While you may be joking, you are in the minority as bluetooth headsets have caught on like you wouldn't believe. They are a permanent accessory for any cab driver or business man, and it only seems logical that business peoplewill want to have visual data in front of them as well on a large screen.
Lets face it, one of the biggest problems with the video iPod is the screen size. True, I don't think this device will be the one that wins over the market, but I'm glad to see consumer versions of these things hitting the market as it is inevitable as computers get smaller and faster and media becomes more important in the lives of people.
I look forward to competitors who will shrink the form factor of this and make it more streamlined. It will need to be TINY and SEXY if it is going to win over the early adopters. Although it wouldn't hurt them to hire a bunch of models to walk around wearing this.
The other upside of this is that it appears from the picture that others won't be able to view your screen. Not only would that be good for business people on the go....but it doesn't take much imagination to see other possibilities.
You know what? I would actually WELCOME ads if they had their own topics and people could edit the entries that discussed them. I mean, you could have the paid for ad that people couldn't edit, but then people could comment on it and give reviews, criticism etc.
Now, I'm sure there would be spam issues, but I wonder if only companies who were confident about their product/services would advertise because otherwise people would bitch about them and drive away customers?
"The problem, from what I can tell, is that as more people contribute article text, they seem to feel they have less reason to contribute financially -- which may be true."
I'll bet the reason for that may have something to do with people having a vague idea of the MASSIVE number of users it has, and the feeling of "oh, well, plenty of others will donate so I don't have to". Unfortunately for Wikipedia, if they don't come up with a sustainable model, someone else will, and will either create their own site or buy out Wikipedia when they can no longer pay the bills. Now what I'd really like to see happen is for IBM to fund the project indefinitely. But that's just wishful thinking.
No kidding. In case anybody hasn't noticed...the new trend in PR is to try to tie whatever you're doing to something scientific. Then you can "borrow" some of their credibility and steal some of their press. Although most of the time there is no real science in these articles...they're just fluff pieces which mention whatever is being promoted. What's funny (and makes them even more annoying) is how transparent they are.
No offense...but if you say it has some unique things that set it apart, rather than just post peoples ratings of the game, why not post what some of those unique features are? I know I for one didn't want to take the time to hunt it out, so your post probably could have been more helpful if you listed that. Not a flame, just a suggestion for future posting.
I have to say, as much as I wish this stuff never happened...I'm kinda glad its unfolding the way it is. They're doing everything they can to be as overtly evil as possible. And all it does is piss off Americans more and more and more...and now its pissing off judges and lawyers.
Change takes time, thank god they're doing us a favor by speeding up their own demise with stunts like this. I'd love to see someone make a website with info on the lawyers who represent them. Lets dig up all the crap we can find on them and post it on the web (nothing illegal of course) and make sure people realize what kind of lowlifes they're considering dealing with if they are a potential client and Google one of the lawyers.
Just to show how ridiculously old this is, there are people selling friggin scripts that will automate the whole process of creating this kind of page. In fact, there are so many clones out there that there are already directories of them. The kid got lucky, but anybody else hoping to cash in will not be so lucky. You see, this is a one time fee that people pay, and they pay for the traffic that is generated by the press. You only get the press if you're original...ie. the guy who started this. You won't get it if you're just a clone.
The Xmas lights one is interesting. I am a huge fan of viral ads, and that happens to be my area of expertise. I've seen web trends travel to TV before (Quiznos?) but this was done in a very interesting way. They took the high quality video which wasn't available on the web (thus adding value to the experience) and didn't do anything to alter it other than add their tagline at the end thus linking it to the brand.
This did something very interesting...if the viewer had seen it previously, and attributed it to good ol' fashioned grassroots viral, they then got to point out the cool ad to all their friends, and they then associate the brand with the original viral, thus generating a lot more "cool points" than they normally would have gotten.
I'm really curious as to the money that was passed around, because in the ad world, it was a relatively short time from when they must have first picked up on this, to getting it approved by the client, to producing and airing it. True, they didn't have much to change, but I feel bad for whoever is in charge of their broadcast production. Must have been a "fun" holiday for them.
My point was that business is always looking to get more bang for their buck, often at the consumers expense. In this case they are generating marketing data that they would not necessarily have had before. Yes, you can still pay cash, but as in my example with the I-Pass...eventually they realize the value of making people use their new methods of payment, so they gradually make things more inconvenient for people who refuse to use it (as in the case of I-Pass). The next step when they've "persuaded" enough people to shift over to the new system is to say "well, looks like its so successful that we have no choice but to eliminate the old system or enforce ridiculous restrictions/inconveniences/penalties". And that's when your choices become eliminated. Of course, nobody is forcing you to shop there, but when everybody starts jumping on the bandwagon, suddenly you're screwed. See Valve's Steam as a perfect example of the dangers of this kind of system.
They forced everybody to go through it for a lot of things, and while it does provide some benefits, they royally screwed over a ton of people because they don't know how to properly manage it, and they are doing their damndest to abuse it.
Well...the notion that beer companies always have the best commercials is one that I have to say is not shared by most of the advertising industry. They often have massive budgets, but too often they fall into the trap of "show attractive people having exciting parties with tons of shots of the drink". Other times they fall into the trap of "lowest common denominator humor". But there has been a big backlash against them recently, and they are starting to come out with more intelligent ads.
There's also the issue of defining "best". You see from the advertisers standpoint, it could do wonders for their brand image, or it could drive sales. Those are two very different things though. So the question is, how effective at meeting the desired goal is an entertaining ad with just a logo and not even a beer in it? I would guess not very effective. Reminds me of the infamous Lexus spots that were absolutely fantastic several years ago, and everybody loved them...they just had no idea what the hell they were selling. So the ad was considered a failure.
I know that doesn't really answer your question, but then again it was not really a question that could be answered in a straightforward manner to begin with. If I had to give it a single answer I would say budget. The beer companies have TONS of money, and they spend a ridiculous amount on advertising compared to other companies. Money opens up a lot of options creatively, and while the most creative stuff is not always big budget, it certainly doesn't hurt.
"No personal information required.
They are just trying to find a way to reduce the lineup at a busy time. Is that such a bad thing?"
As an Illinois resident, I knew I heard something sound vaguely familiar before. Oh yes...I-Pass.
See, first they made it optional and charged the same. Of course they had all your personal information, and if they ever decide to do so could have limited tracking of your vehicle and give you automated tickets based on time/speed limit between two stations.
Of course what happened was they saw how successful it was and wanted to force EVERYBODY into it...so what did they start to do? Double the price for people who pay with coins/cash. That's right, they doubled it. Next it will probably be impossible to use coins for a toll here unless you go through the single coin toll line that will be left, where you'll have to wait an hour in line, and they'll need to see an ID before they let you through.
Is this comparison a bit extreme for the Apple situation? Perhaps. But don't try to smooth it over the way you did, because that lame excuse has been used time and time again on this slippery slope.
Unless you're one of the many people in the industry (such as myself) who strive to make entertaining advertising that is actually useful, and that people actually seek out. There's a reason Adcritic had to start charging.....it was so damn popular! Now tell Bill Hicks to put THAT in his pipe and smoke it.
"Science helps me to understand the way things works . Perhaps my views are naive and cowardly and there to help me cope with a short term life "
Your comment has sparked me to point out one of the reasons that many athiests are so against people who believe in heaven. Now, please do not take this as an insult...its just a personal view that I've known many people to share.
Many of us see religion as the "opiate of the masses". Faith truly does offer some solace from the void that ultimately lies before us. But those of us who do not believe in heaven often see those that do as weak mentally, since we feel they cannot standup to the ultimate end of their existence. We see it as a cop-out and it has honestly made me look at a person who I once admired for being incredibly strong willed and fearless, and made me realize how timid they really are when it comes down to the wire.
Again, this post was not meant as a troll or flamebait...I just wanted to express a perhaps not so popular viewpoint on the athiest vs heaven side of things.
I'm actually in the market for a pair of new earbuds, and not looking to spend more than $20. Right now I'm looking at getting the Koss "The Plug" buds (not Sparkplug) because I hear they have great bass and help reduce noise a bit in the ear with their plug design.
But I'd love some other opinions....I listen to a lot of electronic music (drum and bass in particular) and really need to FEEL those basslines to enjoy my music. Can anybody recommend some cheap buds that have excellent bass response but that won't kill the mids and highs?
"Instead, you could only see the nominees and to see the actual winner you have to go see a boring video instead of just seeing who the damn winner is! Furthermore, it is one of those videos where you can't click around towards the end, even if the video has been downloaded grr!"
Great for them, crappy for us. Know why? If you can't skip around, you can't skip the ads/product placement. Just like broadcast TV!!! JOY!
Bingo. And another point is...people don't want to just be able to sift through information smoothly, they want to absorb it at THEIR own pace...not the pace of some monolithicly slow talking head who keeps stuttering, despite how interesting their content may be.
" There's no such thing as "amateur" porn. It's all a scam to get you to pay to watch ugly people."
Uh...what about the millions of people out there who have filmed themselves and their significant other, and posted it on the web. You do realize how many people out there get their kicks from doing that right? And yeah, there's lots of ugly people, but there are lots of hot ones as well, and if you know where to look, there are plenty of sites that have these videos for free.
So perhaps you've been burned by the sites who say their girls are amateurs, yet you see them in videos on different sites with different names...but there's actually quite a bit of good amateur stuff out there.
I actually think that it is this latest leap to handheld video that will push forward adoption of a wireless (or wired) video eyepiece, similar to a Blutooth earset. People are fast becoming accustomed to having technology with them at all times, and being able to access it more freely at all times...with things like portable media players I see a wearable video screen eyepiece being the only real way to get around the small screen issue in the immediate future (aside from rollable LCD screens).
I truly think that a wearable display piece will only be popular if Apple were to release it.
Are the prizes really that great when you consider what they'd normally have to pay an ad agency to create and produce a spot like this?
I should mention that I work at an ad agency. And while I am not saying they shouldn't do this...since I think its great and love viral work...I am saying that companies should certainly be compensating people QUITE a bit more for their hard work...especially if they win. What they are offering is bordering on insulting in terms of industry pricing.
"(of course EA charges $$ if you want a ranked server)"
Not to mention that in BF2...if you want access to the third tier of weapons that EA initially promised would be there on release...you need to purchase Special Forces. That's right folks...they made it so that people who purchase the expansion, get to take all their new toys into vanilla Battlefield 2 and use them in the same game as the people who chose not to purchase it and therefore do not have access to the weapons.
Yup...EA just introduced a "pay to upgrade your weapons" feature. Bravo EA...just when I thought you couldn't sink any lower.
Facebook is great except that like all communication outlets...it has become a haven for spammers. They really won't cut down on it till they offer an easy process for marking a spammer....like a "Mark this message sender as a spammer" link on the spam message. Its too much of a pain to go to their profile and report them. It would take forever to get them all.
"but what I am saying is that this technology gives everyone the chance to start out on the exact same footing when they use these new technologies to interact"
Well...as much as I'd like to agree, that just isn't true. Education still plays a large role in how useful a piece of technology (read: a tool) is to someone. The amount of use they can get out of it is directly related to how much aptitude/education they have, along with a myriad of other factors.
Additionally, not all hardware/software is created equal. Its unfortunate...and while for simple text based communication purposes, they may be on equal footing...keep in mind that much of the world still can't do video chat etc due to economical issues.
Bingo. Welcome to societal evolution. No offense to the grandparent...but your views on technology overload are gradually being replaced by younger generations who have grown up with, and adapted successfully to, this new constant influx of information.
As someone who is 22, I remember a time before I had the the worlds information at my finger tips. But I shudder to think about what life would be like if I was still stuck in that time. I THRIVE on the constant information, and one of the reasons is because I've seen how much there is out there, and since I have an appreciation for how short life can really be I want to absorb as much as possible in my lifetime, which current technology is progressively allowing me to do.
Yes...I enjoy quiet time, but thats mainly just so my brain can sort things out and to let me recharge my batteries. There will always be times and places for that, but they will most likely continue to evolve along with the technology, so it probably won't be what you consider a proper time and place for peace and quiet.
Hope that wasn't too confusing...
Does anybody have any links to any papers that discuss and analyze what I've written? I'd love to read more on the subject since this is just conjecture based on my observations.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets face it, one of the biggest problems with the video iPod is the screen size. True, I don't think this device will be the one that wins over the market, but I'm glad to see consumer versions of these things hitting the market as it is inevitable as computers get smaller and faster and media becomes more important in the lives of people.
I look forward to competitors who will shrink the form factor of this and make it more streamlined. It will need to be TINY and SEXY if it is going to win over the early adopters. Although it wouldn't hurt them to hire a bunch of models to walk around wearing this.
The other upside of this is that it appears from the picture that others won't be able to view your screen. Not only would that be good for business people on the go....but it doesn't take much imagination to see other possibilities.
Now, I'm sure there would be spam issues, but I wonder if only companies who were confident about their product/services would advertise because otherwise people would bitch about them and drive away customers?
I'll bet the reason for that may have something to do with people having a vague idea of the MASSIVE number of users it has, and the feeling of "oh, well, plenty of others will donate so I don't have to". Unfortunately for Wikipedia, if they don't come up with a sustainable model, someone else will, and will either create their own site or buy out Wikipedia when they can no longer pay the bills. Now what I'd really like to see happen is for IBM to fund the project indefinitely. But that's just wishful thinking.
Change takes time, thank god they're doing us a favor by speeding up their own demise with stunts like this. I'd love to see someone make a website with info on the lawyers who represent them. Lets dig up all the crap we can find on them and post it on the web (nothing illegal of course) and make sure people realize what kind of lowlifes they're considering dealing with if they are a potential client and Google one of the lawyers.
This did something very interesting...if the viewer had seen it previously, and attributed it to good ol' fashioned grassroots viral, they then got to point out the cool ad to all their friends, and they then associate the brand with the original viral, thus generating a lot more "cool points" than they normally would have gotten.
I'm really curious as to the money that was passed around, because in the ad world, it was a relatively short time from when they must have first picked up on this, to getting it approved by the client, to producing and airing it. True, they didn't have much to change, but I feel bad for whoever is in charge of their broadcast production. Must have been a "fun" holiday for them.
They forced everybody to go through it for a lot of things, and while it does provide some benefits, they royally screwed over a ton of people because they don't know how to properly manage it, and they are doing their damndest to abuse it.
There's also the issue of defining "best". You see from the advertisers standpoint, it could do wonders for their brand image, or it could drive sales. Those are two very different things though. So the question is, how effective at meeting the desired goal is an entertaining ad with just a logo and not even a beer in it? I would guess not very effective. Reminds me of the infamous Lexus spots that were absolutely fantastic several years ago, and everybody loved them...they just had no idea what the hell they were selling. So the ad was considered a failure.
I know that doesn't really answer your question, but then again it was not really a question that could be answered in a straightforward manner to begin with. If I had to give it a single answer I would say budget. The beer companies have TONS of money, and they spend a ridiculous amount on advertising compared to other companies. Money opens up a lot of options creatively, and while the most creative stuff is not always big budget, it certainly doesn't hurt.
As an Illinois resident, I knew I heard something sound vaguely familiar before. Oh yes...I-Pass.
See, first they made it optional and charged the same. Of course they had all your personal information, and if they ever decide to do so could have limited tracking of your vehicle and give you automated tickets based on time/speed limit between two stations.
Of course what happened was they saw how successful it was and wanted to force EVERYBODY into it...so what did they start to do? Double the price for people who pay with coins/cash. That's right, they doubled it. Next it will probably be impossible to use coins for a toll here unless you go through the single coin toll line that will be left, where you'll have to wait an hour in line, and they'll need to see an ID before they let you through.
Is this comparison a bit extreme for the Apple situation? Perhaps. But don't try to smooth it over the way you did, because that lame excuse has been used time and time again on this slippery slope.
Your comment has sparked me to point out one of the reasons that many athiests are so against people who believe in heaven. Now, please do not take this as an insult...its just a personal view that I've known many people to share.
Many of us see religion as the "opiate of the masses". Faith truly does offer some solace from the void that ultimately lies before us. But those of us who do not believe in heaven often see those that do as weak mentally, since we feel they cannot standup to the ultimate end of their existence. We see it as a cop-out and it has honestly made me look at a person who I once admired for being incredibly strong willed and fearless, and made me realize how timid they really are when it comes down to the wire.
Again, this post was not meant as a troll or flamebait...I just wanted to express a perhaps not so popular viewpoint on the athiest vs heaven side of things.
But I'd love some other opinions....I listen to a lot of electronic music (drum and bass in particular) and really need to FEEL those basslines to enjoy my music. Can anybody recommend some cheap buds that have excellent bass response but that won't kill the mids and highs?
Great for them, crappy for us. Know why? If you can't skip around, you can't skip the ads/product placement. Just like broadcast TV!!! JOY!
Uh...what about the millions of people out there who have filmed themselves and their significant other, and posted it on the web. You do realize how many people out there get their kicks from doing that right? And yeah, there's lots of ugly people, but there are lots of hot ones as well, and if you know where to look, there are plenty of sites that have these videos for free.
So perhaps you've been burned by the sites who say their girls are amateurs, yet you see them in videos on different sites with different names...but there's actually quite a bit of good amateur stuff out there.
I truly think that a wearable display piece will only be popular if Apple were to release it.
I should mention that I work at an ad agency. And while I am not saying they shouldn't do this...since I think its great and love viral work...I am saying that companies should certainly be compensating people QUITE a bit more for their hard work...especially if they win. What they are offering is bordering on insulting in terms of industry pricing.
Not to mention that in BF2...if you want access to the third tier of weapons that EA initially promised would be there on release...you need to purchase Special Forces. That's right folks...they made it so that people who purchase the expansion, get to take all their new toys into vanilla Battlefield 2 and use them in the same game as the people who chose not to purchase it and therefore do not have access to the weapons.
Yup...EA just introduced a "pay to upgrade your weapons" feature. Bravo EA...just when I thought you couldn't sink any lower.
Well...as much as I'd like to agree, that just isn't true. Education still plays a large role in how useful a piece of technology (read: a tool) is to someone. The amount of use they can get out of it is directly related to how much aptitude/education they have, along with a myriad of other factors.
Additionally, not all hardware/software is created equal. Its unfortunate...and while for simple text based communication purposes, they may be on equal footing...keep in mind that much of the world still can't do video chat etc due to economical issues.
As someone who is 22, I remember a time before I had the the worlds information at my finger tips. But I shudder to think about what life would be like if I was still stuck in that time. I THRIVE on the constant information, and one of the reasons is because I've seen how much there is out there, and since I have an appreciation for how short life can really be I want to absorb as much as possible in my lifetime, which current technology is progressively allowing me to do.
Yes...I enjoy quiet time, but thats mainly just so my brain can sort things out and to let me recharge my batteries. There will always be times and places for that, but they will most likely continue to evolve along with the technology, so it probably won't be what you consider a proper time and place for peace and quiet.
Hope that wasn't too confusing...
Does anybody have any links to any papers that discuss and analyze what I've written? I'd love to read more on the subject since this is just conjecture based on my observations.