Monthly Archives: May 2009

Era of bonehead branding from MSN comes to a close

Posted by on May 28, 2009 No comments

Bing.comMicrosoft has now officially announced the relaunch and re-branding of Microsoft Live Search as Bing.com. One of the biggest branding blunders in Internet history, “Live Search” will thankfully go the way of the dodo.

Take this as a lesson: make sure your brand sounds like a brand. If I were to tell you that Microsoft was launching a product called “Cool Search” would you guess that it was on cool.com? Unlikely. You’d probably look on Microsoft.com, or perhaps coolsearch.com, both of which would be disappointing.  When your brand sounds too much like a plain old adjective, you need to attach the .com.

They could have avoided all this and capitalized on the excellent domain Live.com by using the name Microsoft Live.com Search.  It is a mouthful, but it would give you a much better idea of where to go to search.  But now, with their users thoroughly confused, they’ve decided to give up and rebrand entirely to Bing.com.  Some may criticize the lighthearted and nonsensical nature of the word “bing”, but I applaud the move – it’s short, it’s memorable, and if their new features are competitive with the other search engines, it’ll help build brand awareness and loyalty.  Bing  won’t challenge Google anytime soon, but it would be nice to have a viable alternative.

Facebook should not be afraid of Google Wave…yet

Posted by on May 28, 2009 1 comment

Google today announced the impending release of their new…product, Google Wave.  I hesitate when describing it, because it’s actually pretty tough to categorize.  Techcrunch has a thorough writeup of the functionality and Mashable has a brief of their own, but neither does much analysis, so let me try to summarize.

Google Wave is:

  • Like email, but won’t work (navtively) with existing email
  • Like IM, but it isn’t an application
  • Like Facebook messaging, but without Facebook
  • Like Facebook’s application platform, but without Facebook
  • Like Twitter, but without a public-facing feed
  • Like IRC, but less temporal

Does that help?  Maybe not.

Let me try to sum it up in a positioning statement that I’m making up based on the proposed featureset:

Google Wave is a web-based messaging system that helps people communicate, share, and collaborate with friends, family, and business contacts both in real-time and asynchronously.

If we look at it in these terms, Google Wave is not only extremely ambitious but is also set squarely against Facebook.

You may consider this comparison invalid because Google Wave has so many features that Facebook doesn’t and Facebook has a ton of features that Wave doesn’t, but users don’t look at features, they look at problems the product solves for them.  Is it filling a need that isn’t met right now, or is it filling the need better than existing services?  It’s unlikely that people would give up Facebook for Wave, so the question for Google comes down to: will they use both? You can ask the same question about Wave vs. email, IM, and Twitter.

In order to think Wave will be successful, you have to think the problems it solves are important.  Here are some of the problems it purports to address:

This is just a start of what they want it to do.  One of the creators, Lars, said of Wave,

“My vision is to have the one communication tool. I want all the use cases to be covered. We made up ideas of what Wave could be used for — negotiating contracts, writing articles. Lots of things.”

Is it trying to do too much?  Very likely.

I fear that Wave breaks one of Google’s own product development tenets: fail often, fail early (or maybe fail early, fail often, I don’t remember, but I know there was a lot of failing involved.)  This project has been in development since 2007 and has 50 developers working on it, and it already has a plethora of what we product managers call “would-be-nice” features.  I encourage Google to make sure the core features work and release this thing as soon as possible to see if people like it at all.  If they like it, THEN add the silly extras like real-time wiki-style collaborative editing that lets you see what other people type as they type it.

I do like the concept behind Wave in how it aims to unify communication, but I want to see that happen in a way that simplifies my life.  Read through the comments on the TechCrunch article, and you’ll see that most people think it looks too complicated.  As a contrast, no one who saw the iPod or iPhone unveilings thought either device would complicate their lives – they are both beautiful in their simplicity, and that’s why they sell by the boatloads.  Google will have an uphill battle marketing this product until they can show an average user how it will simplify their lives. If they clear this hurdle, Facebook needs to watch out.

Kindle 3 – Now THIS I would buy

Posted by on May 26, 2009 No comments
CollegeHumor.

Breaking: Wolfram Alpha now useful

Posted by on May 20, 2009 No comments

If you didn’t think Wolfram Alpha was useful before, here’s your proof that it can answer everday queries that everyone cares about:

Snicker.

Have you found any other amusing queries?

Kindle will be history within a year

Posted by on May 19, 2009 15 comments

As sick as I am of hearing about the underwhelming Wolfram Alpha, I’m even more sick of hearing about the product-that-shouldn’t-be, Amazon’s Kindle.  This machine is destined to be obsolete within a year, so Amazon should quick-like get back to ecommerce and leave hardware to companies that know something about it.

Here’s my problem with the Kindle: when I look at it, I think “that’d be cool if I could also browse the web on it, watch movies on it, play music on it, or use it as a digital picture frame,” but despite it being essentially a small computer, it won’t do any of those things.  A netbook can do all of these things, and it costs less.  

For a few laughs, let’s look at Amazon’s pitch for their latest model, the Kindle DX:

  • Holds up to 3,500 books, periodicals, and documents - Amazon downplays the fact that this is only 4GB of storage, a pathetic number for any modern netbook.
  • Beautiful Large Display: 9.7″ diagonal e-ink screen reads like real paper; boasts 16 shades of gray for clear text and sharp images – Are you kidding me?  16 shades of gray?  Sure, that’s better than the Newton, but this isn’t 1992, guys.  Any modern netbook offers 32 bit color, giving millions of colors.  If I want to read a text book or a blog post on my Kindle DX, you better believe I want color.
  • Auto-Rotating Screen: Display auto-rotates from portrait to landscape as you turn the device so you can view full-width maps, graphs, tables, and Web pages – We’re only down to the third bullet point, and this is the best you can do?  This is truly trivial, and easy to do on a netbook. 
  • Built-In PDF Reader: Native PDF support allows you to carry and read all of your personal and professional documents on the go – PDF readers are free to download on any PC.  Just because this is better than the original Kindle doesn’t make it cool.
  • Wireless: 3G wireless lets you download books right from your Kindle DX, anytime, anywhere; no monthly fees, no annual contracts, and no hunting for Wi-Fi hotspots – if you really need to download a book while you’re outside of wi-fi range, apparently this is the device for you.  If you don’t have a Kindle, just download the book to your smartphone, then transfer it to your PC.  
  • Books In Under 60 Seconds: You get free wireless delivery of books in less than 60 seconds; no PC required – You can also download an ebook to your netbook in less than 60 seconds, no Kindle required.  Fail.
  • Long Battery Life: Read for days without recharging – Who reads for more than a couple hours at a time, anyway?  Non-problem solved.
  • Read-to-Me: With the text-to-speech feature, Kindle DX can read newspapers, magazines, blogs, and books out loud to you, unless the book’s rights holder made the feature unavailable – Now you can have A Brief History of Time read to you in the author’s own voice.  Awesome! 
  • Big Selection, Low Prices: Over 275,000 books; New York Times Best Sellers and New Releases are only $9.99, unless marked otherwise – This has nothing to do with the device and will surely be available on any PC very soon.
  • More Than Books: U.S. and international newspapers including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, magazines including The New Yorker and Time, plus popular blogs, all auto-delivered wirelessly – Again, I have a PC and a cool new thing called a “web browser” for this. 
The only things that make the Kindle superior to a PC for the purpose of reading are:
  • It’s lightweight with a super-compact form factor
  • Um…that’s about it.  I guess this isn’t much of a bulleted list.

And Amazon wants $489 for this piece of…technology.  For that kind of money I can almost get two netbooks, each of which have 9″ full color screens, 1GB RAM, 160GB hard drive, built-in webcams and mics, wifi, memory card slots, 3 USB ports,  and weigh in at 2.5 lbs (2 times the weight of the Kindle DX.)  With the Kindle, I can read an ebook.  With two netbooks, my wife and I could video conference with the in-laws, watch movies (chick flick for her, dude flick for me), organize our photos, play online games against each other, or…we could read ebooks.  Where to spend the money is pretty obvious to me.

 

Asus Eee Top PC with 15 touchscreen

Asus Eee Top PC with 15" touchscreen

So, I’m calling it: within one year, someone else will have an ebook platform that will be far more robust and versatile, and it will be cheaper, and Amazon will exit the game to focus on selling ebooks.  Perhaps the Kindle-killer will be Apple’s rumored iPad, perhaps Microsoft will get their Tablet PC act together, or perhaps Asus will mate their Eee PC with their Top PC to create a Kindle-beating love child.  I don’t know who’s going to do it, but the PC industry is going to put the Kindle out of our misery, and the sooner the better.  

Real-time Twitter search: cool, but no Google threat

Posted by on May 14, 2009 1 comment

In a recent blog post by industry veteran Dave Winer, he opines that Google is falling behind by not paying attention to the search opportunities opened up by Twitter and other microblogging services.  His point boils down to:

Once Twitter is delivering the news search that Google can’t, it will be way too late. This is probably what the Google management doesn’t understand because they aren’t using Twitter themselves.

C’mon, Dave.  Someone’s been drinking the Twitter Kool-Aid for too long now.  Twitter is not the answer to everything.  Let’s get off the more-plugged-in-than-thou soapbox and look at real value propositions.

First of all, “news search” is not something Google is focused on because that’s not how they make their money.  If someone else were to come along and make a much better product than Google News (and one might argue several companies already do), Google’s management and shareholders wouldn’t notice a thing. 

Second, I’m doubtful (as is Valleywag) that Twitter could ever provide a usable news service.  When major events happen, there may be witnesses who are Twittering what they see, but how can Twitter parse the useful, factual tweets out of the millions of related tweets? It’s an impossible task.  The best Twitter can do is say “a plane crashed”, but they’d be hard pressed to say which tweets are authoritative.  (Google Trends tracks memes like this already.)  

To complicate Twitter’s job, spammers are already exploiting Twitter hashtags, so as soon as that #planecrash meme gets momentum and people start watching live Twitter search results for details, I guarantee a good number of those posts will look like “#planecrash Buy viagra here! http://supersmallurl.com/blah.”

Lastly, news searches probably account for less than 5% of searches across the web, and “real-time” news search surely represents far less than 1%.  Google can afford to ignore this segment because they rock at the other 99% of searches, typically for more mundane topics like “cheap digital camera” or “paris hilton nude pics.”  And those digital camera searches will monetize much more effectively than news about the latest plane crash.  

Twitter is a great trend- or meme-tracking tool, but it will never be a real news source, and even if it is, Google won’t care, nor should they.

Zumbox: When good ideas go bad

Posted by on May 14, 2009 1 comment

Zumbox logo

Have you ever wanted to let someone send you an email, but didn’t want to give out your email address?  Thanks to Zumbox, now you can keep your email address safe and sound by simply giving out your physical address instead.  Awesome!  Maybe when I don’t want to give out my phone number, I’ll give out my social security number instead.  Brilliant guys. 

I know where they are trying to go with this idea – they’re trying to replace the ridiculous volume of bills, credit card offers, and junk mail that we all receive, and that is certainly a noble cause, but it just won’t fly unless the senders of this mail buy in first.  If Zumbox could promise me that all my junk mail would come in electronic form (and ideally get filtered out by Google so I’d never see it), then I’d sign up in a heartbeat.  

What’s more likely to happen is that direct marketers will continue to send mail to my physical address and they’ll also send their spam to my Zumbox email address because ITS THE SAME ADDRESS.  The spammers no longer have to trick me into giving up my email address because they can just send their junk email to my Zumbox, and now they can send me even more spam because it’s cheap - Zumbox charges marketers 5 cents per email and the rates are even lower for high volume marketers, so that’s a bargain compared to physical mail.  With rates like these, it’s worth multi-channel spamming someone on their Zumbox and their physical address to get a better response rate.  Wonderful.

So guys, go back to the drawing board, get the USPS and the Direct Marketing Association on board so this idea won’t increase the amount of spam in my life, and then get back to me.

Verdict: Sad. Noble concept, but this incarnation is doomed.

Google Squared not a Wolfram killer, will kill PriceGrabber instead

Posted by on May 12, 2009 No comments

Despite the over-hyped headlines over at TechCrunch, Wolfram Alpha and Google Squared will not compete in the same space.  Wolfram is for scientists and researchers, and Google Squared will be suited for real end-users.  Squared is built to compare large sets of “things” (dog breeds, roller coasters, digital cameras) that have specific, machine parseable metadata, while Wolfram has a human-curated database that is built to give deep, specific data about one thing.

Here are a few queries I think Wolfram will answer, but Google Squared wouldn’t:

  • France’s GDP (graphed over time)
  • Bank of America stock price (graphed over time)
  • Where is the International Space Station right now?

All of these queries can be answered by Wolfram because it has a rich set of data around each of these objects.  However, Google Squared seems to be tailored to help you compare objects making it suitable for queries like:

  • Finding digital cameras with X megapixels or Y focal length
  • Finding a USB hub with more than 5 ports
  • Finding a dog breed less than 15 pounds suitable for people with allergies
  • Finding a 50″-56″ LCD with at least 3 HDMI outs, a contrast ratio of > 1000:1, and a three-year warranty

The two products serve two markets, and should not be compared.  In essence, Wolfram will give you information about a thing, Google Squared will help you find that thing.

For the record, Google’s approach is much more technically impressive, and, I’d say, something of a Holy Grail of web spiders.  This is the first time a general web spider has been designed to actually figure out metadata about things that it finds on the web so that those things can be categorized and compared against each other.  Wolfram relies on human data entry to make sure it has this level of intelligence, but Google Squared is imitating human intelligence to automate the process.

Google Squared is certain to be integrated with Google’s Shopping Search in the near future, making it a serious competitor to PriceGrabber and other price comparison engines, because it will let users filter and sort by even more fields than they could before.  If you watch the video on the TechCrunch article, just imagine a column on the right side with prices.  Watch out, PriceGrabber. 

Journalists: Evolve or Die

Posted by on May 11, 2009 No comments

A recent incident at the Chicago Tribune has highlighted the mindset that is driving traditional journalism to the brink of extinction.  

Apparently the Tribune’s marketing department performed some customer surveys in which they showed articles to readers before the articles were done.  They don’t seem to have tried to influence the editorial, and presumably they informed the survey participants that the articles were unfinished and could contain factual errors so as not to jeopardize the reputation of the editorial staff, however, the editors are up in arms.

The editors banded together to write an email in protest, saying,

It is a fundamental principle of journalism that we do not give people outside the newspaper the option of deciding whether or not we should publish a story, whether they be advertisers, politicians or just regular readers. 

While I respect the editors’ desire to maintain their independence and integrity, it’s an outdated concept that they should ignore reader input altogether.  I don’t advocate forcing the editors to change their priorities based on reader feedback, but why wouldn’t they at least want to hear what their readers have to say?  The most successful websites are the ones that pay close attention to their users’ needs and usage patterns, and if traditional journalists want to stay relevant, they need to evolve and adopt some of the same techniques.

Do you think journalists should integrate reader feedback into their editorial calendars, or stick to their own intuition?