Jumping out on a limb... but when a company:
1. dedicates 33% of the above-the-fold real estate 2. replaces ad inventory with in house promotions
You can consider it a strategic priority!
The question remains, however, with Weatherbug and other successful weather iPhone Apps available, why: 1. it took so long to create an iPhone app 2. what the differentiating feature set is... is there really a compelling reason to have me move off Weatherbug? (answer: no)
Less than a week ago, I wrote about LivingSocial's meteoric rise up Facebook:
Last week of March: 2,000,000 users End of March: 10,000,000 users First week of April: 14,500,000 users In the last six days, LivingSocial added another 5,500,000 million active users and is over 20 million. Remarkable growth - after all, that is 10% of Facebook's user base. It also shows the power of network effects:
Fascinating report out of Comscore on Twitter's demographic breakdown:
18-24 year olds, the traditional social media early adopters, are actually 12 percent less likely than average to visit Twitter (Index of 88). It is the 25-54 year old crowd that is actually driving this trend. More specifically, 45-54 year olds are 36 percent more likely than average to visit Twitter, making them the highest indexing age group, followed by 25-34 year olds, who are 30 percent more likely.
I expected the lower trending for the under-25 crowd as that demographic grew up on Facebook and lives there. I would have expected that the 25-34 bracket would be Twitter's sweet spot - always online, early adopters and followers of pop-culture. But the 45-54 bracket is surprising... until you consider that marketers and companies indeed represent a significant portion of Twitter:
With so many businesses using Twitter, along with the first generations of Internet users “growing up” and comfortable with technology, this is a sign that the traditional early adopter model might need to be revisited.
If you've been on Facebook recently, you've certainly seen something like the below screenshot:
A list of five things, ranked in order. Usually followed by several friend comments... who then post their own "Top Five".
It's simple, colorful and viral... and it's the ideal app considering the new Facebook Profile layout: once you create a Top Five list, it enters the Facebook feed and then encourages two activities: 1. commenting and discussion (simple thanks to Facebook's product) 2. creation of your own Top Five (simply thanks to the application's product)
And because the application is open-ended in it's purpose, it is appealing to anyone.
Since the last week in March, LivingSocial's Top Five app has become the fastest growing Facebook application - now reaching fifteen million active users:
Last week of March: 2,000,000 users End of March: 10,000,000 users First week of April: 14,500,000 users
I am baffled that Google hasn't yet created specific iPhone Applications for: Gmail, RSS Reader, GTalk, Docs, etc... It's not that Google is adverse to developing on the iPhone: their core Google App and Google Earth App are terrific... and wildly popular. So why are we left with glorified webpages / bookmarks for Google's other core services?
Today Google announced that they made significant changes to GMail on the iPhone and on Android (changes they are "thrilled" about).
I'm left totally unsatisfied. I want a true application that works much like Gmail does between online and offline modes. Integrate my contacts and calendar... and I would never have to use my phone's core applications. It would include search, enable customizations and eventually allow for push notifications (when iPhone 3.0 arrives). I will continue being greedy and ask for integrations with Google Chat, Tasks, RSS and Maps. If monetization is the issue, I would have no problem with in-app ads (as Google does with the current Google App). Furthermore, I would imagine that monetization is more efficient in the app than on the mobile webpages.
CNET agrees that a native application is better (and has eight reasons why)... so is anything in the works? My fear is that it would have been released by now. Perhaps iPhone 3.0 will be the motivator?!
Zynga may well be one of the fastest growing companies that you've never heard of. And if you haven't heard of Zynga, you've probably interacted with one of its Facebook, iPhone or web apps. Lots of other developers and companies compete in their space... and many do very well. But Zynga has really mastered the UI. Today, they launched Mafia Wars for the iPhone (already a popular application on Facebook). In and of itself, this isn't news. There are remarkably similar games available... I even remember playing the same game on my TI-83 calculator in high school.
What is noteworthy is how terrific Zynga's artwork, user experience and development are. The game is gorgeous. The UI is exceptional. And this is how Zynga makes a not-so-unique game stand out.
It is also how Zynga makes other games and applications stand out: they get viral behavior and they understand how it translates into gaming applications. Scramble and Poker are not huge successes because the games are so differentiated - they are successful because Zynga taps into your social graph and masterfully layers in incentives.
And that is how Zynga supposedly now makes $50 million on virtual currency (tip @VCMike):
By building terrific games that are weaved into your social graph, Zynga attracts the users. That 'social stickiness' allows Zynga to profit from the users' willingness to upgrade, advance their characters, and differentiate from the masses.
In sports, most people associate a team's financial success with its location: typically defined as either small-market or big-market. But the latest data from the 2008-2009 NBA seasons suggests that it is as much a combination of team success as it is market size.
The six teams with the highest percentage of seats at capacity represent a mixture of market size and team competitiveness:
Dallas Mavericks: 104.3% - mediocre season, strong market Portland Trail Blazers: 102.6% - clinched playoff berth today Boston Celtics: 100% - coming off 2007-2008 NBA Championship Los Angeles Lakers: 100% - best record in the Western Conference Phoenix Suns: 100% - competitive team but unlikely playoff berth Utah Jazz: 100% - one of conference's best four teams
The worst performing teams are also the least attended (no shocker)... but it is not necessarily a function of geography:
Memphis Grizzlies: 69.9% capacity, down 1.6% from last year Sacramento Kings: 71.3% capacity, down 12.4% Minnesota Timberwolves: 73.7% capacity, 3 games above 80% capacity Charlotte Bobcats: 74.1% capacity, down 2.9% Philadelphia 76ers: 75.3% capacity; 2 games above 80% capacity
A few more ways to view this:
Three of the NBA's worst team, including the worst team at 16-59, are the least attended: Sacramento Kings (16-59): 28 games under 75% capacity Memphis Grizzlies (22-54): 26 games under 75% Charlotte Bobcats (34-43): 22 games under 75%
The Washington Wizards are in the midst of a brutal season and have the second worst record in the NBA at 18-60. They represent the second biggest decrease in attendance (-9.2%). The Sacramento Kings are the only team with a worse record; they have a largest decrease in attendance at -12.4%.
Interestingly, Detroit is a bizarre case because they dominate in attendance despite having an off-year (currently in the 8th seed if the playoffs started today): #1 in total attendance by 70,000 (786,591 through March 23) #1 in average attendance per game at 21,850 (league average is 17,385)
Last week, the back of my iPhone cracked and the good folks at the Apple Store were nice enough to replace it (although I do not understand why 'appointments' are required). Switching phones used to be an enormous (and frightening hassle) - juggling between contacts, photos, data, SIM cards, etc... but between iTunes and Google Sync, it took seconds to port everything to the new device. Previously, I was using a service called Neuvasync to manage the contacts and calendaring between my phone and GMail accounts. It worked perfectly (99.9% of the time) and, while it is a free service, the blog comments suggest similar sentiments to mine: it is a service I was willing to pay for - perhaps in the $20-$50 / year range. Considering Neuvasync's simplicity and the time it saved me, I would find value at any of those subscription prices.
But that all changed... today, I used Google Sync to manage my contacts, mail and calendaring (note: this service was launched in February by Google). It too worked perfectly and in a more secure environment (after all, one less set of passwords and data exchanges to give a third party). Furthermore, it is a product that we expected Google to deliver - particularly as Google's office components grow in popularity. And Google will always provide the service for free because, unlike Neuvasync, they are certain to derive revenue from it in downstream ways.
In one product launch, Google effectively rendered Neuvasync's entire offering as redundant. Even if Neuvasync's product were better, it would be difficult to compete.
Thus bringing us to an important point:
There is a difference between features (Neuvasync) and businesses (Google). Businesses can derive value and growth from features, but features must be amazingly differentiated and compelling to become businesses. Furthermore, businesses are better equipped to deliver resources and users against features... and without the same risk.
First Microsoft had Lauren. Now they have Giampaolo, a "technically savvy" twenty-something looking for a computer that fits his $1,500 budget (higher than Lauren's $1,000 budget).
Because Giampaolo's budget is higher, he is actually able to choose between Macs and Windows-based laptops. And like Lauren, he is attracted to the Mac: "It is so sexy. But Macs to me are about aesthetics more than the computing power." This is a more roundabout way to say what Lauren said in the previous commercial: Macs are too expensive.
I love the commercials because they do a great job positioning value in a poor economy... while admitting (and jabbing) that Apple may be the "cooler", "sexier" brand.
Both points clearly aggravate Apple owners because these two Microsoft spots have garnered massive attention and caused quite among bloggers... which is exactly what Microsoft wants.
More at Technologizer, 9to5Mac and VentureBeat.