Session Blog Reviews

Posts Tagged ‘apple’

Google has announced its latest acquisition , an Israeli company that builds iGoogle and Android gadgets. The Israeli financial news site TheMarker speculates the deal’s value at $25M. While LabPixies does seem like a natural fit for Google, some speculate this is just the latest volley in the building Apple v. Google war. Just last week, Google snapped up Agnilux , a startup founded by former Applers. While the LabPixies acquisition will help Google expand further across Europe, Africa and the Middle East, the most direct threat to Apple is that LabPixies also designs widgets and apps for the iPhone. MediaPost reports: Though a bit player, the fact that LabPixies develops personalized Web gadgets for the iPhone won’t be lost on some analysts who’ve speculated that Google buys companies just to annoy Apple. Who, Google? No way. Google wouldn’t buy the most popular advertising platform on iPhone apps , or a company that doesn’t even seem to have a product or strategy just to bug Apple, right? I mean, they’d just bring out one of the first real challengers to the iPhone , right? What do you think? Is this just another jab at Apple, or is Google more motivated by LabPixies’ actual offerings?

Continue reading here:
Google Acquires LabPixies to Tick off Apple

Let me start off with a little disclaimer: I don’t like Apple products. I used nothing but Apple products for most of the 1990s but since then I’ve grown to dislike the vast majority of the things they produce and the business decisions they choose to make. However, I think Steve Jobs is a marketing genius. If you look at Apple’s history it is defined by a very distinctive brand and vision which has guided their direction and development. This can be seen in everything from their products to their user interface. All of which emphasizes a polished and well thought out marketing strategy. Above, Steve Jobs talks about working with iconic graphic designer Paul Rand on Job’s once NeXT . Paul Rand, is responsible for some of the most recognizable logos and brands in American culture. He single-handedly defined what it means to combine modern artistic thought and business strategy. It’s this same combination that has driven Apple’s marketing agenda for the last 20 years. For Rand, graphic design wasn’t an artistic approach for the sake of art, but rather an unique problem that must be solved in order to convey a brands message to the public. He approaches every task at hand by searching for a solution first and then utilizing the appropriate skill set when needed. As a result he produced sometimes overly simple images that drove home the company’s message. “Simplicty is not the goal. It is the by-product of a good idea and modest expectations.” – Paul Rand Are You Branding for Branding’s Sake? One of the lessons that we can learn from Rand and Jobs is that marketing for marketing’s sake is pointless. Companies should be developing and integrating long-term visions and scope within their marketing process. Developing logos, web layouts, and print materials with no sense of direction can prove to be a waste of time when trying to build a brand. Develop a vision for your company’s future, and combine that vision with your marketing efforts, to create the type of brand that Rand and Jobs are masters at. I’m sure you’ve heard the saying, “dress for the job you want”. In the same sense it’s important to envision where you want your company to be in five years and work now to build a brand suitable for your vision. Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Read the original post:
Cup of Joe: Steve Jobs Is a Marketing Guru

You know that you are a major force in business when you go from a fun, social networking company to huge valuations and finally to Washington. Google has shown that they understand the importance of being in the US capital and working the lobbying angle. When there’s enough talk about antitrust and monopoly you need to do that. Facebook’s involvement in DC though goes even further as they talk to the intelligence community. SocialBeat tells us more Facebook has been gradually boosting its profile in Washington D.C. over the past year and is on the hunt for a second senior lobbyist to add to its office of four. Disclosures released a few days ago show that, on top of lobbying the usual suspects Internet companies reach out to like the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. senators and representatives, the fast-growing social network has also been busy deepening ties to government intelligence and homeland security agencies. Facebook spent $41,390 on lobbying in the first quarter of 2010. That’s on top of the $207,878 it spent last year — the first year Facebook began releasing such disclosures. Although these numbers are tiny compared to the $4.3 million Google spent on lobbying last year, expect them to grow with the company’s influence and ambitions. So let’s take a look here. Facebook is a company that raises privacy concerns just by showing up every day. Now they are talking to intelligence agencies on the federal level. That kind of talk leaves plenty of room for speculation. It is the only Internet company amongst the likes of Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple who is reaching out to the Office of the Director of National Security which is an umbrella organization established after 9/11. This agency advises the President and works with the CIA. So what are they talking about? Privacy and federal cyber-security policy are the focus over the last three quarters. Facebook’s take? Andrew Noyes, the company’s manager of public policy communications, says most of Facebook’s work in D.C. consists of basic education — helping legislators and agencies understand how to use the social network for campaigning, reaching out to their constituencies and in their regular line of work. The U.S. Navy used Facebook to alert Hawaiians of a possible tsunami from the Chilean earthquake earlier this year, while the company says 35 government agencies are using social media for governance. It also doesn’t hurt to start to “grease the skids” for future interactions with the government does it? Considering the kind of data that could possible flow through Facebook there is likely to be more than less interest in what is being said from a legal / criminal aspect. We have already seen that criminals aren’t always the sharpest knives in the drawer . So how private do you think your information is on Facebook? If Facebook is “building relationships” in Washington and is the only big Internet player talking to intelligence agencies what could that mean? It’s Friday so let us know what you think before you check out for the weekend.

See the original post here:
Facebook Goes to Washington to Deepen Intelligence Ties

Today’s post title is going to be a joint effort. I need your help to fill in the blank, because, quite frankly, no one appears to know what it was Agnilux did, before it was snapped up by Google. The best we can tell is that it was started by former Apple and Cisco employees, it might have had something to do with servers, and that they were keeping tight lipped until they were ready to “make a splash.” Well, they’ll never get their chance, because they’ve apparently decided to sell to Google for an undisclosed sum. Maybe Google will reveal what it was that interested them about Agnilux or maybe they’ll lock its founders in a room in the Googleplex and have them conduct dark (fiber?) experiments. Anyway, if anyone has any further details, drop me a comment. Thanks!

See the original post:
Google Acquires Agnilux a “______” Company

The FTC’s blogging guidelines have drawn a lot of attention—but little if any action by the consumer protection agency. But several bloggers think they’ve found a great opportunity for the commission to step in—or a great opportunity to ridicule the FTC’s guidelines—with Apple’s iPad and the New York Times. Apparently (as you can see), some iPad ads feature the New York Times website including the paper’s logo. Dan Gillmor , for example, has petitioned the New York Times to reveal whether it’s compensating Apple for the use of its logo—a material connection under the FTC guidelines—while reviewing the iPad in its paper. Other bloggers, TechDirt reports , point out that the Times and other news outlets may have a vested interest in seeing the iPad succeed, if they can successfully use that platform to build a fee-based content system. We’re all in favor of radical transparency here, but based on reading the FTC’s guidelines (PDF; see section 255.5 on material connections), I’m not sure this is the test case these bloggers are looking for. First of all, I can’t really see the New York Times getting a huge boost from just having its logo appear on iPad ads (especially if they’re not paying for this placement—I would like to know the answer to that one). Are consumers really so stupid that they couldn’t figure out that when they say you can browse the web, you can also visit the website of one of the most prominent newspapers in the country? Do we really believe the New York Times (again, one of if not the most prominent, well-known newspapers in the country) is going to get more subscriptions or advertising dollars because they got onto an iPad commercial? The FTC offers specific examples to help (kinda) interpret their standards. From section 255.5, example 3 (emphasis added): Assume that during [a] television interview, the tennis player [our iPad] is wearing clothes bearing the insignia of an athletic wear company with whom she also has an endorsement contract [using the logo of the NYT]. Although this contract requires that she wear the company’s clothes not only on the court but also in public appearances, when possible, she does not mention them or the company during her appearance on the show. No disclosure is required because no representation is being made about the clothes in this context. The iPad commercials make no representation about the New York Times, they just display the website. If the NYT is paying to get onto an iPad commercial, they’re not paying for nor receiving an endorsement or any representation (other than visual). The other issue of the NYT’s reviews of the iPad is a bit trickier. But the general rule goes: if you receive a free product or monetary compensation for a review, you need to disclose it. I assume the NYT reviewers did receive free iPads for review, and that certainly makes it easier to give a glowing review (even if they’re used to getting the latest greatest gadgets for free). But if the New York Times is paying Apple for ad placement, the money is flowing the wrong way. I’m sure they do hope the iPad will reverse their flagging fortunes, but is that going to change how they review the product (but apparently not the NYT’s David Pogue : “There’s an e-book reader app, but it’s not going to rescue the newspaper and book industries (sorry, media pundits).”). But frankly, that’s a bit more tenuous of a motivation than something as easily measurable as money. What do you think? Is this the way to demonstrate the absurdity of the FTC guidelines? Or does this just not fit the bill? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

See the original post here:
NYT vs. FTC: Is the Times Not Disclosing iPad Advertising?