Netbooks slip under tablet shipments, achieve has-bEeen status originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:34:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
IDC and Gartner: Lenovo leaps past Dell for second place, still trails HP for the gold originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:37:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Though Steve Jobs was always seen as the cool innovator, for a long time Gates and Microsoft were the winners in business.
Microsoft’s success ate at Jobs. It became the world’s most valuable company, and Gates the world’s richest man, because “Windows just copied the Mac,” as Jobs put it in his 2005 commencement speech at Stanford.
Upon returning to Apple in 1997 he told the faithful, “We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose.” Once Jobs and Apple did that, and began focusing on iPods, iPhones, and iPads, the company’s earnings and valuation soared.
After years of fighting as an underdog, Apple’s market cap blew by Microsoft‘s last year, making it the world’s most valuable tech company.
Jobs and Apple had finally and definitively triumphed over Microsoft. It’s fitting Jobs was able to enjoy that in the last year of his life.
Did he need market approval? Probably not. But you know he loved getting it.
In reaction to Jobs’ death, Gates was as gracious as could be. He wrote, “The world rarely sees someone who has had the profound impact Steve has had, the effects of which will be felt for many generations to come. For those of us lucky enough to get to work with him, it’s been an insanely great honor. I will miss Steve immensely.”
- THE MICROSOFT INVESTOR: Microsoft Gets A Second Chance To Claw Its Way Into The Smartphone Market
- Apple’s First Ever CEO On What Steve Jobs Was Like When He Started Apple
- A Single Gesture That Embodied Steve Jobs
Sick of paying for cable TV channels you don’t watch? Reportedly some operators are looking for a way — through negotiation or regulation — to end channel bundling, where to get certain channels (like MTV) they’re compelled to pack others (like TV Land) owned by the same company into their basic lineups. According to Reuters, smaller operators like Suddenlink and Mediacom are leading the charge, while even bigger companies like Comcast, Time Warner and DirecTV are feeling squeezed in retransmission fee disputes. However, as the LA Times points out, it’s still doubtful you’ll be able to pick and choose specific channels for a cheaper bill. What may be available however are cheaper packages of smaller bundles, like the lineup shown above that Comcast is testing in certain areas. What’s stopping true a la carte programming choices? Hybrid cable and content companies, like Comcast with NBC Universal and Time Warner, and sports — someone has to pay for that billion dollar ESPN Monday Night Football deal.
Some cable companies are pushing for unbundled channels — but not for you originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:41:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
According to Experian Hitwise, traffic to Google+ climbed to 15 million this week, a 1269 percent growth from the 1.1 million visits the week before. And this figure only includes desktop visits, it doesn’t count mobile traffic from Android and iOS devices or people who visit by clicking on the black Google + toolbar.
Traffic is only one metric. Subscriber base is also important and a recent estimate from Paul Allen suggests Google + is adding two million new users each day and now has a subscriber base of almost 50 million users.
Admittedly, these numbers pale in comparison to Facebook, which has 800 million users and is the undeniable King of the Social networking hill. But you have to wonder about the up and coming Google +. Is it time to steal away from Facebook and Twitter and invest some social networking time into Google’s growing network? I’m starting to think it is. [ReadWriteWeb and Paul Allen]
Facebook’s domination of time spent on the web is absolutely astonishing.
- CHART OF THE DAY: Facebook Revenue Is Growing Fast, But Google’s Grew Faster
- CHART OF THE DAY: The Internet Has A Short Attention Span
- Two Banks? Try Three! Yahoo Needs MORE Bankers To Figure Out What The Hell To Do
In a recent report from Nielsen, Google snagged 40 percent of the smartphone market, while Apple captured approximately 28 percent — up just barely .01 percentage point from last year. This report coincides with findings filed earlier this week by ComScore, citing Google with 41.8 percent market share and Apple with 27 percent, up one whole percentage point from last year. Diving a bit deeper, Nielsen found that around 33 percent of people planning to buy a smartphone in the next year want an iPhone, while another 33 percent would prefer an Android. The tie between those who want an Android v. an iOS phone fluctuated when Nielsen asked the “early adopters” within the group what kind of phone they are hoping to cop. 40 percent of “innovators” said they would like a phone on Google’s OS, while 32 percent want a bite of the Apple — leaving a mere 28 percent of self-proclaimed tech junkies desiring something else, like a BlackBerry or Windows Phone. Perhaps these figures are an indication that Google will remain on top for 2012, or will there be an upset? Only time will tell.
Nielsen confirms Android on top, buyers split on next smartphone originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:18:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
When I was a child, there was a number that crudely measured how many people paid attention to something. It was called the Nielsen rating. Perhaps you remember it. Today it’s an unimportant relic that only reveals what was happening.
The VMAs had its biggest show ever this year. A record-breaking 12.4 million people tuned in live. Which actually seems like a very small number, given how many people were talking about it. Because while MTV had a hit with the VMAs, so did Twitter. News of Beyonce’s uterine passenger, which she revealed at the show, generated some 8,868 Tweets per second. It was Twitter’s biggest moment yet. And it shows that the company is sitting on the most valuable advertising data that there is: a way to measure, package and sell unexpected things that we care about right now, in real time.
We used to rely on ratings or audited circulation numbers to determine what people were interested in. Today, we increasingly talk about Tweets Per Second. (And by “we,” I mean the always hungry media maw, smacking its lips in anticipation of sucking marrow from the next micro trend or attention spasm that might convince an otherwise disinterested viewer to flip the channel to 759—or even better, stay there.)
Whenever anything big happens in the news, CNN and Fox News and the networks increasingly break into Twitter mode, reading tweets on the air, talking about how many people are tweeting and generally going into wild-eyed social media mania.
Aside from making Mark Zuckerberg wish he had made status messages public by default from the get-go so that CNN would read Facebook updates on air, it’s revealing in that it shows that even the professional media—the ostensible arbiters of opinion and news—have realized that you and I are no longer paying attention.
We’re more interested in each other. We’re all broadcasting now. I’d prefer to hear what you have to say, especially in aggregate, than tune into Wolf Blitzer. And when it comes to measuring the impact of events, social media ratings matter more than Nielsens, or at least they should, and here’s why.
Twitter is the most important metric of attention. It is not based on past behavior. It is equally capable of measuring scripted events, and the completely unexpected. And it is remarkable because it measures not just consumption, but also interest.
Yes, the Nielsens will tell you how many people watched the VMAs, but social media can tell you how many people actually paid attention. And while maybe you could have foreseen they might be big this year, would anyone have been able to predict that the VMAs—not the Oscars, not the SuperBowl, not the final Shuttle launch—would be the most talked-about television event of the year? Twitter can tell you that. (Facebook should be able to as well.) And it can tell you that as it happens.
The chart is a remarkable demonstration of Twitter’s growth. Tweets per minute? How quaint! Tweets are now measured at a faster rate per second than they were just three years ago per minute.
But it’s more interesting to see how consistently interested we are in the unexpected. Because while Twitter has changed greatly in the past three years—from how it works, to the way we access it, to the number of people on it—the things we are simultaneously interested in haven’t changed at all.
Today, Beyonce’s VMA appearance holds the top spots for Tweets per second. Prior to that, the news of the Japanese Women’s World Cup victory held the record. (Likely because it was an event intently watched by two very Twitter heavy countries.) And while it didn’t break a record, the recent east coast earthquake generated 5,500 TPS. In 2008, a presidential debate held the top spot. It knocked off a Japanese earthquake. A Euro 2008 semi final match was the big event prior to that. What all of these events have in common is a certain unpredictability.
The thing about television ratings or audited circulation numbers is that they have never truly been about what we are paying attention to. They were (and are) a way for advertisers to make informed decisions about what to invest in based on what people have paid attention to in the past, as a predictor of future performance. They only measure what has already transpired. This may have been useful for buying chunks of time during a season finale of Dallas, but when something amazing and unexpected happens, there is no good way for an advertiser to catch up with it.
When Twitter measures tweets per second, it measures what people are interested in right now. It measures live attention. And that is very, very valuable. Imagine if, during an earthquake, a QuakeKit ad appeared in your timeline, one that was triggered only when earthquake tweets per second crossed a certain threshold. Tacky? Sure. But you can bet your bottled water it would sell a lot of kits.
This is the promise of real-time conversation, that our interests can be commoditized, live and on the fly. It doesn’t have to be just about Twitter, of course. Facebook and Google+ should be equally capable of measuring, packaging and selling our real-time, trending interest data. But it’s very clear that this new ability to measure what we care about enough to comment on right now, at this very instant, is much more valuable than measurements of past performance or passive consumption.
All the moreso because of how much society has fragmented. We no longer all watch the same four channels, or even tune in to television series at the same time. The only things that seem to capture our simultaneous attention anymore are those that offer the high drama of the unexpected and unknown: sports, politics (itself a sort of sport), provocative live television, and natural disasters that occur with little-to-no warning.
And, of course, Beyonce.
You can keep up with Mat Honan, the author of this post, on Twitter, Facebook, or Google+.
As you’ll notice, Samsung provides 26% of the parts for the phone. Apple is currently suing Samsung and accusing it of ripping off the look and feel of Apple products. Granted, they’re separate divisions at Samsung, but it has to make the relationship between the two companies awkward.
Another thing to note in this breakdown: It costs Apple just $178 in components for a phone that sells at an average price of $560.
Facebook users spend most of their time in the News Feed, the river of information about your friends, and comparatively very little (just 10%) using apps according to a comScore report on how people use Facebook.
This is interesting because the biggest app company, Zynga, filed to go public, and more generally because tons of Facebook apps are getting zillions of VC money all the time.
If people spend so little time on Facebook apps, why the excitement?
First of all, 10% of usage on Facebook, the second biggest site in the world, is still a huge market.
And also almost certainly because those who do use apps, use them a lot. Social games are a perfect example: not everyone plays them, but those who do, play them a lot. And a smaller minority pay for virtual goods in those games, but that minority pays enough to fund a thriving social games industry.
It’s definitely possible to build big businesses on the Facebook platform. But those numbers are a useful reality check: Facebook isn’t becoming a new internet, with Facebook apps replacing websites, as some fear. People still overwhelmingly use Facebook for what it’s designed for: knowing what our friends are up to.