|
Posts Tagged ‘iphone’
Zugara - Thursday, March 18th, 2010
- Was the Nexus One’s Initial Sales a Flop? Hardly. Here’s Why It Wasn’t A Flop it and here’s Why It Is
- Rating Movie Apps: Paramount vs. Sony vs. Warner Bros.
- Mobile Apps Are Hot, But Don’t Forget Emerging Markets
- Social Media, Mobile, Bar Codes Vie For Attention At SXSW Festival
- Supermarket Chain A&P Debuts Mobile Coupons With Brand Participation
- Samsung Announces Plans for iPad Challenger
- And The Top Branded iPhone Apps This Week Are…
- Mobile Ad Network Mobclix Releases iPad SDK
- Dear AT&T, Whatever You’re Doing AT SXSW, Do It In San Francisco (I bash AT&T all the time and to give credit where credit is due…SXSW was near flawless…dream was shattered however when I arrived into DC yesterday…wtf is with this network already!)
- NPR and WSJ Building iPad-Only Websites (Great…we’re back in 1999 again but now with 5X as many platforms to develop for…can’t we all get along?)
- Google Says There Are Now 30,000 Apps In Android Market
- Beer And Exercise Finally Join Forces In Miller’s MGD iPhone App
- 9 Killer Tips for Location-Based Marketing
- Ubisoft Click-To-Play Mobile Video Ads See 1.3 percent CTR
- PayPal iPhone App Transfers Money By Bumping Against Another iPhone
- Facebook Kicks Off Implementation Of QR Codes
- Analysis: When Working Day’s Done, iPhones, and Soon iPads, Light Up
- Prepare For An iPad App Explosion: Developer Activity Up 185%
- iPhone App Developers: Where Do They Come From?
- Scamville Marches Onto The iPhone, Sneaks Back Into Facebook
- Battery Breakthrough Could Revolutionize Mobile Computing
- For Apps, iPhone Bigger Than Facebook Platform
- Infographic: The App Store Economy
- What Type of People Want iPads? [STATS]
- More Than Enough Apps, Apple Pushes for Quality (So you let 150,000 crap apps in and now you want to focus on quality???)
- SMS vs. Barcodes In The Mobile Charity Arena
- American Airlines Expands Mobile Boarding Pass System To 19 New Airports
- Repo Men’s Interesting Barcode Campaign
- Are Mobile Coupons Finally Ready for Prime Time?
- MyBrandz: Finally, You Can Find People Who Love Nike, Apple, And Ferrari As Much As You Do (Maybe it’s just me…but I’m not the type of person that’s going to connect to other people for love of a brand…)
- Geowars…Really?
Zugara - Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010
Zugara - Wednesday, February 17th, 2010
blake - Friday, February 12th, 2010
I used to hate Macs. A work experience with a G3, that seemed to crash every ten minutes, turned me off to anything Apple for years. Everything changed, though, when I got my first Intel based Mac in late 2008. The user interface was flawless, the UNIX shell made it a cinch to do back-end tasks, and I never had to worry about the issues that plagued that old G3. I haven’t bought a PC since (at least not without immediately wiping the hard drive with Linux) and I’m known around work as a hardcore Apple fanboy, but that might be changing really soon.
The vast majority of applications I write are for Flash (written in Flex). I love the ease of Flash development and rarely have any issues with programs I write for it. That’s why I’m particularly troubled with, what seems to be, Steve Jobs’ fevered desire to destroy the platform. If you don’t know what I’m referring to, Jobs reportedly told a group of Apple employees that Adobe, the developers of Flash, are “lazy” and that the platform is “buggy.”
I call shenanigans.
There’s a common myth about Flash circulated by developers not familiar with the platform (also known as “my platform is better than your platform” developers). They say that Flash causes most browser crashes when, in fact, it’s not Flash itself causing most of those crashes, but bad Flash coding by inexperienced developers. To put that into perspective, I’ll pose a rhetorical question. When an iPhone developer makes an app that crashes constantly or leaks so much memory that you have to restart the device, does anyone say that Apple should dump Objective C and Cocoa?
Since making the move to Flex, a while back, I haven’t gotten word of a single one of my applications ever causing a browser to crash. This is after extensive use of these applications, not only by the public, but also by a quality assurance department as well. Flash is a very stable platform when used correctly.
The iPad and Flash
Adobe has had a fully working version of Flash ready for all major mobile devices for a little while now. Other mobile operating systems, like Android and Windows Mobile, are going to use it, so why not iPhone or iPad? Steve Jobs, among others, would have you believe that it’s because the platform isn’t good enough for their devices, but that’s just a cheap cover-up. The real reason is that it would take a massive chunk out of App Store profits.
If you own an iPhone or iPod Touch then you know that the majority of apps for those devices are – and I don’t say this lightly – complete crap. The App Store is overrun with weekend projects by novice developers and rip-off products by companies re-skinning the same worthless app to get more 99-cent sales, and Apple is making a killing off of the suckers that buy them. Don’t believe me? Look at these screen caps from the App Store for latest releases in the Entertainment and Lifestyle categories, taken while I was writing this.
If Flash were allowed on these devices, almost all of those developers would opt to release their apps as “iPhone ready Flash,” raking in all the revenue from dozens of ads for enlargement pills and naked video chat, which they would surely cover the page in. If Apple allowed Flash on iPad and iPhone, App Store profits would drop by a double-digit percentage practically overnight.
Why HTML5 won’t be a Flash killer
Because of this, Apple is publicly throwing their hat in the ring for HTML5, all while completely ignoring some of the glaring problems that come with it. Mind you, HTML5 is a good advancement for the web, but it’s anything but a Flash killer, and here’s why:
1. Video codecs aren’t free. The reason that Flash works with all sorts of video codecs is because Adobe paid for them. When that responsibility is moved to the browser, problems ensue, because not every browser supports all those codecs. Mozilla has chosen Ogg, Apple is with h.264, since that’s what iTunes runs off of, and while Google is also currently with h.264, word is that they might be about to opt for a codec they just gained ownership of. This means that not all HTML5 video players will work in all HTML5 capable browsers. This is a huge headache for developers, since cross-browser is the name of the internet game.
2. HTML5 can’t make the level of games that Flash can, or at least not with anything near the same ease of development. Casual Flash gaming is a huge moneymaker, and no one is ready to drop it anytime soon. Just for fun, ask just about any Flash game developer what he would think about dumping ActionScript to write a game in JavaScript and enjoy watching his head explode.
3. Whatever HTML5 will do, Flash can already do it and then some. As time goes on, and more functionality becomes available with HTML5, Adobe will, through their normal development cycle, give Flash more and more features that HTML5 won’t be able to compete with. Two years from now, it might be that video players and simple rich internet applications are best done in HTML5, but, in order to do the latest things available, you’ll still need Flash.
4. Flash has a dedicated user base. 99% of computers in the modernized world have Flash installed. Safari and Chrome, which make up about 14% of total browser penetration, are the only browsers capable of running YouTube’s HTML5 video player. Things might change for HTML5 penetration, but not soon.
The future of my Apple fanboy status
I’m struggling to remain an Apple fanboy, with their ridiculous practices regarding Flash and closed development. The truth is, while I’m not happy with the direction their mobile division is going, I love OSX to death. I guess, as a developer, I still admire the hard working people at Apple who, behind the scenes, actually do all the heavy lifting that results in great products.
On the other hand, Steve Jobs is starting to look less like an innovator to me and more like the delusional cult leader that so many Windows fanboys characterize him as – blindly saying that technologies that don’t conform to his wishes are buggy and that their developers are lazy. I can’t help but think, at least for a while, that I won’t be drinking his special brand of Kool-Aid.
Oh, and he also reportedly trashed Google because they’re making competitive products. When the Google Tablet mockup shows multitasking and multi-touch, the Chrome OS has open development, and the device will almost assuredly run Flash, it feels to me like nothing more than sour grapes.
Follow me on Twitter, @blakecallens
Zugara - Wednesday, January 27th, 2010
Non-Apple iPad/iSlate/iTablet Edition…that will require it’s own post…
Zugara - Wednesday, January 6th, 2010
Zugara - Wednesday, December 30th, 2009
Have A Happy New Year!!!
jack - Monday, December 21st, 2009
So, your agency is pitching you on an Augmented Reality (AR) execution. And as much as you’d love to move forward with something, the fact is you might not know that much about AR. And why should you? It’s rather “cutting edge”, especially in terms of its marketing implications, and you have a ton of other things to worry about.
As a marketing agency (Zugara) that also develops our own proprietary AR technologies (and seeing as how it’s the holiday season and all that jazz) we thought it might be nice to arm you with some important questions to ask your agency. This way, you hopefully don’t end up paying for an agency to simply have an AR execution that looks great on their reel, but never actually engages a consumer. Noted below, are a few questions/issues you should be cognizant of, and the reason they should be included in your thinking. HAPPY FESTIVUS!
The Question: Will this be built in Flash (if online)?
The Reason: One word: “Downloads”. We’ve harped on this before, proprietary technologies require downloads and a significant number of consumers drop out of a process when faced with one. So why do it? Flash’s install rate is nearly 100%. If you’re going to put your budget and time into AR, the least you can do is give your consumer the opportunity to enjoy it. Below, you’ll see a tweet that was sent to me. I track the term “augmented reality” on Twitter, and whenever someone tweets that term, I see it. @woscholar tweeted about an unpleasant experience he was having with a Avatar cross-promotion that McDonalds is running. I engaged him in a conversation, and here’s his feedback regarding the download that AR execution required:
The Question: Why aren’t we just creating this experience within the browser (i.e. Why isn’t this just a traditional web site?)?
The Reason: Is the idea you’re being pitched to just have a 3-D model pop out of a marker and essentially push your message to the consumer (be it via a key-ed out video or the like)? If the AR doesn’t truly add anything to the experience, why put the budget against it and limit your campaign’s potential reach (due to the need for a web cam)? Ask your team if you’re using this technology just to use it. Think about your goals. Think about your objectives. Think about your consumers. If AR can be a natural extension of the story you’re trying to tell, then perfect! If not, just keep it in your arsenal/thinking.
The Question: Will you walk me through the entire consumer experience?
The Reason: Taking the time to answer this question can expose fundamental flaws with the concept. Sometimes an idea can sound fantastic on the surface, but when you go step by step through the consumer experience you begin to realize something: no consumer would ever do everything it takes to participate (e.g. you may realize that the user would need to put their computer or web cam on the floor to get the necessary camera angle). Seeing as how you want consumers to “do stuff”, this can be a good way of vetting ideas.
The Question: Why do you think a consumer would do this? What is their payoff?
The Reason: Obviously, the days of the consumer sitting there patiently listening to your entire message/ad are long gone. It’s the consumer’s world, and we’re just living in it. They need a compelling reason to interact with your engagement… to give you their time. One good litmus test is to put your “consumer hat on”. Odds are (unless you’re working for Nike, Apple, or a few others) most of your consumers “like” your brand, but aren’t passionately fanatical about it. So, think about a brand you “like” (not yours), and think about whether or not you would interact with it if they launched an execution similar to the one you’re contemplating. If the answer is “no”, then think about what it would take to make you participate. If you can’t find anything to make the offering compelling, perhaps this execution is not “the one”.
The Question: Why are you pitching me a mobile idea, versus an online idea?
The Reason: A mobile execution would be cool and cutting edge, granted. But for the near term, it’s limited in its reach (do more people have computers or iphones/blackberrys?), and functionality. Although not widely publicized, the fact is the hardware running on smartphones is not ready to deliver the consumer experience you’re expecting (I wrote more about this back in June), and the much beloved iPhone’s API still remains mostly closed to developers (which means you can’t have an iPhone read a marker like online unless it’s been jail-broken – which most consumers would never do). Not to mention, there’s apparently no rhyme or reason as to how Apple accepts/declines apps for the app store… so there’s the potential for your investment to never see the light of day. To be clear, in our opinion mobile AR will be huge in the future, it’s just not there yet.
The Question: What’s the experience for the consumer that doesn’t have access to a webcam?
The Reason: There aren’t any publicly available, industry standard metrics on web cam penetration rates. This much is certain though, as of today, a significant number of your audience doesn’t have a webcam and you can’t ignore them because they will come to the site looking for an experience.
The Question: Are you sure this is even possible?
The Reason: Odds are, you’re being pitched by someone who’s not an expert in the technology. They’re creative, and smart, but most of the time their ideas just flat out aren’t doable (either in the near term or without a ton of R&D). Before you get your boss excited about the idea, it’s probably prudent to make sure that it’s technologically feasible.
So, what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Are there other questions that brand managers should be asking their agency? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
You can find me on twitter @jack_benoff
matt - Wednesday, December 9th, 2009
Mark today’s date down as we’re now entering a new age in real-time, interactive mobile video. If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know we’ve been talking about real-time, interactive mobile video for awhile:
Now that Apple has finally allowed real-time video streaming, this is going to fundamentally change how we view and interact with video socially, professionally, and so on. I’ll post a more in-depth blog post about this over the weekend, but with Ustream, Qik, and others now mobile, things are about to get very interesting…and exciting!
If you want more info on the Ustream Broadcaster app you can get it here.
If you don’t know what Festivus means, then you never watched Seinfeld…
Zugara - Wednesday, November 25th, 2009
|
|
-
Most Viewed
-
Most Commented
-
Categories
-
Popular Tags
-
About
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.
-
Authors
-
Must Reads
Interactive Marketing and Advertising
Social Media
Gaming/Entertainment
Technology
Website Design/Dev
Cool/Weird Stuff
Analytics/Stats
Mobile
Video
Automotive
-
Archives
-
Our Tweets
|