In a recent New York Times article, John Markoff discussed improved technology that will allow you to do a Google search on your on your cell phone just by speaking into it. He says in the article that you should speak into your phone to search just like you would type the entry into Google. I can’t believe that this technology is available to us today. It’s amazing to see the improvements that have been made to it as well because now it is 95 percent accurate.
While I think that the article is interesting, Markoff should have focused more on individuals using as testing the product instead of focusing on his opinions and use of the phone. He went into the fact that he has been following research on the phone and the history of speech recognition technology.
These pieces of information felt me asking questions like why should I care? I felt that the middle of the piece was boring, dry and just rambled about research and history that really were not necessary to include. I wish he would have focused more on how it works, what the perks of using it are, and how much the feature costs. That would have made the article a much more interesting read.
Find the full article at: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/google-iphone-machine/
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
YouTube to Sell Advertising on Pages of Search Results
This article ran in the New York Times yesterday. In the article, Clifford discusses Google’s recent announcement that it would begin to sell space on YouTube search results pages to advertisers in order to generate more revenue.
After an initial read, the article left me confused and puzzled. What kind of ads are they selling? Are these ads promoting peoples videos or are the promoting products? Are these advertisements next to the video, before it plays, or are they the video itself?
I read the article again, and from what I can understand Google is actually selling key words to individual video makers to promote their own videos. I can’t understand why. People will find your video and since no one is buying it and you are not trying to sell it, what’s the difference if it tops up first or last.
I feel like buying key words to get your video to pop up first in a search for “How to bake cookies” on YouTube is absurd.
However, later in the article if finally all made sense. If major advertising companies buy key words like McDonalds then they can have the advertisements that their company has worked on pop up first. Or if Pepsi buys the words soda commercial, then all you will see are Pepsi advertisements.
I think the idea is still kind of weak seeing that I am majoring in advertising. Some company executives share my view as well. They say that there are mostly kids on YouTube and it lacks professionalism.
Overall, I think that Google and YouTube are going to be surprised when this “advertising” strategy fails because they can’t control a niche market of their normal consumers. They could have come up with a better idea.
To read the whole article, follow this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/technology/internet/13youtube.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
After an initial read, the article left me confused and puzzled. What kind of ads are they selling? Are these ads promoting peoples videos or are the promoting products? Are these advertisements next to the video, before it plays, or are they the video itself?
I read the article again, and from what I can understand Google is actually selling key words to individual video makers to promote their own videos. I can’t understand why. People will find your video and since no one is buying it and you are not trying to sell it, what’s the difference if it tops up first or last.
I feel like buying key words to get your video to pop up first in a search for “How to bake cookies” on YouTube is absurd.
However, later in the article if finally all made sense. If major advertising companies buy key words like McDonalds then they can have the advertisements that their company has worked on pop up first. Or if Pepsi buys the words soda commercial, then all you will see are Pepsi advertisements.
I think the idea is still kind of weak seeing that I am majoring in advertising. Some company executives share my view as well. They say that there are mostly kids on YouTube and it lacks professionalism.
Overall, I think that Google and YouTube are going to be surprised when this “advertising” strategy fails because they can’t control a niche market of their normal consumers. They could have come up with a better idea.
To read the whole article, follow this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/technology/internet/13youtube.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Shazam! A Projector Is Shrunk
This article from the New York Times, discusses the latest development in technology. It is a projector screen that is the size of an iPod. It functions just as a regular projector would but is very portable and light weight. This projector is projected to change the way we live when it comes out in two weeks. It can transform the wall of a tent into a movie theater.
But, as with all things these days, convenience and innovation come with a catch: cost. Each of these small units will run consumers about 430 dollars. Despite the price, this device is forecasted to do very well. It has many bells and whistles as to what kind of features and functions it can perform as well. With this device, any location can instantly become a movie theater. Whether it is on a plane or a wall in a roommate’s dorm room, people will be able to project anything from a round of Wii to a lecture on quantum physics at U of I.
I thought this article was very informative and interesting to read. I’m always excited to hear about knew technology and how it is projected to affect the world. I believe this product poses several questions. First, will this become the new choice of lecture structure for professors or will it be what is projected on the ceiling from a student in the audience on one of these projectors that is distracting all the students. Will this device become the next texting? Will students be able to get away with watching movies in class or projecting answers to a quiz in the kids back in front of him?
I would have loved to see how consumers have reacted to this projector even though it hasn’t been released yet. I am interested to know what people will use it for and how the technological world as we know it will change because of this small device.
To find the whole article go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/technology/personaltech/05pogue.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
But, as with all things these days, convenience and innovation come with a catch: cost. Each of these small units will run consumers about 430 dollars. Despite the price, this device is forecasted to do very well. It has many bells and whistles as to what kind of features and functions it can perform as well. With this device, any location can instantly become a movie theater. Whether it is on a plane or a wall in a roommate’s dorm room, people will be able to project anything from a round of Wii to a lecture on quantum physics at U of I.
I thought this article was very informative and interesting to read. I’m always excited to hear about knew technology and how it is projected to affect the world. I believe this product poses several questions. First, will this become the new choice of lecture structure for professors or will it be what is projected on the ceiling from a student in the audience on one of these projectors that is distracting all the students. Will this device become the next texting? Will students be able to get away with watching movies in class or projecting answers to a quiz in the kids back in front of him?
I would have loved to see how consumers have reacted to this projector even though it hasn’t been released yet. I am interested to know what people will use it for and how the technological world as we know it will change because of this small device.
To find the whole article go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/technology/personaltech/05pogue.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Sunday, November 2, 2008
In addition...
I want to add something to my last post.
I feel that people should be content with the current start up speed of computers because we have made great strides with the quickness of not only start up speeds but also with the connection time on the internet.
People need to slow down and not get so worked up over their computer taking 40 seconds to start up when some people are not even luckly enough to have one.
I feel that people should be content with the current start up speed of computers because we have made great strides with the quickness of not only start up speeds but also with the connection time on the internet.
People need to slow down and not get so worked up over their computer taking 40 seconds to start up when some people are not even luckly enough to have one.
30 Seconds to Boot Up? That’s 29 Too Many
In Randal Stross’s piece, he discusses how slow laptop start up times are and how many consumers are impatient with their computers due to this fact. In this fast paced world, consumers expect their technological devices to work almost instantly when they need them.
In the article, Stross talks about his frustrations with his own computer and compares it to a smartphone’s much quicker accessibility.
He also talks about many new devices that are currently in development to fix this problem but they are about 2,000 dollars and there are some glitches in them still. I liked the information he present about the new types of systems and features that are currently being developed in Taiwan.
While I think the piece was informative, I think he could have made this piece better by including quotes from consumers as to what start up features they would like to see on computers as well as less information about personal choices that made this piece a little dry and boring at times. The piece got me thinking, “Why do I care about what you want in a PC or if your going to wait for a better one?” I would have like to hear quotes and opinions from people other them himself.
To read the article clicks this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/business/02digi.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin
In the article, Stross talks about his frustrations with his own computer and compares it to a smartphone’s much quicker accessibility.
He also talks about many new devices that are currently in development to fix this problem but they are about 2,000 dollars and there are some glitches in them still. I liked the information he present about the new types of systems and features that are currently being developed in Taiwan.
While I think the piece was informative, I think he could have made this piece better by including quotes from consumers as to what start up features they would like to see on computers as well as less information about personal choices that made this piece a little dry and boring at times. The piece got me thinking, “Why do I care about what you want in a PC or if your going to wait for a better one?” I would have like to hear quotes and opinions from people other them himself.
To read the article clicks this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/business/02digi.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
