Walt Mossberg’s iPhone 4 Review is up (embedded below) and it confirms what many people thought – iPhone 4 seems to be a great device but video chat is destined to fail given Apple’s recent moves in the marketplace. You can get a full rundown of iPhone OS 4 features here.
For starters, in order to use Video Chat on iPhone 4 you need to have someone else with the exact same device. Not 3GS, not 3G. Only iPhone 4 people can video chat with other iPhone 4 people.
You need Wi-Fi to run “Facetime”. This will rule out people video chatting on the go. In a fixed location most people would have a laptop with a webcam so why use a mobile device in this instance? You would need to hold it the entire time and the iPhone isn’t the easiest device to prop up for stationary chat.
No cross platform compatibility. In the review, Mossberg claims Apple is “going to open video chat software to other companies”. Bull. Shit.
Apple’s recent moves in the marketplace against Adobe and other companies shows that it definitely is not keen to play nice in the sandbox with others. In fact, I would not be surprised if Apple blocks other video chat software from running on iPhone 4 as to not compete with “Facetime”. The only way video chat will become big on mobile like it has on the PC is if there’s cross platform compatibility or unifying software (like Skype) that works across all systems and in this case handsets and mobile OS’es. This is frustrating for the consumer and it’s starting to feel like the 90′s again where Apple decisions nearly sunk the company. Replace Microsoft with Google and it’s the same scenario all over again.
On a final note, I’m starting to get the sense that Apple’s “Go at it alone” strategy is ultimately going to sink it since video chat won’t be exclusive to mobile devices and will need to be compatible across a connected TV in the living room, the PC and mobile. Skype is already making great strides here from software being available on all formats. There’s no denying Apple has clout in the mobile sector but do they really have the political capital elsewhere? I for one definitely think they do not. Would love to hear your comments or hit me up on twitter @kobrakai.
Disclaimer: I have an iPhone and I love it. It’s the best mobile device I’ve ever used. But, like others, I’m getting tired of the restrictions on my device and the device’s inability to play nice with others.
This post originally ran on ReadWriteWeb on Friday, May 7th. You can view the original article here.
I’m starting to think that the Augmented Reality industry is very close to developing a Jan Brady complex. If you know what a “Jan Brady complex” is, then skip to the next paragraph. For those who didn’t grown up with the 1970s-era television show The Brady Bunch, a Jan Brady complex refers to the middle sister Jan Brady who constantly complained that her older sister Marcia received all the attention. Still with me? Good.
Guest author Matthew Szymczyk is the CEO and founder of Zugara, an interactive marketing agency that consults Fortune 500 brands – including Lexus, Sony PlayStation, Reebok and Toyota – on their strategic utilization of emerging media and technology. Zugara also develops its own proprietary Augmented Reality solutions and technologies. Video demos can be found here.
This idea came about through conversations with people in the AR industry, and also watching presentations and discussions from just about every high profile name in the biz. Some of the thought leadership and insight into AR and its future is just mind blowing. But therein (partially) lies the problem. People in the AR industry (ourselves included at Zugara) tend to talk more about the what ifs than the how and when.
How can AR be monetized right now? If not now, when?
When will AR start showcasing true utility and practicality over endless gimmicks?
How and when will AR become integrated into our daily lives?
Most of these questions are discussed from the what-if end, which results in a lack of investment into the AR industry. Despite the hype for AR, social gaming services like Zynga, location-based-services like Foursquare, and a host of other emerging media and technologies are garnering all the VC and startup capital. So why does AR still have so little respect from the investment community while these other emerging technologies get all the monetary love? Why is Marcia getting all the attention while Jan isn’t? Having met with a few VCs, here are my thoughts:
AR overall is cool but also seems very gimmicky. This hasn’t been helped by the recent onslaught of marketing-based AR initiatives that have no long term value and are really just quick PR grabs by brands. Though there is value in owning the proprietary tech – and, in turn, licensing revenue – it’s not sustained revenue that will attract major investment.
Despite AR being a hot technology for almost two years now, there’s very little in regards to stats, analytics or other measures to show that AR itself is a technology that helps to increase purchase intent and decision-making, raise brand awareness and so on. Where are all the AR leaders with case studies on past campaigns and general AR stats?
In VCs’ eyes AR is still struggling to break from the academic and research realm and into bona fide businesses. As a result, you’ll commonly hear this from VC’s: “AR is still too early stage.” Really? More early stage than Foursquare?
To break out of the Jan Brady complex, the AR industry must be able to define, from a investor point of view, what Augmented Reality is. Is it a technology that will be integrated into location-based-services platforms like Foursquare, or is it a platform that will incorporate location-based services and real-time ads? Or will it be a hybrid of the two? That is a key question since there’s quite a big difference between a technology that’s cool and a technology that can be monetized.
Searching for other emerging technologies and efforts to monetize them garners the following results:
Do the same search on Google for “Augmented Reality Monetization” and you get 28,000 results – most of which direct you to general mobile marketing-based monetization efforts. The only recent article of note is around Layar and its plan to monetize its technology through a store.
I’ve never seen more passionate people at conferences than those who are 100% behind AR (and I’ve been to a lot of conferences over the years for new and emerging technologies). But what we as an industry need to do is to start connecting the dots better for not only investors, but for companies that are looking for more than a spinning 3D model off a marker. Once companies start seeing the true value and utility in AR then there will be kind of long term investment that will connect the dots for VC and jump-start investment capital.
Until the AR industry can start proving that it’s an emerging technology of the future that can be monetized in the present, every time someone complains about the lack of respect all I’m going to hear is “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!”
Regardless of what you think of the entire Gizmodo / iPhone debacle, John Stewart has some very funny (but spot on) commentary from The Daily Show. My favorite line, “You guys (Apple) are busting down doors in Palo Alto while Commandant Gates is ridding the world of mosquitoes! WTF is going on!” Classic…
We Are Organized Chaos (WAOC) is Zugara’s (www.zugara.com) interactive marketing and advertising blog where we’ll be featuring some great projects and discussing upcoming trends in the digital world. Work — good and bad — will be critiqued. Hope you’ll enjoy reading our insights and thoughts on interactive.
I’m starting to think that the Augmented Reality industry is very close to developing a Jan Brady complex. If you know what a “Jan Brady complex” is, then skip to the next paragraph. For those who didn’t grown up with the 1970s-era television show The Brady Bunch, a Jan Brady complex refers to the middle sister Jan Brady who constantly complained that her older sister Marcia received all the attention. Still with me? Good.