Month: February 2013

Google Glass: A Curse or a Blessing?

downloadYes, Alice, we’ve definitely fallen into the looking glass. Google’s most recent project, Google Glass, will delve far into the realm of science fiction, bringing Tony Stark, Iron Man-esque technology to the masses. The Google Glass project delivers a wearable computer system in the form of glasses, offering hands free messaging, photography, and video recording.  Straight out of 007, this offers the ability to share everything you see, live, in real time: directions, reminders, the web – all seen through the lens, right in front of your face.

The glasses have a display in the top right corner of the frame, making endless information available at all times, and will reportedly connect with either your Android or iPhone implementing WiFi, 3g, and 4g coverage. These revolutionary specs won’t just be a piece of spectacular hardware; Google is negotiating with Warby Parker, a company which specializes in the sales of trendy glasses, in an attempt to bring infinite data while still looking fashionable.

The best part of Google’s Project Glass is that Google is currently allowing civilians, not developers, the opportunity to influence product development. Google declared, “We’re looking for bold, creative individuals who want to join us and be a part of shaping the future of Glass.” Applications are being accepted through the use of Google+ and Twitter, through the hashtag #ifihadglass.

While this idea of unlimited data being available even more easily than at your fingertips is revolutionary, it raises more than a few questions regarding privacy. The ability to record everything right in front of you, in real time, is a daunting thought, covering everything from being photographed at a cafe, to making videos in airports. Beyond the questionable “Glass etiquette” that will certainly develop over time, the prospect that Google and the government will be able to access users’ data is shattering.

If the Glass Project brings information right in front of your face, allowing you to communicate, to access the internet, contacts, etc., and share what you are seeing live, what will stop others from accessing your private information? Although a few decades late, Orwell’s 1984 has definitely caught up with us.

The issues that may arise from the mass production of Google Glass are met with equally impressive, revolutionary concepts around social networking and sharing. Glass would be the apex of social sharing, allowing people to be in constant contact, literally letting individuals step into other’s shoes, to view the world from a different point of view. You could be standing in New York’s Time Square and share and trade that experience with someone around the world, exploring the streets of Venice or Sydney, Australia. Such universal sharing would truly redefine the human experience.

At its best, this would also effect topics as broad as human rights and poverty – but the cost remains to be seen. Only time will tell if the Google Glass Project will be the vessel connecting mankind, Pandora’s box, or something in the middle.

Kelli Richards,
CEO of the All Access Group, LLC

The “New” Myspace: A Huge Flop

Justin TImberlake MySpaceThe rise and fall of MySpace has been pretty well documented – twice. In 2006 Google and MySpace reached a blockbuster deal, with MySpace allowing Google to advertise on its site in return for $900 million. The site was quickly bogged down with excessive advertisements, resulting in a slow, seemingly counterintuitive platform.  These pitfalls were accentuated by Facebook’s ever-expanding clean and intuitive design. Even to the novice, MySpace was doomed and becoming quickly irrelevant. However, while Facebook has made MySpace an inferior product for almost all players, the latter has continued to provide substantial traffic in a unique niche – for aspiring and acknowledged musicians.

MySpace had recreated itself in the social networking industry as a way for musicians and fans to connect; for early releases, news and giveaways. So with the release on the “New MySpace,” in September of 2012 – stewarded by one of the leaders in music, Justin Timberlake – one would imagine that the company would expand on strengths, appealing to the only audience they had left.  Well, they didn’t. Big mistakes were made. Instead of augmenting their niche in the music industry, the New MySpace disconnected from their prior self, forcing users to reconnect with every friend and band they were associated with on the “old” site. Britney Spears had around 1.5 million friends on the old MySpace; she now has fewer than 7,000 connections. Similarly Justin Timberlake, the creative director and a partner of the New MySpace, had about 1.5 million connections, and now has only 50,000.

So the question now is, can MySpace recover again? It is extremely difficult to see how they can. The errors are not only strategic, of course, the damage to their brand is almost beyond definition. The very last audience MySpace had, the music industry, now has little incentive to continue its use it. And where MySpace falls short, its biggest competitor, Facebook, has grown – gobbling up its real estate and users like PacMan chasing ghosts. Facebook is continuing to up the ante and grow its connections with sites like SoundCloud and Spotify, allowing for easy to use, intuitive sharing of music, targetting up-and-coming and well-known artists.

Today’s  digital world is about conglomeration and collaboration, a worldwide effort towards expansion; and that is where the “Old” and the “New” MySpace BOTH fall short. As Facebook has embraced the production of applications from outside sources, MySpace stayed in-house. Shawn Gold, MySpace’s former head of marketing and content said, “MySpace went wide – and not deep enough – in its product development. We went with a lot of products that were shallow and not the best products in the world.”

And oh yes, they forgot to cater to their audience.

Kelli Richards,

CEO of The All Access Group, LLC

 

Sony’s decline: Have they eaten the poison Apple?

Sony and Apple“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana, 1905

For today’s history lesson, we’re going to look at two of the biggest names in the tech industry that have risen and fallen in complimentary distribution with one another since the 1980’s.

As one company climbed to the top, the other plummeted but now the tides have changed.

I’m talking of course about Sony and Apple, two companies with storied histories that bare some key similarities to each other. In the successes and failures of each company, the brilliance and blunders seem to be passed back and forth. In order to move forward towards the future, we must look back at the past; so let’s take it from the top.

The 1980’s were a strange time in America; MTV, big hair, and the Brat Pack are some of the first things that come to mind when I think of that decade. Of course, the 1980’s also ushered in a new era of technology, and Apple and Sony were at the forefront. In the beginning of the 1980’s, Apple came out strong with a record breaking IPO and the Macintosh computer. Things quickly went south for the computer giant, as infighting and a decline in sales ultimately saw Steve Jobs leave the company in 1985; beginning what many would refer to as “the dark years” at Apple. During that same time, Sony had started the 1980’s with dismal profits during a global recession that saw a drop in electronics sales.

One of the things that saved Sony was its creativity and drive to pioneer new technologies. While it lost the “format wars” between VHS and Betamax, it was able to move past and eventually develop technologies such as the Compact Disc and Walkman. Similarly, it branched out beyond consumer electronics and got into the music and movie publishing industries; creating a revenue stream that would allow it to profit several times over from single products. Its latest demise, however, came from the company aggressively expanding into new businesses and technologies with little communication or collaboration between the departments. The question now is “Will they bounce back?”

Apple was able to bounce back from those “dark years” when Steve Jobs came back. Under his leadership, the company was able to re-focus and re-establish its brand. They were able to focus on creating great products from top to bottom, coupled with a user experience that was second to none. If Sony wishes to recover in the same way Apple did, then perhaps they’ll do the same. Sony’s reach is a bit broader than Apple’s so in order to do that, they’ll need to increase the communication and support between departments. They have all the parts they need to return to the top, they just have to deliver what the customers want. Apple delivered things that consumers wanted before they even knew that they wanted them. Sony’s approach as of late has been more stagnant, where they wait for something to come out and find a way to replicate it.

The sting of a few hard blows to a company can send it reeling and certainly bruise some egos. Sony needs to take a whiff of the smelling salts and come out of the corner swinging. Once they return to their roots of innovation, creativity, and quality they’ll be sure to see success once again.

Kelli Richards

CEO of The All Access Group, LLC

Search Resources

Topic Areas & Guests

Categories

Join our mailing list

For insights on industry trends, and for details on special projects/events. We respect your time and your privacy.


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: . You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact