collectively, Opera Mini users viewed more than 23.3 billion pages last month, up 12.7% since December 2009 and an increase of 208% since the same period last year.

Opera’s servers processed more than 3 petabytes of data, Opera Software co-founder Jon von Tetzchner writes. That’s a gigantic amount of data, and he puts that in perspective as follows:

This means, each month, our servers crunch an amount of data equivalent to the entire repository of the Internet Archive, with a full-size copy of Avatar thrown in for good measure.

Do you use Opera Mini on your phone?

What do you use for searching the Web from your mobile?

The discussion of critical mass adoption was my favorite – Markus (1987) was credited for the critical mass for interactive communication technologies idea that “within a community, adoption of a technology such as the telephone or electronic mail is an “all or nothing” proposition. If a critical mass is achieved, all individuals in the community will eventually adopt the technology. But, if the critical mass is not achieved, usage will drop because of the lack of reciprocity, and eventually no one will use the technology” (Williams, Stover, Grant, pg. 468). The example of the telephone makes sense – if no one else has a telephone, the adopter has no one to call. The adoption then dies or takes off depending on the total community adoption.

I encountered that dilemma when adopting the new media technology of Twitter – most of my personal friends did not adopt Twitter so I didn’t have any of my “real” friends to connect and share with on Twitter. Thus, I went to a one-way type of use on that technology – posting articles and thoughts that related to other Twitter users in the space. Suddenly, the social medium of Twitter was, to me, not personal but professional or hobby oriented – with my focus on technology, media, advertising, and marketing. I did not use Twitter to connect with people personally and I thus followed and communicated with other Twitter users in that manner.

Within my personal “community” of friends, only one or two tweets went out from each individual who actually tried Twitter. But now, no one else has tweeted from my “friendship community” in quite a while.

With Foursquare, I found the same thing: my Facebook friends, my personal friendship community, did not adopt that technology either. Since those are my personal friends, those are the people I’d feel more comfortable with knowing my location status. But due to the Twitter integration (Foursquare finds my Twitter friends too), I used it for a while and began to develop deeper connections – more personal connections – with my Twitter connections.

Some of my Twitter connections have actually turned into friendships. But I notice that once we cross that “friendship” line, many of the Twitter connections will find me on Facebook to create a more two-way and personal interaction.

I was actually a somewhat later adopter of Facebook due to the critical mass of interactive communications principle — my friends were mostly still on MySpace, so I kept using MySpace to chat and keep up with the social scene. Then, I entered into Facebook and found myself encouraging others in my personal friendship community to do the same so I would be able to get the full benefit of Facebook.

I think Markus’ theories are also why I stopped blogging a few years ago. I started blogging via Google’s Blogger service, but it was regarding personal content. Because I didn’t “advertise” or encourage my circle of friends to come visit the blog (like I did with Facebook), it became an irrelevant new media for me. I instead continued writing in a journal since the writing was still “just for me.”

I’ve really enjoyed created a new community via MCDM – a common-interest community, which is also creating friendships among us. I’m really excited to have a new community that adopts technology in a manner I do and/or would like to, so that the issue of reciprocity will not prevent new media adoption.

Markus, M. L. (1987). Toward a “critical mass” theory of interactive media: Universal access, interdependence and diffusion. Communication Research, 14(5), 491-511.

Willams, F., Strover, S., and Grant, A.U. (1994). Social aspects of new media technologies. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects advances in theory and research, Hillsdale, NJ: LEA, Inc.

Now, at the World Mobile Congress, HTC has announced not just one, but two cool new Android gadgets. One of which is the HTC Desire which looks amazingly awesome and like a Nexus One but is reportedly better (and since it’s newer, it must be better, right?!?).

So, why would I go buy a Nexus One when the Desire is coming soon? And wait, maybe I shouldn’t buy a Desire since the Android market seems to keep bettering the options so quickly? I should probably wait… and wait… as Android handset manufacturers will continue to try to outdo each other b/c of the bittersweet beauty/tragedy that is the Open Source Platform.

The Desire won’t hit markets until April at the earliest (for Asia; US still not announced) but b/c I know it’s coming out, I certainly won’t be buying a Nexus One. I think that HTC shot themselves in the foot with this premature announcement — hurting sales between yesterday and April-May (depending on Desire release date).

In Disrupting Technologies, the authors open with “One of the most consistent patterns in business is the failure of leading companies to stay at the top of their industries when technologies or markets change.” (Bower et al, pg. 43) Within Reinventing Your Business Model, one of the points which struck me as odd -and frightening for leading companies- was “Breakthrough, game-changing products rarely emerge from established businesses.” (Johnson et al, pg. 52) Why? Because established businesses don’t seem to regularly re-evaluate and adapt business models according to shifts in culture and technology. But why not? Perhaps the more established businesses do not see the need for this, and instead continue to merely improve upon current offerings for current consumer groups. Or “this is how we’ve always done it” mentally reigns and no one stands up to challenge the status-quo. Working for an agency, on a particular company, we found it necessary to key in on the Business Model’s Customer Value Proposition (CVP) whenever creating a big marketing campaign push. “What is this part of the company really doing for consumers?” we’d ask. This was for a Services arm of a major brand – so its CVP was different from the all-up CVP for the brand as a whole. Various business units can, and should, have different CVPs to serve their various customer needs. Because if there aren’t different customer needs, then why are there different business units?

Within Reinventing Your Business Model, there are a couple examples of established businesses re-evaluating business models and creating new products to serve consumers with new needs. In the two most powerful examples, those of Apple and Dow Corning, the established companies created a separate business model to accompany the separate product offering. In the Dow Corning case, they even recognized a new brand identity would be needed, and a different kind of leadership/staffing would be required as well. (I love that Dow ensured they’d be hiring quick-decision-makers and risk-takers by offering them the job within the interview itself).

Another commonality both of these companies and products had in common was the consumer they were targeting: the nonconsumer, as Christensen describes in Seeing What’s Next as: “Nonconsumers have a job they need to get done. But they are left on the sidelines, unable to achieve the outcome they desire satisfactorily. No existing market offering is designed to serve them” (Christensen et al, pg. 6).

The example of Dow clearly fits this definition of nonconsumption creating room for new-market disruptive growth. When Dow Corning realized that many customers did not need technical services, but rather basic products at lower prices, they had a new consumer set to service. When the people had the skills but did not have the money to spare, Dow could either create a new product offering or lose out on a potential customer base.  The resulting effect was a highly successful new arm of the company, with a completely new brand identity: Xiameter.

In the case of Apple and the iPod, this is more like the nonconsumer example of the telephone as an option for local communications. When people only had the option of talking in person (or shouting), the telephone had an easy time beating that alternative. These people were nonconsumers -there was no competition to speak of.

Although the Rio MP3 player, introduced by Diamond in 1998, was the real new market disruptive innovation by being the first polished public-consumption entrant into the space, it was just a gadget. There was no true need for such a device. But then Apple came in and created consumers out of nonconsumers of digital downloads. The real disruptive innovation was iTunes – creating an easy, relatively cheap way to consume music. Users did not even have to purchase an entire CD; songs were available as true singles for the first time. The consumption of digital music downloading created a need for MP3 players – and the iPod took off. The iPod’s evolution over time, even the iPhone’s combination of iPod + Mobile Phone, are merely upgrades to that initial problem-solver and market-creator of the iTunes + iPod combination, an example of “incremental sustaining innovations” (Christensen et al, pg. 10).

The other remarkable example of leveraging nonconsumers to create an effective product offering (and business model) was that of Tata in Mumbai. The people who could not afford cars were locked out of the marketplace due to wealth constraints. They instead consumed scooters – sometimes an entire family atop a motor-scooter built for two max. By creating a relatively affordable car (only ~$2500 USD), a new group of consumers were also created.

The article Reinventing Your Business Model brought about a great way to identify nonconsumers and thus a disruptive innovation: by generating a Customer Value Proposition (CVP). And where does one begin? With a customer problem that needs solving. Start with the customer and his/her needs (specific needs – niche is key!), then get creative about solutions to find the best possible way to solve the consumer problem. If no other business is currently solving the consumer need as well, as specifically, or as affordably/easily – then there’s potential for an untapped gold mine. Or, if one already has an operational business, it is important to periodically take the business’ pulse by identifying the CVP and assessing: a) whether that’s still the key problem of the largest (or most profitable) group of its customers b) whether the business is still meeting that CVP in the most effective means possible, given technological and societal shifts.

This article is a necessary read for any business owner or any potential entrepreneur – or any fan of Christensen’s book Seeing What’s Next.

Presentation:

Bower, J. and Christensen, C. (January-February 1995). Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Harvard Business Review.

Christensen, C., Anthony, S., and Roth, E. (2004). Seeing What’s Next: Using the Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Johnson, M., Christensen, C., Kagermann, H. (December 2008). Reinventing Your Business Model. Harvard Business Review.

(Putting all privacy fears on hold for a moment – very nervous about implications for privacy w/the geo-tracking elements)

What am I so excited about? why, the Voice Updating of course! According to Google’s Blog Post “The voice shortcut, which is available in the quick search widget on Android and in Google Mobile App on iPhone, allows you to post buzz without typing anything. Just say ‘post buzz,’ followed by whatever you’d like to post.” Yup, the thing I’ve been dreaming about is HERE. Well, if enough of my social graph is actually using Google Buzz for my voice updates to reach people, that is.

Here’s a little video also from Google’s blog post:

But what neither article addresses is why Opera’s announcing this prior to even submitting the app to Apple for approval for the app store.

I think they’re setting the stage for Apple to say “no” to another browser on the iPhone — and, thus, Opera has a PR game started against Apple.

I think Opera is facing an uphill battle, but that they’re setting the stage for the public to be on their side backing their entry into the iPhone app store. Of course, I do suspect Apple will say “thanks but no thanks” since it’s competition to their browser Safari. They’ll probably hide under the same thing they’re saying about Adobe Flash & the lack of its inclusion with the iPhone and iPad – that they can’t control the user experience and don’t want users have a poor experience on their product. (blah blah blah)

However, I do think Opera’s smart here in announcing their app intention prior to submitting to Apple for approval. Right now, CNET’s posted quote from Opera about consumers having freedom of choice in mobile OS (yes, even on the iPhone! gasp – imagine that!) is a perfect case-in-point: “When asked if getting approval from Apple might be a problem, the spokesperson said the company hopes Apple “will not deny their users a choice in Web browser experience.”

Then, if/when Apple denies Opera’s entry, hopefully consumers and “the public” in general will support their PR battle against Apple. Or – perhaps Apple won’t want to rock the boat here, and drive freedom-seeking users to other platforms such as the Android w/its opensource OS. Maybe they’ll actually make a non-monopolistic business decision for once. But I’m not that optimistic. I’m more of a realist.

from CNET:

February 10, 2010 6:33 AM PST

Opera readies mini browser for iPhone

by Lance Whitney

Watch out Safari. There’s a new browser looking for a spot on the iPhone.

Norway-based Opera announced Wednesday that it will unveil its new Opera Mini 5 browser for the iPhone at next week’s 2010 Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. The developer of the desktop Opera Web browser is touting Opera Mini as faster than Apple’s Safari, thanks to its use of compression. Opera said it compresses pages by up to 90 percent before they’re sent to the mobile device.

Opera Mini 5 will also offer such features as tabbed browsing, a password manager, and Speed Dial, a splash page that displays thumbnail images linked to your favorite sites. An Opera link feature will let you synchronize your Speed Dial page and bookmarks between the mini and desktop browsers. Opera has already found a home and some success on Java-based cell phones such as the BlackBerry and on Android smartphones.

The Opera Mini for iPhone demo at the Mobile World Congress will only be open to partners and journalists with press passes. But the company said it will also show all visitors the latest beta releases of Opera Mini and Opera Mobile for other portable devices.

But this all could be a moot point. An Opera spokesperson told me that the company has yet to make any submissions to the Apple App store. When asked if getting approval from Apple might be a problem, the spokesperson said the company hopes Apple “will not deny their users a choice in Web browser experience.”

Yet given the approval process at the App store and Apple’s reluctance to okay apps that duplicate an existing function, will Opera Mini face an uphill battle for the iPhone market?

from PC Mag

Opera Mini for iPhone Announced

02.10.10

By Brian Heater

There’s bound to be plenty of excitement later this week at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. So as not to be lost in the shuffle of eager story filings, Opera Software today announced its plans for the show–namely, the debut of Opera Mini for the iPhone.

“We are thrilled to offer journalists and partners an exclusive preview of Opera Mini for iPhone during the year’s biggest mobile event,” the company’s co-founder, Jon von Tetzchner, stated in a press release issued today. “This is a unique opportunity to introduce the fast, feature-rich Opera Mini experience for the iPhone, and to showcase our latest beta releases of Opera Mobile and Opera Mini on other platforms and devices. Opera’s mission is to bring the Web to the world, and by making Opera Mini available on yet another platform, we are one step closer.”

The application will not be “publicly available” at the event, according to the company. The big question here, of course, is whether it will ever make it past the App Store vetting process. Apple, after all, has been notoriously staunch on its policy against allowing applications it deems repetitious of the phone‘s existing functionality–i.e. apps like Safari, the phone’s default browser.

Apple has lightened its stance a bit in the past year, allowing some third-party browser manufacturers to enter the market. Opera, however, is currently one of the biggest names in mobile browsing–a company that Apple almost certainly sees as a threat in that space.

Opera is also using the event to unveil a number of non-iPhone browsers, including Opera Mobile 10 beta 3 for Windows Mobile and Symbian handsets, Opera Mobile 10 beta for Android, Opera Mini beta 5, and a Widget Manager.

Originally posted to AppScout.

iPhone users who love TV have reason to celebrate today: AT&T has announced that its 3G network will now support the SlingPlayer Mobile TV app. SlingPlayer is a service that allows users to watch live or digitally recorded television through the Internet. Up to now, that kind of live video streaming hasn’t been very functional through the AT&T’s 3G network. This development is significant for several reasons: it shows that AT&T is working to improve its network capabilities, it adds an additional dimension to the iPhone’s capabilities and it could make the iPad a little more attractive.

AT&T’s Getting It

First, it should be noted that this announcement comes from AT&T — not Apple. MarketWatchexplains:

Sling Media, a wholly owned subsidiary of EchoStar, originally developed its wireless app to make efficient use of 3G network bandwidth – and to conserve the finite wireless spectrum available to the wireless industry. Since mid December 2009, AT&T has been testing the app and has recently notified Sling Media — as well as Apple – that the optimized app can run on its 3G network.

AT&T has drawn a great deal of criticism about its network. This news indicates that its improvements must be working, as it feels comfortable that its network can sustain the additional 3G traffic that streaming live television would bring.

This also indicates that AT&T must be serious about wanting to continue soaking up all iPhone business going forward, despite reports that Apple might want to expand its iPhone service coverage to other carriers. The more functional AT&T allows Apple’s mobile devices to be, the more likely Apple is to stick with AT&T. And, of course, iPhone users will be happier with AT&T as well.

The iPhone As A Mini-TV

This also marks an important step for the iPhone. It has always shown video, and even streamed video nicely if stored internally or through WiFi. But it didn’t work quite as well over the 3G network. What you got there was generally pretty low-quality, slow, and unreliable. If AT&T really has improved its network so that its traffic can handle live video, then iPhone users will begin relying on the device for the purpose of watching live TV too.

Of course, this is still only a first step. Not all iPhone users are also SlingPlayer customers. But the fact that this app could pass AT&T’s and Apple’s standards means more live video apps should follow. The biggest barrier was network capability.

The iPad As A Bigger Mini-TV?

Finally, assuming that the optimized video will also display well on the iPad’s larger screen, this is a very important development for Apple’s newest device. Remember, it runs on AT&T’s 3G network, so this news should apply to it as well. That means, suddenly, it becomes a TV anywhere you can get a 3G signal. And with its screen size significantly larger than that of the iPhone, iPad users can watch television comfortably. Although watching video is possible on the iPhone, it will actually be pleasant on the iPad. I’ve mentioned in the past that I think the iPad will have trouble differentiating itself as a necessary device to own, but now it can also appeal to those who want an extremely portable television on which they can watch live programming wherever they can get 3G.