James Cogan

iPad: The gadget we never knew we needed

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 04:27:00 -0800

Of all the things written about the Apple iPad thus far, this quote really resonates best with me...

So we have this new device, carefully planned by a company with a unique ability to reach new markets. And we have two types of products that have effectively failed to reach those markets. And you're going to bet on the failures? The iPad has shortcomings, but they only betray Apple's caution, just like what happened with iPhone No. 1. Now every 15-year-old kid asks for an iPhone, and the ones that don't get them get iPod Touches.
We can sit here in our geeky little dorkosphere arguing about it all day, but as much as Apple clearly enjoys our participation, the people Jobs wants to sell this to don't read our rants. They can't even understand them. My step-mother refuses to touch computers, but nowadays checks email, reads newspapers and plays Solitaire on an iPod Touch, after basically picking it up by accident one day. That's a future iPad user if I ever saw one.
Jobs doesn't care about the netbook business, or the ebook business. He's just aiming for the same people they were aiming at. The difference is, he's going to reach them. And the fight will be with whoever enters into the tablet business with him. Paging Mr. Ballmer...

via Gizmodo

Gruber's analysis of the iPad and Apple's long-term strategy is also a compelling read - The iPad Big Picture.

They’re Microsoft and Intel rolled into one when it comes to mobile computing. In the pre-taped video Apple showed, Bob Mansfield said of the iPad, “No one else could do it.” Only Apple.
And so my takeaway from this — with the bragging about making their own CPUs and their annual revenue and their size compared to companies like Sony, Samsung, and Nokia — is that this is Apple’s way of asserting that they’re taking over the penthouse suite as the strongest and best company in the whole ones-and-zeroes racket.

And just to underscore that this is simply the opening shot, the first page of the proverbial iPad...

But wait. Here's where Apple's magic trick occurs: This is iPad 1.0. It's amazing, it's a game-changer, it'll sell by the million. But you know that next year the iPad 1.0 line will get trimmed to a few models, and a price slash. Because iPad 2.0 will be out. With double the storage, with a camera (not a big omission in my mind, but your mileage may vary), with a speedier Apple A5 processor aboard, with better battery life, stereo speakers, extra whoofle-dust sprinklings and a built-in kitchen sink.
Its inevitable, it's typically Apple--which followed this business model for the iPhone--and it's typical for electronics. But you know that you're going to want the 2.0 even if you bought the 1.0, since you'll be seduced by its power, and by how much fun you had with the first version. And since you're not in a data contract you'll buy one, for probably the same price you paid for the 1.0. You might even spring for more storage inside, or a 3G one if you didn't get that before. And then there are accessories...
The same will happen in 2012 too, when the iPad 4G comes out, stuffed with LTE goodness, cameras and god knows what else Apple's squeezed into its chassis. If you go for the cheapest option every year, you might spend just $1,500. But if you're a gadget geek with deep pockets you could end up forking over $3,600 to Apple and AT&T. You'll probably have enjoyed the experience a whole bunch, though. Clever Apple, eh?

via Fast Company

David Pogue of the New York Times chimes in...

...Apple finally unveiled its tablet computer, the iPad. Thus concludes Phase 1 of the standard Apple new-category roll-out: months of feverish speculation and hype online, without any official indication by Apple that the product even exists.
Now Phase 2 can begin: the bashing by the bloggers who've never even tried it: "No physical keyboard!" "No removable battery!" "Way too expensive!" "Doesn't multitask!" "No memory-card slot!"
That will last until the iPad actually goes on sale in April. Then, if history is any guide, Phase 3 will begin: positive reviews, people lining up to buy the thing, and the mysterious disappearance of the basher-bloggers.
...My main message to fanboys is this: it's too early to draw any conclusions. Apple hasn't given the thing to any reviewers yet, there are no iPad-only apps yet (there will be), the e-bookstore hasn't gone online yet, and so on. So hyperventilating is not yet the appropriate reaction.
At the same time, the bashers should be careful, too. As we enter Phase 2, remember how silly you all looked when you all predicted the iPhone's demise in that period before it went on sale.
Like the iPhone, the iPad is really a vessel, a tool, a 1.5-pound sack of potential. It may become many things. It may change an industry or two, or it may not. It may introduce a new category -- something between phone and laptop -- or it may not. And anyone who claims to know what will happen will wind up looking like a fool.

Robin Sloan from Snarkmarket says the iPad is a call to arms for artists...

Apple is great at inventing new devices, but it bums me out that they seem so content to fill those devices with the same same old stuff: TV shows, movies, music, and books. Books…in ePub format?
Apple: you did not invent a magical and revolutionary device so we could read books in ePub format.
Think about what the iPad really is! It’s the greatest canvas for media ever invented. It’s colorful, tactile, powerful, and programmable. It can display literally anything you can imagine; it can add sound and music; and it can feel you touching it. It’s light and (we are led to believe) comfortable in the hands. The Platonic Form of the Perfect Canvas is out there somewhere - it’s probably flexible… and it probably has a camera - but the iPad is, like, a really amazingly good shadow of that form. And this is just the first one!
So, we’re gonna use the Perfect Canvas to… watch TV shows?
Seriously: ePub?
Now, connect the dots. For all its power and flexibility, the web is really bad at presenting bounded, holistic work in a focused, immersive way. This is why web shows never worked. The web is bad at containers. The web is bad at frames.
Jeez, if only we had a frame.
So, to finish up: I think the young Hayao Miyazakis and Mark Z. Danielewskis and Edward Goreys of this world ought to be learning Objective-C - or at least making some new friends. Because this new device gives us the power and flexibility to realize a whole new class of crazy vision - and it puts that vision in a frame.
In five years, the coolest stuff on the iPad shouldn’t be Spider-Man 5, Ke$ha’s third album, or the ePub version of Annabel Scheme. If that’s all we’ve got, it will mean that Apple succeeded at inventing a new class of device… but we failed at inventing a new class of content.
In five years, the coolest stuff on the iPad should be… jeez, you know, I think it should be art.

Joshua Benton from Nieman Journalism Lab splashes some cold water on news executives who may have been hoping the iPad would be an iSavior...

...the iPad, as we know it today, doesn’t change any of the fundamental economics of news commerce. On the iPhone, you can sell news apps through the App Store; you can upsell specific pieces of content to people within your apps; and you can sell advertising within those applications. (Apple takes chunks of the revenue from those first two options.)
On the iPad, you can…do those same three things. The only thing that has changed is the size, and that big beautiful screen. Will people who weren’t willing to buy news on an iPhone be sold on the idea just because the text is bigger and the photos are prettier? I’d be surprised. The commerce proposition hasn’t changed.
It was telling that the first website Steve Jobs used to show off the iPad’s web browser was The New York Times. (Apple and the Times have a longstanding mutual appreciation.) Showing nytimes.com before showing off the Times’ iPad app illustrated the big problem device-as-savior advocates face: As long as a device is a great web browsing machine, and websites remain free, it’ll be difficult to push people into the walled garden of an application. Not impossible — difficult. And If you’re willing to put up a paywall on your website, then you have issues to consider much larger than the iPad.
I didn’t see anything today that made me change my opinion that device-based dreams of a news deus ex machina are wishful thinking, and that the difficult revenue decisions will have to be made pan-platform.

Catharine P. Taylor from MediaPost takes a closer look at how the blogosphere has hijacked the messaging...

So what is an iPad? Based on the (blogosphere), it's a feminine hygiene product, reviewed by Walt Mossberg, consisting of nine iPhones glued to a cafeteria tray that can't handle Flash. It's worthy of people making fake ads about it, but may also put a damper on digital advertising while it is -- or is not -- proving to be the savior of the publishing industry. It also is the main cause of obsessive tweeting.
In other words, the bizarre echo chamber that we now inhabit has the ability to completely overwhelm the messaging about the product itself. To that extent, Apple is both the lucky and the unlucky one. Countless thousands, maybe even millions, will watch the video of the official Steve Jobs announcement of the launch, even though it appears that Apple has kept with its usual policy of not posting its content to YouTube, a practice I find increasingly bizarre. Even more will watch the 8-minute video posted on the site, and the real commercials, when they come out. Most companies can only hope to be so adored.
On the other hand, no matter how much Apple spends on advertising of the iPad, we are less dependent on its official messaging than we ever have been.
Maybe in Apple's case, this barely matters. At this point, there's a built-in base of people who will buy its products simply because they exist. But the rest of us should study the iPad launch for a peek into what democratized media really means. Think you're in control of the message? Ha!

Louis Gray says the iPad Wins On Casual Computing, Content Consumption...

The iPad simply makes sense. I don't need to hold one to know how it will work, because I have become so familiar with the iPhone experience. I don't have to carry it from room to room while using the Web as I know I would, or read books or other content on it, instead of the Kindle, as I know it's better from day one, with more functionality, a better screen and real color. I do not care about all the whining that is going on about it missing a camera, or whether it supports Flash, or whether it needs a USB port or two to fit in. This is the first generation, and like the iPod and iPhone before it, the first generation is going to get updated and antiquated in about a year's time, as we continue to see the product evolve. The iPad, despite not being perfect, is the best product on the market at this pricepoint, period. It can make casual computing comfortable, and continue to erode the complexity so long associated with PCs from any source.
Have I purchased one yet? No. Having just purchased the Air, I am plenty happy with it. But I know an iPad, either this version or the next, will make it into my home. And if the twins have their druthers, we'll probably end up with two. So it's time to stop complaining about dream machines and misplaced expectations, and time to start trusting Steve. No other company, Google and Microsoft included, could have pulled off what Apple did yesterday. They are going to sell a ton of these machines, and you'll see them in places you never expected. Casual computing and content consumption are going to drive it.

Mark Cuban is unreservedly making the call right now, the iPad will be nothing short of a massive hit especially for kids...

I cant wait to get my hands on the iPad. Its going to be a HUGE hit.
You can book it right now that it will be the product that kids of this generation grow up with and look back on with affection just like we did with the first video games. Video games changed how we grew up. The iPad will change how kids grow up.

Sci-Fi blog io9 says the iPad is nothing more than crap futurism unless hackers can melt Apple's icy grip...

I know a lot of otherwise-savvy consumers and hackers who are already drooling over the iPad and putting in their orders. They hate the idea of a restricted device, but they love the shiny-shiny. I'm not saying that they should deprive themselves of this pretty new toy. What I am saying is that this toy represents a crappy, pathetic future. It is no more revolutionary than those expensive, hot boots I bought at Fluevog, and only slightly more useful.
The only way iPads can truly become futuristic devices is if we hack them so that we can pour whatever operating system we want inside. We need to jailbreak these media boxes so we can install the apps we want, not the ones provided by the Apple shopping mall.
Do not be content with a television when you can have a computer.
Do not be content with yesterday's machines, because the future is before you. Ready to be hacked.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Will one of the Apple Tablet Commandments be 'Thou shalt not overcharge for digital content'?

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:00:00 -0800

I guess this is my obligatory Apple Tablet/iPad/iSlate post which comes just a few short hours shy of the public unveiling of this new piece of kit from the grand techno-wizard, Tolkein-looking character himself, Steve Jobs. I had far more to write, but Jason Kincaid from TechCrunch broke into my brain yesterday with a crowbar and stole most of my thoughts on the subject.

The tablet will be nothing short of a runaway success for Apple. They will sell millions of units, and just about everyone with a pulse and a credit card will pine for one. Steve Jobs will walk us through an awe-inspiring demo that will clearly define and usher in a new era of personal computing. From doctors, lawyers, teachers, students, gamers, construction foremen and everyone in between, the shear utility of this computing device and the subsequent depth and scope of environments that it will touch and transform will be nothing short of revolutionary.

However, I can not help but feel a palpable sense of disappointment for some content producers. In particular those content industries that are struggling who may be viewing this device with the hope that it may pave a new yellow brick road of revenue gold that will lead them to a brighter future and rescue their industry from a dwindling fate. For those dear folks, this tablet device will likely change nothing. Let me back up for a sec. A new era of personal computing absent of ushering in a new era of pricing economics of digital content will likely change nothing for said content industries.

When I buy a song for .99 cents, chances are 5 years from now I'll still want to listen to that song. When I buy an App game for .99 cents, chances are 1 year from now I'll still want to play that game. But if a digital edition of a daily newspaper will cost .50 or .75 cents, chances are that content will end up in the equivalent of a virtual trash can in 7 days or less. That's reality. And for most people, that pricing model needs to change, and change drastically to alter the value proposition of digital content to bring it inline with real-world usage, utility and virtual shelf-life. The largest consumer nation in the world is already up to their eyeballs in personal debt and there is a vast amount of digital content in some form or fashion available on the open web for free. Maybe the tablet paired with Apple's iTunes store technology will indeed be the catalyst for finding that perfect pricing sweet spot for digital publishing much like it has for music and thus unlock a more prosperous future for those content producers who most need it. I'm truly hopeful, but remain skeptical until proven otherwise. Jason Kincaid sums my thoughts up best...

I’m still excited for the Tablet, I’m just not expecting it to live up to its potential for quite a while. The big publishers will figure out this new medium eventually. Well, maybe they won’t. But someone will.

Launch update: The Apple tablet is called iPad, and it is basically an oversized (9.7" - 1.5 pound) iPhone/iPod Touch. A wonderfully simple, refined internet app-driven device. But perhaps not quite as revolutionary as some of us may have expected, and I bet there will be plenty of folks who are left somewhat underwhelmed by this offering. Nonetheless, the iPad successfully fuses together three micro-markets ie, tablet + netbook + e-reader thereby creating a new category of personal computing with no equal. In typical Apple fashion, subsequent generations of this product will see more features and functionality added, and one that I expect to see down the road will be a camera for ie, Skype video-conferencing. Perhaps above all else it is a swift, harsh kick in the groin to the Amazon Kindle and I'm not sure it will be able to get up off the mat. Then again, I never understood the value of the Kindle in the first place, so I may not be the best person to comment on that. My rule of thumb has always been to wait until the third-generation of an Apple product before I purchase, and I see no reason to deviate on this one. See you in 2-3 years iPad! Cheers.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Just Imagine a world without amateurs or free sharing

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:48:00 -0800

Co-founder of Flickr, Hunch etc. Caterina Fake is no stranger to the culture of sharing. One could easily argue that her and husband Stewart Butterfield were really on the front-lines of pioneering and cultivating that very activity on the internet. Enter Jaron Lanier, who among other things coined the term 'Virtual Reality' in the early-80s and recently wrote a book called 'You Are Not A Gadget' where he boldly claims sharing and collectivism have turned the internet into what he calls the 'World Wide Mush' in a Wall Street Journal excerpt.

Lanier seems to imply that people who give their efforts, music etc. away for free or without credit are either killing innovation or on a crusade to force everyone to do the same. It's hard to tell if Lanier is taking this position intentionally to ruffle the web's feathers, is grumpy, or is it that he is so skewed by his own lens and experiences that he can't see the value of other pursuits or motivations? To put it bluntly, he pissed Caterina off, and rightly so in my mind. I'd paraphrase Caterina's response but she's far too gifted with words to do that, so in the spirit of 'sharing' here is the gist of Caterina's rebuttal.

...(Lanier) appears to believe that quality is a zero sum game. A bunch of amateur musicians singing in someone's living room take nothing away from Lady Gaga. There's a lot of tilting at windmills in this excerpt. I've never heard anyone assert, as he appears to think everyone in the digital arena is constantly asserting, that "collectives make the best stuff" -- quite the opposite. Everyone agrees that 99% of everything is crap, and no one is claiming Wikipedia's entries are better written than those of Charles Lamb or Edmund Gosse in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (my favorite). But really, who cares? By sharing my (admittedly crappy) snapshots on Flickr, I'm not claiming to be Margaret Bourke-White. And my sister *likes* to look at photos of my dog. Who am I hurting? Should I charge a penny to look at my photo? Do I need a photo credit? No. If someone other than my sister admires my cute dog, they are welcome to do so for free.
Additionally Lanier does not understand that people do things for reasons other than bolstering their egos and making money. You shouldn't need a motivation or justification to correct spelling or factual errors on Wikipedia -- a certain desire for orderliness, good grammar, or truth should be sufficient. Those who enjoy correcting spelling and grammatical errors online -- I do -- are they thereby "robbed of dignity" as Lanier would have it? Of course not.
I could go on. I haven't touched on his claims that we're destroying innovation, or his implication that people who license their work with Creative Commons licenses or give their music away for free insist that everyone do the same. The open source software movement that could be mentioned, the free culture movement, or, frankly, any of the other many great things that are taking nothing away from auteurs such as Jean-Luc Godard, and even Jaron Lanier. They're safe from the incursions of amateurs like you and me. Of course the word "Amateur" comes from the French word "to love". Good enough reason for me to participate. And you?

Yeah, but who wants to listen to amateurs anyway, right? ;-)

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Untethered, the next frontier

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:53:15 -0800

"Mobile phones will overtake PCs as the most common Web access devices worldwide by 2013... Gartner estimates the combined installed base of smartphones and browser-equipped enhanced phones will surpass 1.82 billion units by 2013, eclipsing the total of 1.78 billion PCs by then."

via MediaPost.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

The real killer of newspapers, magazines won't be the Internet

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:12:00 -0800

Ever since the rise of the commercial internet, the physical distribution of media has been under fire. The demise of magazines and the death of newspapers in particular has become a spectator sport and the debate is typically framed as 'Internet vs. Newspapers' or 'Internet vs. Magazines'. While it is conceivable that over the next 10-20 years the internet will continue to chip away market share and eventually render those industries obsolete, perhaps there is another elephant in the room facing newspapers and magazines that poses a far greater extinction risk than the internet ever will.

A couple of weeks ago I watched the documentary film called "Collapse" (available via Rogers On Demand). It's a riveting, thought-provoking character-study of a man named Michael Ruppert who believes the world is currently crossing through a critical threshold known as 'peak oil'.

"Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline."

I'm not going to get into the meat of the peak oil issue here, it's just far too big for this post. However, since watching Collapse I have sunk my teeth deeper into the tentacles of the peak oil movement, read lots of articles and consumed a lot of video on the subject, and am now reading a book by Jeff Rubin, a former global energy expert for CIBC World Markets called "Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller".

One of the largest media sales in Canadian history is currently taking place as Canwest's extensive network of daily newspapers looks for a buyer(s). Many analysts expect those assets to fetch north of a billion dollars on the open market. While Canwest's newspaper titles are paired with digital editions, much of that price tag will be based on the present-day cash-flow of their daily newsprint operations.

From the production of the paper, to the printing process, to the distribution chain, both magazines and especially daily newspapers are extremely carbon-intensive operations which rely greatly on the availability of cheap oil energy. In June 2008 the price of oil skyrocketed to an all-time high of $147 per barrel. However, a few short weeks later the world economy plunged into economic collapse and the price of oil plummeted back down to $30 as global oil demand sunk with the economy. Because we didn't experience any prolonged exposure to $140/b oil, we really didn't get an accurate indicator of what the effects of high-cost oil would be to the most carbon-intensive businesses. Now that we are in some form of economic recovery, once again the price of oil is on an upward climb, currently hovering at approx. $80/b.

This inevitably leads to the question of what happens to these oil-intensive businesses when the days of cheap liquid energy are over? Is the daily newspaper in any market a viable business at a sustained oil price of $140/b? What about $200/b? What about $250/b? Depending on who you ask, those days are approaching much faster than you think.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this. "Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further.... Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France told a conference: "If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets … in the end that would suit no one." - via Guardian.co.uk

Despite the alarming quotes, I'm not running for the hills, and furthermore I'm actually quite bullish on the near-term economic outlook. But as I learn more about our energy issues, I am more convinced than ever that the rising cost of liquid energy poses a far greater mid-term risk to legacy media businesses than the migration of their audience to another medium.

-------------------

For a more humorous take on this issue watch the Globe and Mail's 'Hark a Complaint' Choir and the good gents of The Fine Grind a capella quartet sing a song about the woes of print media to the tune of Gnarls Barkley's "Crazy". Lyrics by Globe and Mail reporter Siri Agrell.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Look before you leap, but don't look for too long

Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:04:00 -0800

Research is important. Planning is important. But at what point do you just 'go for it'? And is it conceivable that too much research, plotting and planning puts you at a disadvantage, disconnecting you from the razor's edge of innovation, creativity and thinking differently?

Don’t worry if you don’t know “absolutely everything” before starting out

Before they launched their car companies, Henry Ford and Karl Benz didn’t decide to first spend a decade trying to win the approval of prominent horse breeders or railway magnates. Same goes for the Wright Brothers.

When Google– the most successful advertising business in the history of the world– started their company, their founders knew practically nothing about the inside workings of Madison Avenue. Sergey Brin and Larry Page most likely had zero inside knowledge about famous advertising titans like Leo Burnett, David Ogilvy, Lee Clowes, John Hegarty or Claude Hopkins. They were just a couple of twenty-something Stanford PhD students, who were far more interested in Internet search engines than they ever were in Nielsen Ratings, Proctor & Gamble or The Clio Awards. Which helps explain why, when the normal, mainstream, industry-obsessed kids of around the same age were just landing their first East Coast internships or junior executive positions at advertising blue-chips like McCann’s, Lintas, DDB or Saatchi’s, Sergey and Larry were already well on their way to becoming billionaires.

I love this story about Bill Gates: Some years ago, when the company he founded, Microsoft was at the height of its powers, he was giving a lecture to some college students. When the the Question & Answers came along, a keen undergraduate asked the question, “What advice would you give to a young person like me who wants to make a lot of money some day?”

Gates’ answer was as wonderful as it was short: “For Goodness’ sake, don’t do what I did. That money’s already been made by me.”

via gapingvoid.com

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Is 'leadership' old skool?

Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:00:00 -0800

Umair Haque's blog post 'The Builders' Manifesto' is an outstanding read. He surmises that 'leadership' is to some degree a by-product of a dying industrial era. Leaders of today know how to govern and navigate what are essentially 20th century organizational structures and economics. As we transition from industrial to information age, Umair sees a future that needs a rethink from the ground-up and thus requires a different skillset than your typical leader. Ironically, one of the better leaders / US Presidents of our time Bill Clinton penned the moniker 'Building a bridge to the 21st century'. Yet, even Clinton himself is a mere cog in the wheel of that old leadership paradigm and wasn't so much building a bridge but rather attempting to lead people across a fictitious one. Much in the same way that Haque contrasts Mahatma Gandhi (the builder) vs Barack Obama (the leader).

Today's builders are igniting the distant grandchild of yesterday's industrial revolution: an institutional revolution for a post-industrial world. They are forging the new building blocks - from ethical investment, to deep journalism, to socially useful finance, to universally accessible communication - that a rusting economy, society, and polity so urgently demand.
The 21st century doesn't need more leaders - nor more leadership. Only Builders can kickstart the chain reaction of a better, more authentic kind of prosperity.

I'm not suggesting leadership is easy, but this reminds me of something Thomas Edison said about opportunity; "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Which is the tougher job, editing a book or authoring a new one? Perhaps this explains why the list of wannabe leaders is awfully long and wide, but builders? Not so much.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Baby boomers are getting into new technology, on their terms

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:20:00 -0800

Facebook's growth continues to explode, now topping 350M users and still going strong. If there is a 'secret sauce' that has propelled Facebook into becoming the most widely used social network in the world, one of the key ingredients of that sauce would undeniably be demographics. As Facebook has grown, it has gotten older. Twitter is a brilliant real-time publishing tool, LinkedIn is equally brilliant for business networking. However, no other social network in the world has managed to weave together all three primary social pillars as well as Facebook has. Those pillars are Family, Friends and Business.

"A study in August by marketing agency iStrategyLabs suggested the number of new Facebook users aged 55 and older grew by almost 514 per cent in the previous six months, compared to 4.8 per cent growth among 18-to 24-year-olds and 24.2 per cent for those 17 and younger." (source: AM1150)

On the research trail for a new venture, one of the things I've been mindful of are the wants, needs, usage patterns and behaviours of baby boomers. What motivates boomers to adopt new technology? What turns them away? I recently stumbled across a study that offers some great insights into the baby boomer cohort and how they perceive new technology. Inside the tech world, we gravitate to the shiny new beta-toy on the block and the digerati tweenies/Echos are a sought-after cohort because of their willingness to be on the front-lines of the adoption curve. But talk to investors, VC or otherwise, and they are clearly looking for the next Facebook. While attempting to be the next Facebook is a fool's errand, aspiring to be as widely used as Facebook isn't. But before you can shoot for that moon, it would be wise to ensure that your concept is age-agnostic and that means it has to be something a baby boomer could embrace.

"...boomers are in fact active adopters of new technology - but with a unique style driven by two aspects of their character. The first is that this generation lives at the midpoint of life’s cycles: often with children at home, yet also responsible for aging parents. From this center-court vantage point, they see the technology wants and needs of their children and also of their own parents. They’re likely to experience, in daily life, both the brash enthusiasm of youthful early adopters and the deliberate caution of older adults.
The second unique aspect is their historical perspective. Baby boomers grew up with technology: they were in their teens to early 30s when the first IBM PCs and Apples appeared, and were the innovators and early adopters of that era (one dinner participant still has the manual for Windows 1.0). Yet they also recall a time when all telephones had wires and were rented monthly from Ma Bell - a time when there were a handful of television stations, and if you turned on the set in the middle of the night, you saw a test pattern. They created their social lives before the advent of ubiquitous communication, when physical distance meant true separation, and if your parents moved to a new state you’d likely lose touch with old pals.
The consistent theme in this diverse group is that boomers want to bring their own values to technology. Boomer ideals were forged in an era when human rights and individual freedoms were central concerns, and boomers apply that perspective to technology as well. They fear that their children, perhaps unwittingly, allow technology to shape their lives rather than using technology to help create the lives they want. Boomers want technology to fit the lives they have made and the values they hold dear.
The boomers thus occupy a unique niche. If their children are the technology pioneers, the first to explore new territory, boomers are the settlers, arriving a bit later to set up schools and libraries, churches and hospitals, to sink deep roots and build permanent structures. With one foot in the future and the other in the past, they are inventing a world for the 50-year-old of the future. The choices they make, the devices, software and services they embrace, will directly inform what is available as the next generation grows older."

Full study entitled 'Boomers and Technology: An Extended Conversation' can be downloaded here: (source: PDF Report)

Permalink | Leave a comment »

James Cogan on Dan Cook CJAD 800 AM - Michael Jackson & Net Effect

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:46:00 -0700

(8626 KB)
Listen on posterous

It's always a treat to chat with Dan Cook, show host on CJAD 800 AM and political blogstar for the Globe and Mail. The topic for this radio clip was the news of Michael Jackson's passing, and the subsequent effect on internet and traditional media.

Recorded date: June 26, 2009

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Don't let first impressions linger when it comes to social media / technology tools

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:40:00 -0700

Don't let first impressions linger when it comes to social media / technology tools on Video.ca

Awoke early Friday morning with a blog post idea and couldn't wait to get it out. re: Facebook vanity URLs and how the service has changed since it first started gaining momentum.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Entrepreneurs can change the world

Sun, 31 May 2009 02:03:00 -0700

dailypixel has been a happy GotVmail.com customer for years. So when I heard a few months back that the company had bought a generic domain name and a re-branding announcement was on the way, needless to say I was intrigued. Sure enough in mid-April we received a letter from the founder/CEO announcing their new name, Grasshopper.com. It was a brilliant move to say the least. However, having a kickass brand name / location is half the battle, it's what you do with it (ie, your messaging) that makes it a home run. After watching this viral video, I'd say the Grasshopper team deserves some serious high-fives!

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Why our 'amazing' science fiction future fizzled

Fri, 29 May 2009 06:28:04 -0700

"At some point, you can't expect a miracle to come in the form of technology to save us," Verheiden says. "At some point, the miracle has to come from a change in attitude and a new outlook."

Source: Why our 'amazing' science fiction future fizzled

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Is T-Mobile's latest viral campaign a shining example of social media? Or is it a rip-off? Or both?

Tue, 05 May 2009 02:56:00 -0700

Is T-Mobile's latest viral campaign a shining example of social media? Or is it a rip-off? Or both? I think these are fair questions in the wake of T-Mobile's recently released commercial which features a crowd of 13,500 people singing the Beatles 'Hey Jude' in unison with celebrity vocalist Pink leading the way.

On the one hand, it really is an impressive commercial spot in terms of scale. They used over 2000 microphones and 40+ cameras to capture the event in a public venue. T-Mobile successfully used social media tools like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook to bring awareness to the event, which is a genuine social media victory given the large turnout. The end result is a polished commercial concept that is successfully going viral on the internet and getting much attention from the frontlines of the social media crowd. But is this really what social media is all about? Is this what we should be pointing to when companies want examples of social media / viral marketing done right? I'm not so sure. If there is any social media brilliance in the T-Mobile 'Hey Jude' campaign it is in their use of social media to organize the large public gathering. But that is pretty much where the 'social media' aspect of this ends, and where the rip-off begins. This 'sing-along' concept was pioneered 30+ years ago by Coca-Cola. Do you remember that 1971 commercial? If you are 30+ years of age, I bet you do.

What makes the Coca-Cola spot so much more impressive than T-Mobile's latest campaign is in the originality of the concept. Coca-Cola didn't borrow a song from a world-famous band, nor did they hire a highly-paid celebrity to drive engagement and traction. Coca-Cola produced their own song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing' which was so original, catchy and effective that after the commerical aired it was re-produced into a stand-alone full-length single that reached #7 on the charts in the United States, #13 on the Billboard Hot 100 and #5 on Billboard's Adult Contemporary chart. The best illustration of how vital the components of 'originality and creativity' are when measuring marketing success is evidenced by this live video...

That's 10,000 people at an American Idol audition in Atlanta (2007) singing Coca-Cola's song over 35 years after the commercial aired for the first time, and even more impressive is that the primary demographic attending that event were likely not even born when the original commercial was made. How much is that worth to Coca-Cola? Priceless. In my view, the best examples of any form of marketing, especially social media marketing, needs to have an element of originality to it. If you simply copy, borrow or outright steal concepts, you will never hit the same mark as the original, and more importantly, you will potentially lose the biggest benefit of social media marketing - timelessness.

Due to the saturation of brand messages in the marketplace, advertisers today should be trying to push the boundaries of aesthetics and originality more than they ever have. That is precisely what made something like the Eepy Bird - Diet Coke + Mentos viral videos such an incredible albeit accidental boon for Diet Coke and Mentos, or the Subservient Chicken campaign for Burger King. They were completely original concepts that will endure for decades. I'm quite certain if and when a large public gathering in the future spontaneously starts singing 'Hey Jude', it will have little to do with T-Mobile, and everything to do with a band called The Beatles.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

The 'Coke Side of Life' is full of digital and social media

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:15:04 -0700

The 'Coke Side of Life' is full of digital and social media...

Clyde Tuggle, SVP of corporate affairs and productivity at Coke, noted "mass media is declining in importance," when introducing the new department in a memo to staff, which the beverage manufacturer shared with PRWeek. Our future success depends on our continued ability to connect people to our brands and our Company all around the world, one person at a time,” Tuggle wrote. “Our new office of digital communications and social media will help us become even more comfortable and effective in these new spaces.”

via Coca-Cola launches office of digital and social media

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Twitter IDs are the New Domain Names

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:49:00 -0700

Bill Sweetman from Yummy Names beat me to the blogging punch (not hard to do these days given my lack of posting!) and wrote a great post on a topic I had been thinking about for some time - the growing importance of claiming your Twitter ID. As Twitter continues its ascent into the consumer mainstream, and businesses continue to flock to the medium to engage with their customers and clients, your Twitter ID is fast-becoming a vital extension of your brand and persona.

Even if you don't understand Twitter or don't think it has a role to play in your company's marketing efforts today, I strongly urge you to still secure your Twitter ID now. ...I predict that over the next few years, millions of dollars will be spent by companies buying, selling, and fighting over Twitter IDs. I have already seen a number of nasty legal spats develop, and I have personally brokered the sale of several Twitter IDs already. And this is only the very beginning... If you are Acme Furniture, you should make sure you get your hands on @acmefurniture right away. Since there is no fee to register a Twitter ID, you have no excuse not to do this. Simply head on over to http://www.twitter.com and sign up for a free account. Don't be the person who in a year or two is having to explain to their company President why you didn't secure the company name as a Twitter ID. Take two minutes and do it today.

Bill also astutely mentions that if you fail to use your account for 6 months, Twitter will suspend it. While Twitter IDs are a use-it-or-lose-it scenario (not the case with domain names), at this time Twitter seems happy to keep your account active with very minimal usage ie, one tweet every few months should suffice. So if you were sitting on the fence about using Twitter, don't wait until you're done strategizing how to leverage this new social media juggernaut to grab your Twitter ID - do it now! via Canadian Marketing Association

Permalink | Leave a comment »

New study shows Canadian media habits are changing

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:47:00 -0800

A new Ipsos Reid study has been released as part of their ongoing series entitled Inter@ctive Reid Report. This latest study confirms that many Canadians are slowly replacing their television, magazine and radio usage with the internet.

"The fact that Internet usage has caught up with and is keeping pace with television watching is just another indication of how rapidly online Canadians’ entertainment habits are changing. For many companies a multi-channel strategy is imperative for meeting the demands of today’s operating environment" - Calgary-based study author Mark Laver

While internet usage may have caught up to television for the 35-54 Canadian demographic, it has overtaken television for the net-savvy 18-34 Canadian demo. The so-called Canadian 'net generation', the cohort most coveted by advertisers, now spends an average of 18.4 hours online per week which eclipses television by a significant margin. What is most interesting about this study is how different a picture it paints of Canadians as compared to the recent CBC submission to the CRTC entitled 'Reject old assumptions about New Media'. I discussed that report in a previous blog post when it was tabled to the CRTC. But to refresh your memory, the CBC made these claims:

a) Traditional TV and radio usage is not being displaced by the Internet. b) It would be a waste time for traditional media companies to create Internet-only content if the goal is to generate advertising revenue. c) Most Canadians use the Internet primarily as a communications and research tool (Ed: Implying that most Canadians do not use the Internet for entertainment.) d) The trend is towards personalizing and controlling media, not developing new ways to consume it.

Surely this latest study from Ipsos Reid debunks at least one, if not several of those key points. via mediaincanada

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Next news model

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:53:00 -0800

Overheard in the blogosphere today...

It’s not a bad thing for the public that Twitter is better for breaking news than a newspaper; it’s just a bad thing for journalists that they didn’t create Twitter first. So journalists: Let’s stop complaining about the fact that we’re getting our asses whooped at today’s news model. Let’s just get on top of the next one. This round is over. Journalists lost. Here’s the good news: This doesn’t require massive firings that suck the life out of the print product, and it doesn’t even require you to sell your entire newsroom on these new models. Those who have been carelessly labeled as “curmudgeons” can keep their opinions of the Web as long as they keep doing what they do best: Supporting the print product that still pays everyone else’s salary. This works as long as you have others at the newspaper who are focused on innovation. Those people ought to be identified (or hired), given the space and time they need, then set loose to experiment.

via Why journalists need to stop playing catch-up, start focusing on the next news model

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Internet surpasses Newspapers as news source (US)

Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:11:32 -0800

According to the latest Pew Research study, the Internet (in the U.S.) has overtaken Newspapers as a primary news source, Television next?

The internet, which emerged this year as a leading source for campaign news, has now surpassed all other media except television as a main source for national and international news. Currently, 40% say they get most of their news about national and international issues from the internet, up from just 24% in September 2007. For the first time in a Pew survey, more people say they rely mostly on the internet for news than cite newspapers (35%). Television continues to be cited most frequently as a main source for national and international news, at 70%. For young people, however, the internet now rivals television as a main source of national and international news. Nearly six-in-ten Americans younger than 30 (59%) say they get most of their national and international news online; an identical percentage cites television. In September 2007, twice as many young people said they relied mostly on television for news than mentioned the internet (68% vs. 34%).

James Cogan

iPad: The gadget we never knew we needed

Will one of the Apple Tablet Commandments be 'Thou shalt not overcharge for digital content'?

Just Imagine a world without amateurs or free sharing

Untethered, the next frontier

The real killer of newspapers, magazines won't be the Internet

Look before you leap, but don't look for too long

Is 'leadership' old skool?

Baby boomers are getting into new technology, on their terms

James Cogan on Dan Cook CJAD 800 AM - Michael Jackson & Net Effect

Don't let first impressions linger when it comes to social media / technology tools

Entrepreneurs can change the world

Why our 'amazing' science fiction future fizzled

Is T-Mobile's latest viral campaign a shining example of social media? Or is it a rip-off? Or both?

The 'Coke Side of Life' is full of digital and social media

Twitter IDs are the New Domain Names

New study shows Canadian media habits are changing

Next news model

Internet surpasses Newspapers as news source (US)

Bars and tones

More than three