Experts Give the New Xbox Raves for Control, Creativity
(Dec. 6 2001)
Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images

Microsoft sold more than 960,000 consoles last week, with a majority flying off the shelves within a single 24-hour period.

Nintendo also said the Wii had the biggest Black Friday ever, selling more than 500,000 units on the day after Thanksgiving.

At one point during the shopping madness, a shopper pepper sprayed a crowd at a Wal-Mart to get her mitts on an Xbox (although reports now say police are investigating the incident to determine the cause of the attack).

Sony declined to release sales figures for the PlayStation 3 last week, but it is likely benefiting from a recent $50 price cut.

Such strong sales are mind-blowing.

People are lining up for — and in some cases fighting over — hardware that is five to six years old. It’s difficult to imagine any other consumer hardware that could attract that kind of demand after such a long period of time.

All three are nearing the end of their life cycles. The Nintendo Wii and PlayStation 3 are both five years old, and the Xbox 360 is a year older.

Nintendo announced that it will release a new console, the Wii U, later next year. Microsoft and Sony have not said anything official, but they are both expected to follow with competing launches in the same time frame.

It has long been a pattern for all three rivals to release new hardware at the same time. A European PlayStation executive recently hinted that Sony’s plan was to continue that trend because it was “undesirable” to be significantly later than the competition, according to IndustryGamers.com.

Despite the odds, there are at least three reasons why sales continue to do well.

The lineup of games is as strong as it has ever been for the consoles; all three have tried sprucing up the hardware with accessories and adding downloadable content; and, finally, consumers don’t have a choice — the only alternative is to wait another year.

First, the games: This year, publishers waited until now to release some of the hottest titles of 2011; hardcore gamers in particular will have their choice of any number of blockbuster hits.

Activision’s Call of Duty game is already a runaway success, grossing $775 million in the first five days it was available, to shatter all entertainment records.

Also in the hardcore genre is Electronic Art’s Battlefield 3, Ubisoft’s Assassin’s Creed, PlayStation’s Uncharted 3 and Rocksteady’s Batman: Arkham City, which are all going head to head this holiday season.

But the consoles don’t just serve the hardcore genre anymore.

Last year, both Sony and Microsoft released motion-controlled gaming systems to rival the Wii’s technology, which has always been considered more family friendly and easy to use.

This holiday season, Sony and Microsoft are offering the most games ever for the Move and Kinect, respectively. Microsoft will have 75 new Kinect games available for the Xbox this holiday, four times last year’s number. Sony said the PlayStation Move is expected to launch 26 titles.

In addition to being used to play games, the consoles are turning into entertainment systems for the living room.

It started with the ability to use the Internet-connected boxes to stream Netflix to TV screens. Now the consoles are turning into media hubs, playing video, music and other content that is readily available over the Internet.

Microsoft and Sony have made entertainment a particular focus between their respective online networks, Xbox Live and PlayStation Network.

Microsoft will make a huge push on Dec. 6, when it rolls out a free update to Xbox Live. Users will be able to conduct a Bing search to find games, music and video across several providers. To make it even more family friendly, the Xbox Live user interface will be controlled with voice commands, rather than by the game controller.

By the end of the year, Microsoft expects that nearly 40 TV and entertainment providers — including Comcast, Netflix, Hulu, ESPN and HBO GO — will be available on its system.

All of these reasons added up could keep the pedal on the gas for what in any other segment would be considered ancient technology.

In an interview, John Koller, director of marketing for Sony’s PlayStation, argued that there’s a lot left in the current generation of consoles.

As an example, he said its predecessor, the PlayStation 2, is 12 years old, but continues to be used in homes around the U.S. as a game player and DVD player. Similarly, the PlayStation 3 substitutes as a Blu-ray player.

Overall, the PlayStation 2 ended up reaching nearly half of all U.S. households.

If that can be used as a guide, then the PlayStation 3 still has a very long way to go. In fact, the goal may be unattainable if new hardware is coming around the corner.

To date, Sony has sold 18.7 million PlayStation 3’s in the U.S. That makes up just a fraction — less than 17 percent — of the 112.6 million households, according to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau figures.

“We are nowhere near where we could be,” Koller admits.

Next year, the true testament will be how the hardware sells as we get closer to the release of Nintendo Wii U and consoles.

According to sources close to the situation, neither CEO Mark Pincus nor one of its principal venture shareholders, Kleiner Perkins, will be selling any shares in its upcoming initial public offering.

While big investors often divest stock in IPOs, not all do. It is a carefully watched number by investors, who are always wary of insiders who unload a lot of shares in an offering.

But such activity by the fast-growing San Francisco online gaming company will be watched carefully since Pincus has recently been painted in a number of press reports as the greedy Mr. Potter of Silicon Valley.

Among the allegations is that he runs a poisonously tough culture that tracks its employees’ output and performance via elaborate data models that require extraordinary amounts of work, along with nefarious list-making of who’s naughty and who’s not.

That big-brother behavior has reportedly included taking away high-ranking jobs and the sweet stock options that go along with them from those execs found wanting.

While there is no doubt Pincus is a hard-charging personality, his defenders note that it’s due to a belief that life at Zynga is a meritocracy and that his practices are not any more heavy-handed than those at other firms.

Indeed, Pincus has a lot of competition in the tough-guy tech CEO category from longtime legends such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates, who set the gold standard for mean, as well as Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and now Google CEO Larry Page.

Pincus does not even rate in this pantheon, which is more typical of tech companies than anyone would care to admit or, to be fair, care to care about. With big benefits, vast wealth and much latitude, many in tech don’t mind the grueling work schedules.

After all, it’s not exactly ditch-digging, now is it?

In any case, sources said the coverage has hit Zynga staff hard, as well as Pincus, who has not responded due to the IPO’s quiet period. That’s in contrast to Groupon, the daily-deals site whose own rough process was rife with highly negative stories about the company’s prospects.

While those media accounts were more aimed at the business itself and less personal, Groupon CEO Andrew Mason vociferously defended the company in a controversial letter that was then leaked and published (to me and by me!).

Pincus will doubtlessly have a lot to say to investors who ask about the company’s culture and its possible negative impact on attrition, as some stories have charged.

His decision not to sell, sources said, was inspired by Zynga investor and close friend Reid Hoffman, who has sold very little of the stock of LinkedIn, where he serves as chairman.

The action all begins next week, according to multiple reports, when Zynga takes its show on the road in preparation for an IPO that is expected to value the company at $15 to $20 billion and will take place before the new year.

It will debut under the ZNGA ticker on the Nasdaq market.

While some have been worried about Zynga’s future growth, its past performance has been a lot stronger than other Internet offerings. In the first nine months of the year, the company posted $828.9 million in revenue, double the amount from a year ago, with net income of $30.7 million.

Pincus’s holding onto shares will be seen as a plus, of course, although he has sold a large amount of stock in Zynga’s history.

According to its S-1 filing:

“From our inception in October 2007 to date, Mr. Pincus, our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Product Officer and the Chairman of our Board of Directors, has purchased an aggregate of 149,197,328 shares of our common stock. To date, Mr. Pincus has sold an aggregate of 43,629,310 shares of our common stock at prices ranging from $0.42 to $13.96.”

Pincus now holds 91.4 million of Class B shares, 16 percent of the total, as well as 20.5 million of Class C shares, 38 percent of that group. Kleiner holds 65.2 million shares, or 11.2 percent, of Class B shares.

Other big Zynga owners, who might or might not sell at the IPO, include Institutional Venture Partners, Union Square Ventures, Foundry Venture Capital and Avalon Ventures.

Mr. Murdoch and his two sons, Lachlan and James, were re-elected to the company’s board, along with other directors, despite what was expected to be a significant protest vote. The company said full voting tallies will be released next week.

Read the rest of this story at the original site ››

Experian CheetahMail client data indicates that as part of the retail push, marketers will be sending coupons and offering deep discounts, such as 10 percent off or free shipping, as the shopping frenzy ramps up.

Email has proven to be a very effective channel, especially for new local commerce providers, such as Groupon and LivingSocial, and flash sales sites, such as Gilt Groupe, Rue La La or ideeli. But already some critics are using the words “deal fatigue” to signal that consumers are growing tired of seeing offers in their inbox.

While the study didn’t mention those sectors specifically, it found that one of the big contributors that has ramped up e-marketing since last year was the travel sector, growing by 126 percent, followed by media and entertainment at 77 percent.

In addition to pushing offers, Experian said, it was also trendy for the emails to link to social media, including Twitter and Facebook, and carry mobile-specific features, such as QR codes.

[Image via eyeidea/Shutterstock]

But given the widespread adoption of tablets like Apple’s iPad, coupled with everyone under the sun vying for a piece of the tablet market, it’s easy to see that consumption of content will continue to explode. And that’s the point — with that explosion comes the aftershock of storage demand. As more users adopt tablets as mainstream, more storage from hard drives will be needed from the backend servers and in the cloud to serve them. So while flash is appealing for use in consumption devices like tablets, let’s not let this obscure the main fact about tablets in the big picture of the storage market, which is that tablets aren’t hurting hard drive sales — in fact, they are helping.

When examining the storage market, we can look at present and future projections for HDD unit sales and by volume of capacity (in petabytes) shipped as per the chart below:

But we can also look at the data trends for consumption. In 2005, the world generated 150 exabytes (one billion gigabytes) of data. This year, it’s estimated that we’ll create and store 1,200 exabytes, and in 2020, a staggering 35,000 exabytes!¹ That’s 30x growth over the next 10 years.

This isn’t the first time that we’ve heard in the HDD world that the sky is falling. About a decade ago, MP3 player manufacturers shrank the device footprint and switched from hard drive storage to flash. Not long after, smartphones came on the scene, and those in the know posted that users would discard their PCs in favor of smartphones and, again, the hard drive industry would suffer. But the sky never fell, and neither MP3 players nor smartphones caused hard drive sales to decline. In fact, sales actually grew 14 percent between 2000 and 2005, and continued to grow 12 percent from 2005 to 2010.¹ The reality is that the more content consumption devices hit the market, the greater the demand for hard drive storage capacity, even when it is not local to the device.

Now let’s delve into some logic. Consumers didn’t discard their PCs for smartphones, and they aren’t going to chuck their PCs for tablets — the devices just aren’t that interchangeable. People are using their tablets for content consumption: to watch movies, browse the Internet, check email, play games, etc. But they aren’t really using their tablets for content creation, and certainly don’t rely on them for heavy duty applications. So logically, it follows that most people who own a tablet need a PC as well.

But just for argument’s sake, let’s assume users worldwide tossed out their PCs and replaced them with tablets. Right out of the gate, we would have a capacity problem. The bottom line is that all the flash in the world isn’t close to enough to meet the worldwide need for storage capacity, and that fact will remain true for a very, very long time. Here are some numbers to consider: In 2010, all the content created and replicated grew past a staggering zettabyte (one trillion gigabytes), and is expected to reach 1.8 zettabytes in 2011. Yet in 2010, the entire NAND flash memory industry manufactured just over 11 exabytes (you would need 1000 exabytes to equal every one zettabyte) of storage. Even with forecasts predicting that NAND flash production capacity will grow to 21 exabytes in 2011, only nine percent of that, or about two exabytes, will go to the flash memory used in tablets.² That’s not nearly enough capacity to meet demand.

Tablets with flash storage simply don’t have the onboard capacity to store the massive volumes of digital content that users want to access — anytime, anywhere. So all that data needs to be stored externally, in either local attached, networked or cloud storage — and all those formats rely on hard drives. So, once again, tablet popularity doesn’t hurt hard drive sales. In fact, some pundits see tablets as a net gain for hard drives: “For now, IDC sees the rise in demand for iPads/tablets as additive … for HDD makers in terms of the growth of information and digital content that has to be stored somewhere. That content and information consumed by these devices most likely will be stored on hard disk drives in data centers, cloud infrastructures, or on USB or network-attached personal storage devices in homes.”³

So in the end, even if some users do opt to replace their PCs with tablets, hard drives will still be in high demand. Content will continue its growth and storage will always be needed. Because nobody is saying worldwide demand for storage capacity is decreasing. Now that would be an ugly rumor!

Mark Wojtasiak is a Senior Manager in Product Marketing with Seagate Technology. For the past 5 years, Mark has been based in Seagate’s Shakopee, MN, design center where Seagate lives and breathes enterprise storage. Though Mark works in the middle of everything enterprise, his role at Seagate enables him to listen, learn, discuss, and share anything and everything related to storage. From the traditional desktop to external drives to the cloud, he develops insights on the latest storage technology, trends, customers, and users.

^{1 IDC Digital Universe Study, June 2011}

^{2 Gartner, Forecast: NAND Flash Supply and Demand, Worldwide, 1Q10-4Q12, 3Q11 Update, page 2, Table 15-3, September 2011}

^{3 http://storageeffect.media.seagate.com/2010/11/storage-effect/a-tablet-with-a-side-of-storage-please/}

There’s lots of good stuff in here, though I’d advise skipping Page’s introductory comments and heading right to the 16-minute mark, where he and his old adult supervisor field questions. I’d also advise using Danny Sullivan’s liveblog of the event as a reference guide.

Danny and other folks have noted Page’s initial response to a question about Google’s biggest threat (“Google”). But do watch the whole thing, which starts at the 38-minute mark.

After Schmidt praises Page’s direct management style, Page cuts in and gets more direct. Google, he says, has to get faster even as it gets bigger:

One of the interesting things that we’ve noticed is that companies correlate on decision making and speed of decision making. There are basically no companies that have good slow decisions. There are only companies that have good fast decisions. I think that’s also a natural thing as companies get bigger — they tend to slow down decision making. And that’s pretty tragic.

Bonus game for armchair psychologists — check out the body language and vibe as the two men field the first question, about the company’s early history.

If it was a different kind of event, and the two were different kinds of speakers, I would assume this was deadpan shtick. But I’m reasonably sure that it’s not, and at the very least, Page and Schmidt have different memories about Google’s formative years.

First, publishers need cutting-edge technology to hook an audience through today’s digital media channels of the Web, mobile, social, and search.

And, second, the breakthrough technology can’t just be about product design — it’s got to go beyond to create distribution advantages on the new connected Web.

One Question
Okay, now that we have the truth out of the way, let me ask you a question:

“Is your company a media company, or a technology company?”

I love getting asked this question. And every digital media leader I know hates answering it.

Discomfort, Uneasiness, Anxiety, Fear
The uneasiness begins with the mistaken idea that the two are separable. And they were — back in the 15th century, when Gutenberg first worked his printing magic, and up until a few years ago. But we all know digital technology has inserted itself inextricably into the guts of publishing, replacing ink with bytes and paper with pipes. And now, over the last two years, technology has transformed the basis of publishers’ relationships with their audience, by connecting them through social operating systems, as we discussed last month.

And yet, our uneasiness escalates to anxiety when we realize we still don’t fully understand the new technology’s potential or impact on our business.

That is a scary thought.

Technology Drives Media
I think we all need to collectively swallow our fear. We know every media company must be a technology company today.

In the first generations of digital media, it was easy. In AOL’s past, technology’s key role was simply to provide basic Internet access over dial-up lines. Today, while that access provides cash flow, it no longer has any strategic value in media. Similarly, Yahoo’s early technology prowess was applied to create significant products like Yahoo Mail. But while Mail still drives 73 percent of the audience to Yahoo’s media properties, it won’t secure Yahoo’s future ability to be a great media destination.

These two companies — as well as the rest of us — need to use technology for something more advanced than access and ancillary products. We need to put it right into the heart of media so that we can create breakthrough user experiences and new connections with audiences.

Millions of Ways to Engage
To do that, let’s start by recognizing what’s changed about the medium itself: In analog days, publishers’ products were two-dimensional; and all we had to work with was ink and some paper. And similarly, distribution was mostly two-dimensional; a subscription list and newsstand sales was all there was to it.

But now, consumers have access to millions of sources at their fingertips, and each one can be rich and interactive, reaching us through several different digital channels. Both our product experiences and our distribution can be much more intricate — and much more valuable. And combining the two gives media the chance to do something it’s always aspired to but has never been able to do.

The Future Will Be Personalized
We have recently become ready for a whole new vision for media.

And that’s giving every audience member the right content in the right place at the right time.

To do this takes a combination of data — from the social operating system — coupled with media’s greatest power, that of creating experiences and distributing them.

To achieve this, though, we need technology to do more than output HTML pages; instead, it has to chaperone customized content to every individual.

This is a big change from the original Internetization of media, which was, like generations of offline media before it: “If you publish it they will come.” That worked when directories like Yahoo and search engines like Google matched consumers to content. But that attitude was passive, and today’s social Web is anything but. So publishers now have the opportunity — and the challenge — of taking charge of their distribution.

The key is using the emerging social Web to get signals from, and connect to, the audience. And when we do this, we are putting technology in the role of relating uniquely to every consumer in order to create the ultimate experiences they crave.
Now that’s a refreshing concept for media.

Three Ways to Get Ahead
But what does this mean, practically speaking?

I believe the role of technology in media success must embody these three things:

• Use technology to determine the right content: The social Web offers a wealth of real-time data. Use it to see what matters to your constituents. Tools like Newsbeat are helpful moment by moment and article by article. But you have to go further. The great breakthrough of digital media is being able to connect to your audience as individuals, not just in aggregate. No longer do you have to create for a persona or prototypical user; instead, you can create for real users. Media companies need to develop technologies that give them a proprietary edge when it comes to understanding the specific needs of their potential audience; that way, they can serve consumers better. And the opportunities abound. At Wetpaint, my company, for example, we process Twitter, Facebook, Google, and our own site’s data, all in real time to know what content matters — and to whom. And yet, we can go much further, to ask and intuit feedback from each user individually. The future is a completely personalized experience from every publisher. It’s not far-fetched; in fact, it mirrors what consumers already patch together with all too much difficulty.
• Take control of your distribution: Reach consumers with the right content at the right time and place (via Web, mobile, video, social, and search). Don’t just have your social media team pump the same content from your Web CMS through Facebook and Twitter. Instead, use technology and research to understand the secrets of what works. Truly engaging your potential audience can improve your results by a factor of two or more. We’ve already seen this at Wetpaint, and the results are still getting better each week. Our database of everything we publish tracks all the distribution causes and effects, so we know what works. We also pay attention to who the influencers are, with technology that identifies them as well as who their influencers are; and now we’re building a “CRM”-like system to help us know more about these individuals and win them over.
• Package it into the right experiences: Print is static and flat; but so are too many digital media properties. That’s why I applaud the New York Times for continually looking at how to repackage into mobile apps; and that’s why I like Flipboard, which takes a data-rich, but visually cacophonic, content feed and packages it into an immersive experience. AOL’s riff of ultimate personalization has impressed me even more: they’ve recognized that every consumer should get their own Edition — nailing the concept of personalization better than any media approach before. This is the opportunity for each of us now, as we connect with audience members and try to offer them more compelling experiences in return for loyal usage.

Technology Changes Businesses
Let’s circle back to the discussion of whether you’re a media or technology company.

By its very nature, digital publishing is a technical medium. But, beyond that, what makes technology interesting isn’t its ability to carry bits; it is its ability to change businesses. And we need to change our own by updating our sense of audience, distribution, and experience creation to provide thousands of times more precision than media ever has before.

When we do that, we’re making the content thousands of times more relevant. And I believe that’s how you build a thriving digital media business in the next decade.

Ben Elowitz is co-founder and CEO of Wetpaint, a next-generation media company that is reinventing the media model on the social web. The company has more than nine million unique visitors monthly on all its web properties combined. Ben is also a thought leader on the subject of next-generation digital media publishing and the author of Digital Quarters, a blog about the future of digital media and the steps the publishing industry must take to become profitable.

The emergence of Union Square as a destination for technology firms got its start several years ago. But the neighborhood’s tech community received a boost this year with the arrival of household names such as computer giant Apple Inc. and the impending arrival of user-review site Yelp.

Those big companies are among nearly a dozen tech firms that have signed leases this year for a combined 135,000 square feet of office space in Union Square, according to the Union Square Partnership.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Demand also said it had acquired Los Angeles-based IndieClick, a premium online advertising company and RSS Graffiti, a social media company.

The company also said that it struck a three-year “renewal and expansion of its ongoing advertising partnership with Google to monetize Demand Media’s owned and operated properties and premium content inventory.”

Revenues rose to $79.5 million in the quarter compared to $60.4 million a year ago. Analysts had expected $73.9 million.

Net loss per share on a GAAP basis was three cents, or $2.4 million, compared with a 75 cent loss, or $1.9 million, in the same period last year.

On a non-GAAP basis, which Demand’s investors also take into consideration, revenue minus traffic acquisition costs increased 34 percent to $76.6 million from $57.3 million last year.

Adjusted net income per share, diluted of six cents, grew 50 percent, compared with four cents a year ago.

About IndieClick, which Demand said would help monetize its audience on the Cracked humor site, the company noted in a press release:

“IndieClick represents a curated portfolio of important online destinations in the comedy/humor, entertainment, film, music, lifestyle, and fashion categories that are especially relevant to enthusiasts, with a focus on the 18-34 year-old demographic.”

As for re-upping its longtime advertising deal with Google, Demand said that it would extend its display advertising and premium ad serving arrangements and that its properties “will be included in premium, brand-safe channels within Google Display Network Reserve.”

I will be liveblogging Demand’s earnings at 2 pm PT.

Until then, please peruse all the various press releases from Demand:

2Q11 Results Release FINAL 08 09 11 –

Goog_DMD Release_FINAL 8 9 2011 –

IndieClick Release_FINAL2 – 8 9 2011 –

DM_Acquires_RSS_Graffiti – final clean _2_ –

As someone who’s been a “quant” both in the Wall Street sense and in advertising, I admit there are parallels between Wall Street and Madison Avenue today, and advertisers should carefully consider how real-time bidding will impact their industry. But just because mathematical minds are invading the ad-trading industry doesn’t mean they’ll bring it down the same way Wall Street quants did.

My personal story as a Wall Street quant-turned-advertising exec sheds some light on the differences between Wall Street and Madison Avenue. My life as a quant started in the early 90s. I was working on my PhD in Artificial Intelligence at Stanford and NASA, focusing on building the brains for autonomous, self-driving robots. Whenever I’d speculate on how my research would be useful in the real world, I’d think, “Well, someday we’ll send an autonomous robot to Mars.” Toiling in my lab for a pittance, I began to realize that applying my mathematical modeling skills to Wall Street might be more tangible — and lucrative — than dreaming about putting a robot on Mars. So in 1996 I became a Wall Street consultant — or, more colloquially, a quant. I passed on my mathematical knowledge to hedge fund financiers and traders so they could make more money.

Around the same time, I also consulted with packaged foods companies, helping them apply predictive data models to target the customers with mayonnaise and cereal coupons. In those days, the people applying quantitative approaches to advertising were most often called database marketers. They “mined” historical data on their customers and used it to target marketing campaigns, typically through direct mail and then as the years went by, through email and on their websites, and finally via paid search and banner ads.

Today, of course, marketers have adopted sophisticated, real-time bidding platforms to buy highly targeted “audiences” – buying display and video ads on the fly to reach in-market consumers right when they’re researching products or are ready to make a purchase. Enter the “real-time bidding” platforms for online ads that quants are supposedly hovering around, trying to find ways to “take wealth” from the trades.

Advertisers love real-time bidding because it turns display advertising into a precision science and a real-time market – cutting costs, improving campaign performance, and improving ad targeting. This is similar to how Wall Street trading works, but I don’t think quants will descend on real-time bidding platforms and try to sink the system for pure financial gain. Why? As I mentioned above, that’s just not possible from a technical standpoint. On a real-time exchange, as a user visits a page, an amazing technological triumph is happening behind the scenes. Your browser gets the page from the website’s server. Part of the page says “oh, you have to ask Google’s ADX exchange for an ad.” So your browser asks ADX for an ad. Then in real-time, ADX pokes a number of advertising companies’ servers to say “hey, right now I have this one little rectangle on this page for sale – how much would you bid on it?” As the servers evaluate whether to put an ad on this page, they can leverage information about the page, the user (anonymously), and other factors about the rectangle.

This is similar to the way a quantitative trading system might evaluate a real-time offer on NASDAQ to buy or sell a stock on a financial exchange, based on the stock’s p/e ratio, institutional holdings, and so forth. After ages pass from the computer’s perspective and the blink of an eye to us, the advertising company’s servers shoot back a bid to Google, saying “OK I want to pay $0.002472 for this rectangle and I want to show a peanut butter ad.” In the same way that NASDAQ clears trades, the ad exchange figures out the highest bidder and serves that bidder’s ad back to the person on the other end of the browser. Despite real-time “trading” of ads, there is no risk of quants turning online advertising into a shady money-making game. The opportunity to serve an ad (a single “impression” in ad speak) is conjured into existence when a person visits a Web page, and it is consumed the instant this person is matched with the right ad. There is no cigar-smoking man buying an impression at a low price and dumping it next week at a higher price on some unsuspecting naive buyer, simply because impressions just don’t live that long.

George John is CEO of Rocket Fuel Incorporated, a digital advertising company that delivers innovative and insanely effective online campaigns for large and growing brands.

Earlier, Narayen said he thinks the issue with Apple has less to do with technology than about control. “It’s control over the app store that’s at issue here,” he said. “We allow people to author once and get as wide a distribution as possible….If you build in Flash, you can run the apps on other platforms.” He said Flash is supported on 130 million mobile devices, though Mossberg reminded him that Flash “struggles” on the Android platform.

Narayen said that software developers can work around Apple’s no-Flash restrictions by building their applications first in Flash and then compiling them in another Adobe platform, AIR. “If you can build an app using our tools, and if you run it through AIR, it can be in the App Store.”

He also said that Adobe is contributing some of its expertise around type and design to HTML5, the technology that Apple has thrown its weight behind for Web video and multimedia on the iPad and iPhone. “We welcome the evolution to HTML5, and are actively contributing to it.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110602/adobe-ceo-the-flash-argument-with-apple-is-over/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20110601/netflix-ceo-200-million-to-renew-starz-deal-wouldnt-be-shocking/ http://allthingsd.com/20110601/netflix-ceo-200-million-to-renew-starz-deal-wouldnt-be-shocking/#comments Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:43:42 +0000 Arik Hesseldahl http://allthingsd.com/?p=80831 Netflix CEO Reed Hastings won’t say exactly how much it’s going to cost his company to renew its 2008 licensing deal with the Starz cable network. Speaking with AllThingsD’s Kara Swisher, he declined to say much about the state of negotiations between the companies. Asked to confirm the speculation of analysts that it might cost as much as $200 million, he said, “We haven’t done the deal yet, but that wouldn’t be shocking.” At $200 a million a year, that would amount to a little more than 6 percent of Netflix’s forecast 2011 revenue. The original deal cost $30 million.

Earlier, Hastings said Netflix will be fine if the cost of content roughly parallels subscriber growth. He said Netflix currently has 23 million subscribers versus 14 million last year.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110601/netflix-ceo-200-million-to-renew-starz-deal-wouldnt-be-shocking/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20110526/bad-share-day-yahoo-stock-limp-after-investor-day-and-googles-swiping-of-its-ad-title/ http://allthingsd.com/20110526/bad-share-day-yahoo-stock-limp-after-investor-day-and-googles-swiping-of-its-ad-title/#comments Thu, 26 May 2011 19:07:15 +0000 Kara Swisher http://allthingsd.com/?p=78951

Apparently, reassurances about its relationship with Chinese partner Alibaba Group and some lively presentations by top execs at a six-hour investor day yesterday did almost nothing for Yahoo shares.

The stock of the Silicon Valley Internet giant continues to stay mired on either side of $16 a share today, as it has been since it got into a very public fight with Alibaba over the spin-out of its Alipay online payments unit.

Alipay got its license from the People’s Bank of China today, due in part to moving the unit to the ownership of Alibaba founder and CEO Jack Ma, but that also did squat for Yahoo shares.

Also dragging the stock down: An IDC report released today that shows that Yahoo has lost its number-one display advertising title to Google. The search giant’s share of that market in the U.S. rose to 14.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010, while Yahoo’s declined to 12.3 percent.

That’s not good news, even though both Yahoo’s Chief Product Officer Blake Irving and its U.S. media and advertising head Ross Levinsohn both gave energetic presentations at Yahoo’s investor day yesterday.

The two execs–one sporting a natty blazer and the other his patented hair-tastic ’do–trotted out a lot of can-do stats and fancy plans for the audience, which was mostly preoccupied with Yahoo’s China problem.

In contrast, CEO Carol Bartz, CFO Tim Morse and co-founder Jerry Yang were mind-numbingly rote on that thorny issue, noting that negotiations with Alibaba were ongoing and would remain private.

(As if–if I have anything to say about it!)

Bartz told the group of investors and Wall Street analysts yesterday that Yahoo “really believe[s] we are working towards protecting the value of Alibaba Group. The emphasis is on discussion. [We're] not going to get into a public back-and-forth.”

Having already done that in a ham-handed way the week before, that’s probably a most excellent idea for the shoot-from-the-hip exec.

In any case, investors don’t seem to want to take Bartz’s word for any of it until she delivers–both a China solution and, more importantly, turbocharging of both its core search and display advertising businesses.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110526/bad-share-day-yahoo-stock-limp-after-investor-day-and-googles-swiping-of-its-ad-title/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20110524/yahoo-preps-for-investor-day-tomorrow-while-investors-prep-for-a-yahoo-grilling/ http://allthingsd.com/20110524/yahoo-preps-for-investor-day-tomorrow-while-investors-prep-for-a-yahoo-grilling/#comments Tue, 24 May 2011 17:05:33 +0000 Kara Swisher http://allthingsd.com/?p=76947

The execs at Yahoo were huddled yesterday and also today, getting ready for its investor day tomorrow morning.

It’s probably a good idea, especially since the Silicon Valley Internet giant has to come up with a good answer to how it is settling the recent kerfuffle with Chinese partner Alibaba Group.

A settlement announcement over the spinoff of Alibaba’s Alipay payments unit would be the best thing Yahoo could deliver by tomorrow, of course.

All parties–Alibaba, Yahoo and Japan’s SoftBank–I spoke to said a resolution was still being worked on, but one assumes reaching one sooner than later would be a big coup for Yahoo.

Barring that, China will surely be Question No. 1–and likely Nos. 2 through 23–from about 200 Wall Street analysts and big shareholders gathered from 8 am to 2 pm at the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose to hear about how Yahoo is doing in 2011.

Given that the China problem has kept Yahoo stock stuck in the $16 doldrums for weeks now, after it had seen some progress before that, Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz and the passel of top execs presenting–Ross Levinsohn, Blake Irving and Tim Morse, among others–will have to scratch that itchy itch first before moving on to other questions.

In the interests of making the day interesting–and because press is not invited–I am here to help those investors without a clue of what to ask.

Thus, my list, in no particular order:

* Now that a newish management structure is in place, what is the big vision for Yahoo going forward?

* Please explain in detail the issues raised in the recent earnings call with the search and online advertising partnership with Microsoft, and should the deal be re-negotiated?

* Do you need to make more cuts in staff–which seems to have creeped back up in size?

* Why is Yahoo still in search in such a significant and expensive way, especially since market share is declining?

* How is the display market faring and how does Yahoo plan to innovate its flagship advertising business?

* Engagement is a key metric these days, so how is Yahoo going to improve its customer relationships, besides saying it will?

* What new and innovative products are in the pipeline–and you may not trot out Livestand for the umpteenth time as an example, unless you want me to start calling it Not-Flipboard–and when will they launch?

* Has Yahoo considered other ownership options that would better reward long-suffering shareholders?

* And, oh yes, China. Let’s not forget about China.

(Although media is not invited to the investor confab, I will be covering it via a live stream Yahoo is offering–you didn’t think I would miss it?)

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20110524/yahoo-preps-for-investor-day-tomorrow-while-investors-prep-for-a-yahoo-grilling/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20101229/whats-in-store-for-technology-in-2011/ http://allthingsd.com/20101229/whats-in-store-for-technology-in-2011/#comments Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:03:49 +0000 Walter S. Mossberg http://ptech.allthingsd.com/?p=1707 It has been a big year in personal technology, from the debut and early success of Apple’s iPad, to the rise and continuous improvement of Google’s Android smart phone platform, to the continued surge in social services led by Facebook and Twitter.

So I thought I’d take a look at the challenges and opportunities facing some major players in consumer tech in 2011. As with all my columns, this one is focused only on products and services provided directly to consumers, rather than to businesses. Also, as usual, this column isn’t meant to offer investment advice or to evaluate the management skills or financial condition of companies. It is a look at the products and competitive positions of the key contenders as they enter the new year.

Apple: Coming off a highly successful 2010, in which it introduced a new category of portable computer—the multitouch tablet—and sold millions of the product, Apple will have to withstand an onslaught of competitors by wowing consumers again with the second version of the iPad. At the same time, it will have to make a widely expected transition for the iPhone from a single carrier in the U.S., AT&T, to a second, likely Verizon. This could present a new opportunity to reach lots of new customers, but the sleek phone will have to work well on different network technology. At the same time, Apple will be hoping its planned new Macintosh operating system, Lion, can preserve the surprising momentum of the high-priced Mac, which the company is trying to enhance with certain iPad-like features, such as an app store and longer battery life.

Apple’s iPad will face an onslaught of competition in the coming year.

In 2011, Apple also is likely to try to address two areas where it has been weak: cloud computing and social networking. Both its MobileMe cloud service and its Ping social network had rough starts, and MobileMe charges $100 a year for services others give away. Apple is so popular, it has a huge opportunity to link users of its family of devices and of iTunes via the cloud and social networks, but it will have to aim higher and execute better. The second area where it likely hopes to improve is in the living room. The new, cheaper Apple TV is selling better than its predecessor but still lacks much Internet content. To break through, Apple will have to strike landmark deals with media companies.

Google: The search giant, also riding high, is now in so many product areas it competes with nearly everyone. In its core search business, it must focus on fending off a surprisingly strong challenge from Microsoft’s Bing by giving consumers more attractive, actionable results. Its Android operating system is a big hit, but still isn’t as polished or easy to use as the iPhone’s software, and even a Google official admitted it is still “an enthusiast product for early adopters.” One big test will be the forthcoming Honeycomb version of Android, meant for tablets that challenge the iPad.

A separate group at Google will try in 2011 to revolutionize the PC operating-system business and muscle in on incumbents Microsoft and Apple. Its new Chrome OS will power notebooks that essentially act as Web browsers, and run programs stored in the cloud, not on a hard disk. They also store all your files in the cloud. We’ll learn in 2011 how many consumers are comfortable with that approach.

Google also may take another whack at social networking, where it hasn’t made much of a dent after its Buzz service failed to take off. And it will have to rework its overly complex Google TV effort to bring Internet video to the living room.

Microsoft: The software giant still generates strong consumer loyalty with its older products, like Windows and Office and Xbox, all of which have had updates in the past year or two. But it faces big challenges in two hot areas: smart phones and tablets. Its new Windows Phone 7 platform has some nice design features, but also some missing capabilities that need to be addressed. Initial sales seem respectable, but will have to accelerate to get Microsoft back in a game it once led. The company also is a long way from the 300,000 apps available for the iPhone or the 100,000 for Android.

In tablets, Microsoft is hinting that a new version of Windows is being designed with a tablet focus to complement its PC focus. That product can’t be too late, given the rapid rise of the iPad and the many planned Android and other tablets for 2011. One golden opportunity Microsoft has is to expand the reach of its brilliant Kinect technology for games to other forms of computing. This system can recognize individual users and interpret gestures without the use of a controller device.

Meanwhile, Microsoft hopes to seize on a surge in concern about privacy to help keep its diminishing lead in browsers by building new privacy features, unavailable so far in other browsers, into the 2011 version of Internet Explorer.

RIM: The BlackBerry maker had a good 2010 in some ways, though sales were propped up by two-for-one giveaways, and consumer surveys show enthusiasm fading for the iconic smart phone. It needs a radically new user interface to keep up with iPhone and Android, and a lot more third-party apps. But it can’t afford to alienate its fan base. The company has an answer: a new software platform called QNX, but is vague on when that will show up on the BlackBerry. For 2011, RIM’s big move will be a new QNX-based tablet, the PlayBook, which looks speedy and highly attractive in the limited demos RIM has provided. What isn’t clear is how much the PlayBook will be aimed at consumers, as company officials have consistently stressed its appeal to businesses.

HP: The technology behemoth’s laptops and printers have proved popular with consumers. But it hasn’t had any real presence in smart-phones, tablets or consumer cloud services. To solve the problems, in 2010 HP bought innovative but struggling Palm, whose smart-phone operating system, webOS, and phones, the Pre and Pixi, got good reviews but sold poorly and didn’t attract many third-party apps. In 2011, HP hopes to use its ample money and talent to revive webOS with new phones and tablets to challenge Apple and Android. A successful Palm re-launch, with the new initiatives from RIM and Microsoft, would be good for consumers by providing more choice and competition. HP also hopes to boost home printing with a new line of printers that can print anything emailed across the Internet and wirelessly print from Apple’s hand-held devices.

Facebook and Twitter: The twin leaders in social networking were red-hot in 2010, attracting vast numbers of users. They have huge opportunities for further success, but face challenges. Smaller services, like social-coupon company Groupon, continue to emerge with new social and community ideas consumers like. Apple and Google could be big headaches if they get social right in 2011. Facebook must continue its recent initiative to let members share personal details with more limited groups of friends, and to find ways to make money while offering more privacy, which has been a thorn in its side. Twitter is on a mission to get more than an active minority to post, while convincing people it is a valuable way to keep up with news and opinion even if you never post.

Despite the poor economy, the consumer-tech companies continue to show vibrancy, innovation and success. But every year brings challenges and surprises, and 2011 promises to be another fascinating ride.

For all of Walt’s columns and videos, go to the All Things Digital site, walt.allthingsd.com.

Write to Walter S. Mossberg at walt.mossberg@wsj.com

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101229/whats-in-store-for-technology-in-2011/feed/ 0