Thursday, May 7, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Online shopping with Web 2.0
A recent article from Yahoo's tech section, found here, talks about a new shopping website - Pixazza. Pixazza is unique when compared with all other shopping sites out there because it approaches online shopping through a web 2.0 lens. The fundamentals behind Pixazza are that various websites can link photos of clothing items to Pixazza. Then users tag the photos with links to common shopping sites such as Amazon, Overstock, or Macy's. For example, a celebrity gossip site such as "I'm Not Obsessed" will post images of shoes worn by an actress in a recent television show. Then users can tag the photo with links to the same or similar shoes at online shopping sites. The website benefits all parties involved. Websites that allow Pixazza to use photos are getting advertising and would post the photos anyway. Users that tag the photos get a commission of the sales generated through the tags.
I think that this website is the perfect example of web 2.0 and how websites are becoming more user orientated. Pixazza merges a number of different new website trends such as tagging, online shopping, and user input in order to create a new market place. I also see Pixazza as a further example of how people are beginning to re-think traditional media such as photos or news stories. Instead of merely seeing a photo of an object and then having to spend hours trying to find out who makes it. Now people can view a picture and know exactly who makes it and where to buy it by simply hovering over it with a mouse. I do not think that I will really take advantage of Pixazza from a usability standpoint because I am not a big online shopper. However, I do like that people are thinking outside the box and developing new website ideas.
I think that this website is the perfect example of web 2.0 and how websites are becoming more user orientated. Pixazza merges a number of different new website trends such as tagging, online shopping, and user input in order to create a new market place. I also see Pixazza as a further example of how people are beginning to re-think traditional media such as photos or news stories. Instead of merely seeing a photo of an object and then having to spend hours trying to find out who makes it. Now people can view a picture and know exactly who makes it and where to buy it by simply hovering over it with a mouse. I do not think that I will really take advantage of Pixazza from a usability standpoint because I am not a big online shopper. However, I do like that people are thinking outside the box and developing new website ideas.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Full length movies on You Tube
A recent article on CNET.com talked about a deal that might be fourth coming between YouTube and Sony Pictures. With the deal Sony would give YouTube the rights to full length Sony movies but still control the advertising. In all likelihood it would probably be only a limited number of titles, but it would help Sony market its own online video streaming site, crackle.com. Although YouTube would not gain substantially from this deal monetarily, it would be a great step for them in convincing other production companies to give YouTube rights as well.
I think that this is an interesting article because it shows how technology is changing. There has been a lot of talk in the past couple years about how everything is turning digital and how newspapers will soon be obsolete. However, I think that there might be a case for arguing that even movies in DVD form will become obsolete. It seems like everyday online movies and television shows are becoming better and better quality. It also seems like more people are choosing to watch their programing online because of the flexibility it offers them to watch at their convenience. I can foresee many of the major motion picture companies starting their own subscription based websites where consumers can pay a monthly subscription and watch whatever movie they want online.
Some will say that it is still nicer to watch a movie on a television than a computer for quality purposes. Well, they may be right to some degree, but not entirely. I think that in the coming year the quality of online media will rival standard DVDs (not Blu Ray). And there will most likely be a component that will allow consumers to hook their cable modem up to their TV and watch the movies there. I still think there will be a place for HD and Blu Rays, but I think that in the coming years we will start to see fewer and fewer DVDs.
I think that this is an interesting article because it shows how technology is changing. There has been a lot of talk in the past couple years about how everything is turning digital and how newspapers will soon be obsolete. However, I think that there might be a case for arguing that even movies in DVD form will become obsolete. It seems like everyday online movies and television shows are becoming better and better quality. It also seems like more people are choosing to watch their programing online because of the flexibility it offers them to watch at their convenience. I can foresee many of the major motion picture companies starting their own subscription based websites where consumers can pay a monthly subscription and watch whatever movie they want online.
Some will say that it is still nicer to watch a movie on a television than a computer for quality purposes. Well, they may be right to some degree, but not entirely. I think that in the coming year the quality of online media will rival standard DVDs (not Blu Ray). And there will most likely be a component that will allow consumers to hook their cable modem up to their TV and watch the movies there. I still think there will be a place for HD and Blu Rays, but I think that in the coming years we will start to see fewer and fewer DVDs.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Surfing the Internet at Work: A productive idea?
There is an interesting article here about productivity in the work place. Specifically, the article presents a study done by researchers in Australia involving workers and time spent surfing the internet. The study found that workers are 9% more productive when they are given time to sporadically surf the internet. Out of 300 workers 70% of them spent time during their work day surfing the web. In that time You Tube and Twitter were among the most popular sites.
The study found that people were more productive because they would then concentrate even more when they went back to work. It is the same principle as taking a break from intense work every 30-45 min. When a person is heavily engaged in a task they often function better when they take a break to recollect their thoughts every so often.
In theory the study makes sense. Everyone focuses better when they take breaks every so often. However, I find it interesting that the study is advocating letting workers surf the internet at work. The article did specify that in the study only workers surfing the internet for 20% or less of their day were studied and any more than that would be detrimental to their overall productivity. Still, the fact that businesses pay thousands or millions of dollars on software to prohibit people from surfing the web makes me think that companies would not buy into this idea regardless of the evidence. While this all sounds well and good, I do have some skepticism about companies buying in to letting their employees surf the internet. There is a very fine line between surfing the internet for a break and not being productive. I think that companies will not be able to monitor surfing properly and as a result will not endorse it, despite the benifits it might produce.
The study found that people were more productive because they would then concentrate even more when they went back to work. It is the same principle as taking a break from intense work every 30-45 min. When a person is heavily engaged in a task they often function better when they take a break to recollect their thoughts every so often.
In theory the study makes sense. Everyone focuses better when they take breaks every so often. However, I find it interesting that the study is advocating letting workers surf the internet at work. The article did specify that in the study only workers surfing the internet for 20% or less of their day were studied and any more than that would be detrimental to their overall productivity. Still, the fact that businesses pay thousands or millions of dollars on software to prohibit people from surfing the web makes me think that companies would not buy into this idea regardless of the evidence. While this all sounds well and good, I do have some skepticism about companies buying in to letting their employees surf the internet. There is a very fine line between surfing the internet for a break and not being productive. I think that companies will not be able to monitor surfing properly and as a result will not endorse it, despite the benifits it might produce.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
No more Xbox?
This is an interesting article that I came across on Yahoo. The article is previewing a new gaming system called OnLive. It is from a company out in California and is designed to eliminate the need for older conventional gaming systems such as Xbox, Playstation, and even gaming PCs. The basic premise for the system is an online game system that streams games right to the users television without the need for a separate counsel or game disc. In theory this sounds like a great idea... The company advertises that it saves space, money (no need ot buy countless disks or replacing damaged ones), and no need to buy multiple gaming system. However, I do have some concerns and questions.
I will preface all of this with saying that I am not a gamer and am very bad at most video games. My first concern is bandwidth. This product works by being plugged into the users internet connection (i.e. cable modem). There are obvious problems with this. 1)You are limited by bandwidth, so if the connection is bad the games are going to be shoty. 2) It will most likely use so much bandwidth that no one else in the house will be able to use the internet. 3) ISPs most likely will not like the constant bandwidth being pumped to the house. 4) If the internet drops in the middle of a game there is not recovering. A second issue, is there a way to save game? Since it is all played online there is not memory to save it to. Finally there is concern with price. The company has yet to release any pricing for the product, but says that it will be competitive with Xbox Live. I can foresee this getting very expensive quickly if users are not careful.
In theory this product sounds like it could be a great thing, but there are still many kinks that need to be worked out.
I will preface all of this with saying that I am not a gamer and am very bad at most video games. My first concern is bandwidth. This product works by being plugged into the users internet connection (i.e. cable modem). There are obvious problems with this. 1)You are limited by bandwidth, so if the connection is bad the games are going to be shoty. 2) It will most likely use so much bandwidth that no one else in the house will be able to use the internet. 3) ISPs most likely will not like the constant bandwidth being pumped to the house. 4) If the internet drops in the middle of a game there is not recovering. A second issue, is there a way to save game? Since it is all played online there is not memory to save it to. Finally there is concern with price. The company has yet to release any pricing for the product, but says that it will be competitive with Xbox Live. I can foresee this getting very expensive quickly if users are not careful.
In theory this product sounds like it could be a great thing, but there are still many kinks that need to be worked out.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Web Site design practice
My Favorite Things
I'm going to write out some of my favorite things, so you can learn more about me.
- Spring weather
- The color red
- White Sox Baseball
Friday, March 20, 2009
Ooops: Gmail undo.
This is an article I found that addresses one of the most interesting, and I think practical, new additions to gmail. According to the writer, Google has been putting applications into gmail for about a year that, for lack of a better phrase "save you from yourself". These applications attempt to insure that the mail being sent is how the user intended it.
For instance, there is a feature that searches for the word attachment in the email and checks to see if there is actually a document attached. There is another feature that prohibits people from sending drunk emails. I am not sure how many people actually do send drunk emails... perhaps a feature the prevented drunk phone calls or texts might be better used. Nevertheless, if a person tries to send an email at the early hours of the morning gmail has them solve a simple math problem first. While, it sounds like these feature might be somewhat annoying there is of course a way to deactivate them.
However, the newest feature is the one that I find to be most helpful and intriguing, the undo function. This feature allows the user to unsend an email up to 5 seconds after it has sent. I can remember countless times when I have sent an email and then realized that I misspelled a word or typed in a wrong phone number. The undo function is a great idea and I am surprised that no one thought of it earlier. However, if there was one change I would make it would be to give a larger window than 5 seconds. Google officials say that there is an option to increase the interval to 10 seconds, but I still think that is a little short. As the author suggests it would be nice if gmail put the emails into an outbox queue and held them there for a minute or two. Gmail officials did also say that they might increase the interval depending on feedback from users, but they did not want to make it too long so as to delay to email substantially. Regardless of whether or not they choose to increase the interval I still think it is a great feature and another indication of how Google is on the cutting edge of enhancing applications that we normally take advantage of like email, web browsers, and word processors.
For instance, there is a feature that searches for the word attachment in the email and checks to see if there is actually a document attached. There is another feature that prohibits people from sending drunk emails. I am not sure how many people actually do send drunk emails... perhaps a feature the prevented drunk phone calls or texts might be better used. Nevertheless, if a person tries to send an email at the early hours of the morning gmail has them solve a simple math problem first. While, it sounds like these feature might be somewhat annoying there is of course a way to deactivate them.
However, the newest feature is the one that I find to be most helpful and intriguing, the undo function. This feature allows the user to unsend an email up to 5 seconds after it has sent. I can remember countless times when I have sent an email and then realized that I misspelled a word or typed in a wrong phone number. The undo function is a great idea and I am surprised that no one thought of it earlier. However, if there was one change I would make it would be to give a larger window than 5 seconds. Google officials say that there is an option to increase the interval to 10 seconds, but I still think that is a little short. As the author suggests it would be nice if gmail put the emails into an outbox queue and held them there for a minute or two. Gmail officials did also say that they might increase the interval depending on feedback from users, but they did not want to make it too long so as to delay to email substantially. Regardless of whether or not they choose to increase the interval I still think it is a great feature and another indication of how Google is on the cutting edge of enhancing applications that we normally take advantage of like email, web browsers, and word processors.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
This is the album cover I made using a random hit in Wikipedia, a random quote and a random image from flickr. The name of the band is People's Budget and the album is "To be successful." In order to create this image I took an image and cut out the roses so that they would be visible in original form. Then I added a cutout filter to the background. I used a lighting filter to create the shadows. I then added the text and put drop shadows and outer glows over them. Finally I added noise to the band's name. Below is also the original image.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Gmail without the Internet
This is very interesting article from CNN about Google's new gmail application for mobile phones. The new version of Gmail allows users to access their mail while the phone has no network connection. This means that if a phone is in an area with no signal or is on airplane mode the user can still read their email. The application does this by storing the email to local space on the phone's hard drive. It does this every time the user is online. However, this means that when a user is offline they cannot get new mail. Instead they can only read their already stored mail.
This application seems useful, especially for people who travel a lot and might be in and out of cell range. However, I do have some concerns about the memory issues. Since the Gmail is storing the mail on the phone itself I wonder how much memory that is taking up? With the iPhones it will probably not be as big of an issue because they have either 8gb or 16gb of space. But what about a blackberry or some other kind of smart phone that does not have as much built in memory?
Additionally, aside from reading the email the program obviously does not let you send or move any emails so I wonder how useful it will be and if users will get annoyed? Also, does the program delete the old storage file and replace it every time it syncs to conserve room? If that could be a major issue.
I do think it is a good idea for web based email companies to move to a platform that allows users to access mail without being connected, however I think that there are concerns for the amount of memory that it takes up.
This application seems useful, especially for people who travel a lot and might be in and out of cell range. However, I do have some concerns about the memory issues. Since the Gmail is storing the mail on the phone itself I wonder how much memory that is taking up? With the iPhones it will probably not be as big of an issue because they have either 8gb or 16gb of space. But what about a blackberry or some other kind of smart phone that does not have as much built in memory?
Additionally, aside from reading the email the program obviously does not let you send or move any emails so I wonder how useful it will be and if users will get annoyed? Also, does the program delete the old storage file and replace it every time it syncs to conserve room? If that could be a major issue.
I do think it is a good idea for web based email companies to move to a platform that allows users to access mail without being connected, however I think that there are concerns for the amount of memory that it takes up.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Why no Flash on the iPhone
This is an interesting article addressing the issue of why the iPhone does not support Adobe Flash? It is pretty common knowledge that most website use flash for anything from banners to embedded video. So the question is why doesn't the iPhone support flash if it is such a crucial part of the internet? The article goes into several reasons from the technical side about how Adobe Flash and Macs often do not agree. Flash often slows down Macs much more than the Windows counter part. When Apple first introduced the iPhone they said that the full version of Flash was too intensive for the phone and the lite version was not good enough. This sounds like a reasonable explanation, but I think that the politics of it are far more intersting.
For a long time Apple has been pushing their QuickTime format over Flash. I think that this is the more important reason. If Apple gives in and puts Flash on the iPhone it means a forfit of the battle for QuickTime. As it stands right now Apple does not appear close to doing that as the most popular website for flash use is YouTube and Apple has already conqured that battle. They have convinced YouTube to reincode their entire library in a way that would make it compatible for the iPhone's YouTube.app. They also did the same thing with Major League Baseball and their gameday.app. This speaks volumes for the political power that Apple has in the world to be able to convince companies to rework their entire programs just for the iPhone.
However, when you think about it, it does make a lot of business sense. In the couple years that the iPhone has been out it has sold over 17 million devices. There are countless articles out there discussing the move in the business world from Blackberry to iPhone and Apple's ability to get companies to buy into that says a lot about this trend. It will interesting to see where this contraversoury goes from here, but from what I can see no Flash just means that Apple has no intensions of being number 2.
For a long time Apple has been pushing their QuickTime format over Flash. I think that this is the more important reason. If Apple gives in and puts Flash on the iPhone it means a forfit of the battle for QuickTime. As it stands right now Apple does not appear close to doing that as the most popular website for flash use is YouTube and Apple has already conqured that battle. They have convinced YouTube to reincode their entire library in a way that would make it compatible for the iPhone's YouTube.app. They also did the same thing with Major League Baseball and their gameday.app. This speaks volumes for the political power that Apple has in the world to be able to convince companies to rework their entire programs just for the iPhone.
However, when you think about it, it does make a lot of business sense. In the couple years that the iPhone has been out it has sold over 17 million devices. There are countless articles out there discussing the move in the business world from Blackberry to iPhone and Apple's ability to get companies to buy into that says a lot about this trend. It will interesting to see where this contraversoury goes from here, but from what I can see no Flash just means that Apple has no intensions of being number 2.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Google Latitude: Is this necessaary?
This article in the New York Times talks about Google's new program known as Latitude. It is a variation on their previously released Dodgeball app. The program allows users to send information on their current location to their friends via cell phone and Google Maps. To me this program is exactly like the one that game out with the iPhone where users could do the exact same thing using the map function. There is also an app for the iPhone called Looped which lets the user update their location and status much like facebook while on the go.
Apple marketed these apps as a convenience tool so that users could quickly find if they had any friends in the area to meet up with for lunch or something to that effect. In the article Google comments on the potential security issues with using such a GPS based program. However, for me I think that the larger issue is WHO CARES?! I might seem a bit over the line but I do not get the point of apps like these. I never really understood the whole status thing on Facebook, so that is probably why I do not understand this. But, honestly it is a tad bit stalkerish to have people knowing what you are doing at every minute of everyday. Now on top of that people can also know where you are. WHY?
The way I see it, if you want to know where someone is to have lunch with them... call them, text them. Make it personal and invite them privately. I think it is entirely ubsurd that people find it necessary to let everyone know where they are and what they are doing all the time. Perhaps I am a little bit harsh, but I just don't see the point.
Apple marketed these apps as a convenience tool so that users could quickly find if they had any friends in the area to meet up with for lunch or something to that effect. In the article Google comments on the potential security issues with using such a GPS based program. However, for me I think that the larger issue is WHO CARES?! I might seem a bit over the line but I do not get the point of apps like these. I never really understood the whole status thing on Facebook, so that is probably why I do not understand this. But, honestly it is a tad bit stalkerish to have people knowing what you are doing at every minute of everyday. Now on top of that people can also know where you are. WHY?
The way I see it, if you want to know where someone is to have lunch with them... call them, text them. Make it personal and invite them privately. I think it is entirely ubsurd that people find it necessary to let everyone know where they are and what they are doing all the time. Perhaps I am a little bit harsh, but I just don't see the point.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
This mashup is a cool way to track packages. It can auto detect which carrier your package is on from the tracking number, but it can do much more. It supports all the major carriers (UPS, USPS, DHL, FedEx, etc.) and will email, text, or facebook you with updates on your package.
Daily Mashup
This mashup is very cool. Some of the websites I search frequently are digg and flicker for images and cool articles. This mashup combines these and other sites like delicious, furl, and yahoo news into one place. I think this will be a much easier way to waste time and procrastinate.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Windows 7 for FREE!
This article presents a very intriguing idea about a marketing strategy for Windows new OS, Windows 7. It is obvious to most people that Windows previous OS was a complete failure in Vista. There are many things that led to its poor public perception from the system having too many bugs to Apple's clever commercials poking fun at it, however Windows can redeem itself.
As the article points out, everyone that has seen Windows 7 has proclaimed that it is heads and shoulders above Vista. For Windows that is the first step. They can have all of the clever marketing in the world, but without a good product none of it will matter. If Windows 7 lives up to its expectations than the writer of this article has a great idea - give it away for FREE. When you think about it it makes a lot of sense. There is no denying the popularity of Apple not just in notebooks, but in desktops and obviously in mp3 players. I do not have the exact numbers, but I would imagine that the amount of users switching from PCs to Apples grows everyday. I would even go as far as to say that if it were not for the dominance that PC created in the business world and many people simply needing the Windows only software there would be many more switchers.
So, how then does giving away Windows 7 revive Windows? Simple, it brings people back. From an economic standpoint there is not way that Microsoft could give away every copy of Windows 7, however they could offer it to current users of Vista for free. The writer of the article suggests that Microsoft allow Vista users to upgrade for $49 or less. That is a good idea, but why not just give it away. Here is the thing, PC was dominant. Until the past 10 years or so no one used anything but Windows. I think that a lot of people still want to believe in Windows, but Vista hurt that. So , by giving away Windows 7 to Vista users (the people who are still loyal) you restore their confidence in Windows. In business there is a rule called the 80/20 rule where 80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients. This rule is based on the fact that it is 5 times more expensive to go out and get a new customer than it is to keep an old one. Therefore, Microsoft needs to do everything it can to keep its current Vista users and giving away Windows 7 will not only fix Vista, but will also restore, in their minds, some faith in Microsoft.
As the article points out, everyone that has seen Windows 7 has proclaimed that it is heads and shoulders above Vista. For Windows that is the first step. They can have all of the clever marketing in the world, but without a good product none of it will matter. If Windows 7 lives up to its expectations than the writer of this article has a great idea - give it away for FREE. When you think about it it makes a lot of sense. There is no denying the popularity of Apple not just in notebooks, but in desktops and obviously in mp3 players. I do not have the exact numbers, but I would imagine that the amount of users switching from PCs to Apples grows everyday. I would even go as far as to say that if it were not for the dominance that PC created in the business world and many people simply needing the Windows only software there would be many more switchers.
So, how then does giving away Windows 7 revive Windows? Simple, it brings people back. From an economic standpoint there is not way that Microsoft could give away every copy of Windows 7, however they could offer it to current users of Vista for free. The writer of the article suggests that Microsoft allow Vista users to upgrade for $49 or less. That is a good idea, but why not just give it away. Here is the thing, PC was dominant. Until the past 10 years or so no one used anything but Windows. I think that a lot of people still want to believe in Windows, but Vista hurt that. So , by giving away Windows 7 to Vista users (the people who are still loyal) you restore their confidence in Windows. In business there is a rule called the 80/20 rule where 80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients. This rule is based on the fact that it is 5 times more expensive to go out and get a new customer than it is to keep an old one. Therefore, Microsoft needs to do everything it can to keep its current Vista users and giving away Windows 7 will not only fix Vista, but will also restore, in their minds, some faith in Microsoft.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Blu-ray discs and their future
My article this week is about Blu-Ray and its success of failure in the immediate future. Being a poor college student I do not have the money for the an HD TV or a Blu-Ray player, but I have watched numerous television programs in HD. That being said, my opinion is, once you watch HD tv you will never want to watch regular tv again.
After reading this article it appears that there are several reasons why the author belives that Blu-Ray will succeed and I agree. The majority of the reasons that critics say that it will fail is becasue of all the new downloadable movie services such as Netflix and Hulu and so on. However, the author sites several reasons why these sites will not succeed and the largest one being the poor bandwidth of local cable providers. These sites require the user to have a steady bandwidth at a very high rate in order to download the and view the movie without interuptions while streaming. The fact is that cable internet just is not fast enough yet.
In addition to the lack of bandwidth I also think that the downloadable services will fail because people still like discs and there are more and more programs out there that allow people to burn their discs to a hard drive. Additionaly many of the dvds and blu-rays now come with a digital copy which people can put on their computer to play on their digital player, essentialy eliminating the only advantage that downloadable movies had.
The author also points out that Sony (the creator) of Blu-Ray has put a Blu-Ray player in each of their PS3 gaming systems. Due to the lack of sales over the holiday season the price of these gaming systems is going down, which will make owning a blu-ray player much more affordable. Besides the gameing consules many other devices are starting to incorporate blu-ray players as part of their components such as laptops. This integration of the new technology not only strengthens the appeal of blu-ray amongst consumers but also solidifies blu-ray as a product that will be around for years to come.
Personally, I have never watched a blu-ray movie, but if it is anything like HD TV I know that I will want to watch one soon. Like everything else the price on new technology is dropping everyday. By next year blu-ray players will be under $100. Just look at HD TVs. Sets that cost $1000 a year ago are now selling for half that. For all the skeptics out there, you are probably the same people that thought HD TV, or even digital cable, was not a big deal and would not make it.... well look at it now.
After reading this article it appears that there are several reasons why the author belives that Blu-Ray will succeed and I agree. The majority of the reasons that critics say that it will fail is becasue of all the new downloadable movie services such as Netflix and Hulu and so on. However, the author sites several reasons why these sites will not succeed and the largest one being the poor bandwidth of local cable providers. These sites require the user to have a steady bandwidth at a very high rate in order to download the and view the movie without interuptions while streaming. The fact is that cable internet just is not fast enough yet.
In addition to the lack of bandwidth I also think that the downloadable services will fail because people still like discs and there are more and more programs out there that allow people to burn their discs to a hard drive. Additionaly many of the dvds and blu-rays now come with a digital copy which people can put on their computer to play on their digital player, essentialy eliminating the only advantage that downloadable movies had.
The author also points out that Sony (the creator) of Blu-Ray has put a Blu-Ray player in each of their PS3 gaming systems. Due to the lack of sales over the holiday season the price of these gaming systems is going down, which will make owning a blu-ray player much more affordable. Besides the gameing consules many other devices are starting to incorporate blu-ray players as part of their components such as laptops. This integration of the new technology not only strengthens the appeal of blu-ray amongst consumers but also solidifies blu-ray as a product that will be around for years to come.
Personally, I have never watched a blu-ray movie, but if it is anything like HD TV I know that I will want to watch one soon. Like everything else the price on new technology is dropping everyday. By next year blu-ray players will be under $100. Just look at HD TVs. Sets that cost $1000 a year ago are now selling for half that. For all the skeptics out there, you are probably the same people that thought HD TV, or even digital cable, was not a big deal and would not make it.... well look at it now.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
iPods and cell phones: together as one.
In looking around the internet for my first article I came across this one about how mp3 players are soon going to be obsolete because of the capabilities of the newest cell phones. Cell phones have been able to play music for a few years now but have always been limited by the amount of space in their memory. However, technologies are changing and now phones have the capabilities of connecting to the internet and playing live streaming music from anyone of the numerous sites, such as Pandora.
The author suggests that because of the ability for people to now have unlimited music at their finger tips with these digital music sites their is no longer going to be a need for the traditional mp3 player. Perhaps the most interesting point that the author makes is that people are moving away from wanting to be in control. Consumers no longer want to choose their own music, but want it to be chosen for them and at the same time have it meet their needs.
To me this is the most insightful and intriguing part of the article. I, as well as many others, have always looked at the iPod as one of the most ingenius products in recent memory. The iPod came out at a time when consumers desired control and choice. The iPod is perfect in that it is a geneic product that anyone in the world can buy and the one bought in New York will be the same as the one bought in Tokyo. But the genius part is that it is totaly personal and no two iPods are the same because of the content that the person puts on it.
What is remarkable to me is that there is now a shift from consumer choice in music to having it choosen for you based on your tastes. This change in the market is the reason that sites like Pandora work. The basic premise of music sites like these is that a person will enter a song or genre of music and then the website will play music (like a radio station) that fits the intrests on the consumer. These sites have become so popular because consumers no longer have to think and choose the right song, a program will do it for them. In addition to the automatic playing of music the person often also has the control to choose whether or not they like the song and to play more like it or never to play it again. So in a sense it is really the best of both worlds.
What surprises me the most is that the whole premise behind the iPod is changing and I am curious how Apple will respond. They have adapted somewhat with the iPhone and the iTouch now being able to coneect to the internet and take advntage of these music websites. However, I myself will often listen to my iPod on shuffle rather than scrolling through a choosing a particular song because it is just easier. Apple has been very strong lately in staying a head of the curve, lets see what happens next.
The author suggests that because of the ability for people to now have unlimited music at their finger tips with these digital music sites their is no longer going to be a need for the traditional mp3 player. Perhaps the most interesting point that the author makes is that people are moving away from wanting to be in control. Consumers no longer want to choose their own music, but want it to be chosen for them and at the same time have it meet their needs.
To me this is the most insightful and intriguing part of the article. I, as well as many others, have always looked at the iPod as one of the most ingenius products in recent memory. The iPod came out at a time when consumers desired control and choice. The iPod is perfect in that it is a geneic product that anyone in the world can buy and the one bought in New York will be the same as the one bought in Tokyo. But the genius part is that it is totaly personal and no two iPods are the same because of the content that the person puts on it.
What is remarkable to me is that there is now a shift from consumer choice in music to having it choosen for you based on your tastes. This change in the market is the reason that sites like Pandora work. The basic premise of music sites like these is that a person will enter a song or genre of music and then the website will play music (like a radio station) that fits the intrests on the consumer. These sites have become so popular because consumers no longer have to think and choose the right song, a program will do it for them. In addition to the automatic playing of music the person often also has the control to choose whether or not they like the song and to play more like it or never to play it again. So in a sense it is really the best of both worlds.
What surprises me the most is that the whole premise behind the iPod is changing and I am curious how Apple will respond. They have adapted somewhat with the iPhone and the iTouch now being able to coneect to the internet and take advntage of these music websites. However, I myself will often listen to my iPod on shuffle rather than scrolling through a choosing a particular song because it is just easier. Apple has been very strong lately in staying a head of the curve, lets see what happens next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)