Apple reinvents education?

January 25, 2012

The release of educational platform is a strong move by Apple. Not only it’s a market that hasn’t seen any significant innovations for years. Getting young people hooked on the  iOS platform early is a great way to ensure they’ll be willing to buy Apple stuff when they grow up. However, it might be a bit too soon for Apple to celebrate. I expect the same move by Amazon in a few months. Eventually they will ship a better tablet than their current Kindle Fire is, and with the clout they have among traditional publishers, they’ll be able to grab the lead in tablet-based educational market.

Amazon is becoming a super-monster company of the new age. Their cloud services were basically the first large-scale commercial cloud available, and it seemed to be a bit weird for them to move into it. These days, after their strong tablet debut, it won’t surprise me if Amazon releases a personal cloud platform (think gmail and Google Docs), a browser (take Chromium), a search engine (becoming a commodity too), ad platform (hello AdWord). This all can happen thanks to their deep penetration into consumer market and democratic (think cheap) pricing. Now this is a threat that Google might not survive.


Why app stores are evil for business software

August 14, 2011

App stores have been around for a while, and our company has been selling MobileNoter through all major ones: Apple Appstore, Google Android Market, and Amazon Android Market. We know a thing or two about app stores, and the most important thing we know is that they are totally unfriendly to the business software vendors. I will use “business software” in a loose sense here – basically, everything that is not entertainment and doesn’t cost a buck or two apiece is considered as a business software in this post.

1. App stores hide buyers from vendors. While staying anonymous is cool when one buys iFart app or perhaps another countless “3-in-a-row” clone, this is not the case for the business software. First and foremost, it is going to be harder to provide support to the customers. It is harder to identify whether they are your customers at all, what software they bought, what version they are using, and so on. It is also harder to do cross-selling and up-selling. You can’t send an email to the customers saying “You have our software for iPhone, we have a new version for iThing too”. What app stores should do: they should allow for opt-in email sharing by the customers. If a customer wants to share her email with the vendor, she should be able to just do that without any hassle.

2. App stores have terrible pricing structure. They don’t have discounts or coupons issued by the vendor, they don’t have volume discounts, they can’t sell upgrades to the applications, and they don’t allow packaging your goods and services, for example offering a premium support plan for extra money. All these things have been used by the business software vendors for a long time. One would wonder why major app stores can’t implement these things. The only thought that comes to mind is that they are only interested in selling entertainment stuff. What app stores should do: they should implement flexible pricing structures similar to those of Plimus and other eCommerce infrastructure providers.

3. App stores don’t let a free trial (with the exception for Google Android Market, where developers can use in-app purchases for that). Business software costs anything from $10 to 4-digit figures and few people are going to just cough up this kind of money without seeing what they are getting first. What app stores should do: pretty obvious.

4.The 30% cut is not justified. App stores shouldn’t be THAT greedy. It’s OK to take 30% off $0.99 purchases because the transaction costs are high and because the impulse buyers are the main drivers of sales. It is a totally different story for elaborate and expensive software. These apps require out-of-the-app-store marketing, because they are rarely going to be in the app store top lists and the app stores’ search capabilities are dismal. The 30% cut is a good deal when compared to the brick and mortar stores, when you sell software in a box with a disk and a printed manual, and it is sitting on a real shelf. Ain’t these times gone forever? What app stores should do: they should implement a straightforward structure where the cut is reduced the higher the price of the software is.

5. Lack of payment options. App stores only know the credit cards. The other 10 ways of paying are unknown for them. An enterprise buyer is likely to demand an invoice, to pay with a purchase order, and so on. Again, this is not going to be a problem for a cheap one-time-run app. What app stores should do: again, pretty obvious.

What the business software vendors should do: the only way currently available is to move your software into SaaS territory. If you claim that you provide a service, then you are free to sell it on your website, gather customers’ emails, provide flexible prices, offer a free trial and don’t give a leg and an arm to the greedy app stores. A lot of companies are doing this at the moment. However, it would be more convenient for the users if the vendors didn’t force them to their websites. Sometimes the app is not very suitable for the SaaS model, and strange things can happen along this route. Second, the app stores still can change the way they are treating SaaS. When the Apple Appstore introduced subscriptions a few months ago, it scared shit out of many SaaS providers, because for a moment they thought they would be forced to part with 30% of their money.

Is there any hope? Actually, I think there is, at least for Android. With the two major app stores and smaller (carrier operated) rising, it creates a place for competition and this will push the pressure on the app stores to improve. At least, that’s what the theory says.

 

 

 

 

 

 


How Google and market forces are making us STUPID

January 7, 2011

From the moment people realized the value of being in top of Google search results, the battle between Google and scammers started. Google has been fighting well, adjusting its ranking algorithm all the time. Also, Google taught us that it is vital that every page of your site contains relevant, information rich content. Content is the most important part of your google ranking.

Well, what Google forced scammers into is the worst informational nightmare: scammers learned how to create real content on the cheap and on the scale. They build content farms, like Demand Media with tens of thousands “writers” that produce hundreds of thousands crap articles like this or this or this. If you are lazy to click the links, I will spell out the last one for you: How to Practice Doga With a Dog Who Won’t Sit Still. Doga is yoga for dogs in case you didn’t know.

Dilbert.com

The problem with these articles is that they are very legitimate content produced by humans, and most of the time it is very hard to tell that the information inside is inaccurate or utterly false. So Google likes them and provide them with top rankings, thus throwing all this junk into the people doing searches.

As a result, Google has become a jungle again: a tropical paradise for spammers and marketers. Almost any innocent search takes you to websites that want you to click on links that make them money, or to sponsored sites that make Google money.

Most of the writers know pretty well what’s going on. For example, one of them said: “I was completely aware that I was writing crap. I was like, ‘I hope to God people don’t read my advice on how to make gin at home because they’ll probably poison themselves.’ “Never trust anything you read on eHow.com,” she said, referring to one of Demand Media’s high-traffic websites.

Why did she do it? She just graduated from prestigious journalism program, and it was an easy way for her to make money. Even though some people claim to make several thousands dollars a month through this junk-writing, the highest price for articles is about $15 a piece. There are bigger offers out there, like this one for $205, but there are always strings attached. With AOL, they might not publish your article at all, for example if someone else wrote it before you, and you have no way of knowing that until they refuse the publication.

Why do the companies do it? It’s a lucrative and growing business. Demand Media for example is planning for IPO in 2011. Others, like Examiner.com or Suite 101 are growing like weed, claiming to have over 50,000 “writers” each.

At the end, it is the market forces that created these content farms that poison the web with thousands articles a day, written by people who have no clue about what they are writing. And unless Google stops rewarding these crap creators, there is no way of ending this madness.

Dilbert.com


Evernote just squeezed more money out of investors!

October 23, 2010

Evernote just raised another $20m. That’s on top of $9m left from previous round and a claim that it’s a profitable and sustainable business. Makes you wonder why they need all this money. My guess is that’s a preparing for M&A kind of things. Now, some users have comments about this news:

  • Do you now have enough to update the Palm/HP webOS application?
  • one thing I would ask would be that you streamline and improve the performance of the various clients out there.
  • I want to be excited about this but I have seen funding come and go and so many desires of the users go ignored.

 

We’ll see what the users get out of this new round of funding. I, personally, find the idea of creating a global platform for human memory out of a note-taking software to be a bit, er, misleading. The real global platforms for human memory are Google and Facebook. It’s not the ability to store information, it’s the ability to find information, based on relevancy or your social context.


Microsoft is still an awesome business

July 4, 2010

While nobody likes Microsoft, and Apple has recently topped their market capitalization, Microsoft remains to be a very strong business. There is a good post Microsoft by the numbers that shows it.

A few of my favorites:

$8.2 Billion
Apple Net income for fiscal year ending  Sep 2009. [source]

$6.5 Billion
Google Net income for fiscal year ending Dec 2009. [source]

$14.5 Billion
Microsoft Net Income for fiscal year ending June 2009. [source]

What? Microsoft makes the same amount of money as Apple and Google COMBINED?

24%
Linux Server market share in 2005. [source]

33%
Predicted Linux Server market share for 2007 (made in 2005). [source]

21.2%
Actual Linux Server market share, Q4 2009. [source]

The Linux Servers were predicated to make Windows Server irrelevant one day. Looks like Linux is the loser now.

150,000,000
Number of Windows 7 licenses sold, making Windows 7 by far the fastest growing operating system in history.[source]

<10
Percentage of US netbooks running Windows in 2008. [source]

96
Percentage of US netbooks running Windows in 2009. [source]

Android, Chrome OS, anyone?


The best thing Facebook ever did

May 16, 2010

What will let Facebook own the internet advertisement? How will Facebook displace Google from being the top advertising platform?

Well, that’s obvious now. With the help of their Like button placed all over the whole darn internet. OK, maybe it’s not that obvious, but there are only three pieces to this puzzle:

First, Facebook is the company that finally owns our online identity. Microsoft couldn’t do it with its HailStorm and Passport. Google couldn’t do it with Gmail/Google account. Facebook, with all the sites that use Facebook Connect is the 800-pound gorilla in the online identity market.

Second, web search is quickly becoming a commodity. It’s not hard for a large company to build a search engine or license someone else’s search engine. Its search quality won’t be as good as that of Google, but see the next point.

Surprise! The search quality as it has been understood by Google is not important to the consumers anymore. That’s why there are new players in the field, who innovate by delivering different search experience: Bing, Wolfram Alpha, and others. While Google does a good job of counting incoming links and clearing search results off spam, 99.99% of those search results are still irrelevant for me and you. But imagine what would happen if Google sorted the search results by bringing the posts “liked” by your friends to the top? Now, this would be like by thousand times more relevant! The only problem is that Google doesn’t know who my friends are, leave alone what pages they “liked”.

The mathematical approach of Google to the web search fails miserably when compared to the social approach. People always want to know what movies their friends watch, what music they listen to, where they go to dine, get excited. There will always be hardcore users who will use Google for search, but the rest of the population and advertisement dollars will go to Facebook.

P.S. Just when I was about to finish, I found this fresh post: Will Facebook Be Tomorrow’s Google, and Google Tomorrow’s Microsoft? , expressing similar ideas. It’s fun to read it too, especially since it comes from a former Google Group Product Manager.


How can companies use my social graph?

April 5, 2010

It’s interesting to see when the brick-and-mortar companies will start actively use people’s social connections. There are so many examples how it can be done.

1. Many mobile network carriers have plans with one or more “favorite numbers”. When I make a call to one of these numbers, the call is cheaper or entirely free for me. Why not offer me to make all my Facebook connections “favorite numbers”? Make them cheap to call if they are with other carrier and free to call if they are on the same carrier. It’s an incentive for all of us to stick with one carrier.

2. When I buy a vacations tour, why not offer me a discount if I make all of my connections know what agency I used for that? And if anyone from my connections buys at the same agency later, offer more discount or some bonus points? Same goes for anything, like when one buys movie tickets, insurance, or clothes.

The key here is to create incentives for people to promote products and services to their social graph. The reward should be paid for actions (my friend also bought certain something), not for clicks and views. When companies start doing that, they won’t need any other advertisement. Facebook will be the major ad platform of the future, not Google.


We got “iPhone” into Google ad copy, but nobody cares

February 8, 2010

OK, we finally got our ad copy approved by Google and it has word “iPhone” in it. We didn’t do anything fancy, just were persistent and Google caved in. The thing is however that we are getting miserable CTR on those ads. It doesn’t look that Google is good to advertise iPhone apps on it.

Now we are trying Microsoft adCenter. The CTR in Search will probably be low as well. The idea is to get somewhere on a Microsoft page with “OneNote” on it. This should be a relevant page for OneNote client for iPhone, ain’t it?


Google don’t let advertise iPhone apps

February 4, 2010

We tried advertising our app on AdWords and were immediately set back by Google. Turned out, they don’t let some trademarked terms to be used in the ad copy. Namely, we can’t use word “iPhone”. They neither allow “i Phone” or “i-Phones”, but you would expect this from Google.

This is obviously wrong, because it’s legal to use a trademarked term to describe product compatibility. And the sole purpose of using the word is to say that our app is designed for iPhone, nothing else.

Funny enough, we can use “Onenote” no problem, even though it’s a trademarked term too. So, Apple nowadays is really the Microsoft of 90s, the enemy of openness, competitiveness, trying to preserve the monopoly by any mean.


Web 2.0 in Turkey (the country)

September 20, 2009

While being on a short vacation in Turkey, I noticed how the web becomes less usefull there. First, they block YouTube.com, WordPress.com, and Google knows what else. Everybody knows that Chinese government are the bad guys, but here we are, the country that wants to become a part of EU blocks stuff.

Second, Google Maps work very poorly there. When I type my hotel name and add other search terms to make it unmistakable for Google, I still get dozens of results, all scattered around the city. Only one of those results is right, and it is not easy to find out which one. Then, there is no information about surrounding locations. Google doesn’t know the places around – what shops, restaurants, other nice things are there. The user created maps are unverified and are quite unprecise to put it mildly. The user photos on the map are also scattered randomly, sometimes clearly off the place. The more incorrect and unverified data users put in, the more it becomes useless garbage and up to the point people won’t use Google Maps at all.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.