Social: Foursquare Goes After Mobile Users With Sponsored

Source:  Macworld, TheDroidGuy.

Looks like Foursquare is finally making a move to monetize all the data from the check-ins I've helped them amass.  Well, actually, not just me but twenty million mobile users who use the Foursquare app for the Android devices and iPhones over the years.  And this is a winning strategy that is more potent than anyone, even Twitter, has been able to come up with.

Exactly because of two things:  location and user willingness to share with Foursquare.

See below from my Facebook app.  This what what Facebook lamely came up with.




That's right, sponsored likes that I am never going to click on.  It's just awfully lame.

On the other hand, Foursquare's more social and mobile network offers a more targeted and potentially fruitful sponsor integration that gear towards mobile users who will actually be able to see value in the recommendations and ads - exactly because mobile users are "mobile" and will go places.

Twitter has had some success with its revenue model and Facebook is slowly down but it looks like Foursquare could be on to something there.  This is something not even Google can duplicate at this time.

I'm sure all will be watching Foursquare to see how successful local businesses find this opportunity to be.  One thing I like to see from Foursquare is the ability for sponsors and businesses to gauge the successes or failures of its targeted campaigns.

And Foursquare's link to Facebook as well as Twitter would help as well.  It'll be interesting to see where this is headed.  I've already used Foursquare check-ins to help me to some 15% off at Souplantation each time I visit.

Foursquare's new feature will benefit users because of its relevancy and proximity to a business.  Say I like Mexican food.  I would to see opportunties and deals based on where I go from Foursquare and its partners.  However, I wouldn't want to see salons and other businesses bombard me with things that I care nothing about.  And Foursquare will ensure this.

I definitely check in from time to time and am willing to give up a small part of my privacy if I get deals out of it.  This is definitely more beneficial to mobile users than Facebook's lame "sponsored likes".

When I first started using check-in apps likeFoursquare, I envision opportunities for users to explore and benefit through deals while helping businesses connect with them.  And it looks like it's happening.

- Posted using BlogPress

Apple Failed To Meet Unrealistic Wall Street Numbers: That's A Good Thing

As some of you may know by now, Apple failed to meet Wall Street's unrealistic expectation for the last financial quarter.  And you know what?  It's a great thing.  Here's why it's great for the company and mobile warriors in the long run.

Apple doesn't do things quarter by quarter but more of on an annual basis.  iOS devices are updated on an annual basis.  Macs now has a longer shelf-life than ever before.  Just as the folks waiting for new updated Mac Pro units how long they've been waiting and still are waiting.

iOS is updated on an annual basis as it OS X.

Oh, even Apple's hobby, the Apple TV, is updated on such a schedule.

So, it's clear that there will be quarters where numbers get blown out out of water and quarters where numbers are more muted.  However, by any measuring stick, Apple's disappointing quarters are the envy of its peers on exchanges and competitors.  Wouldn't HP, Dell, RIM, or Samsung want Apple's $7 billion or so in profit?

Wall Street will have to learn to deal with the new Apple under Tim Cook who will provide more realistic numbers.

What's the benefit of Apple beating its own expectations but not meeting insane Wall Street predictions?  The focus will be on products that Apple will release throughout the year and less on rumors that mostly don't pan out.  Apple will force more responsible reporting and, hopefully, more soul searching by bloggers and pundits and highly paid analysts who are often wrong anyway.  It'll force investors to stop listening to these guys.

And it'll force everyone to focus on what's at hand, that Apple makes insanely great products.  Stop focusing on rumors that are often made up what's available today.

As an investor who owns a few Apple shares, I want a steady rise in share prices and not the insane Wall Street numbers.

Apple Should Consider Enterprise Needs In Its iPhone Designs

Appleinsider has a post that Apple has widen its lead over Android in enterprise.  That’s great and all.  However, I wonder if Apple could do even better if it offers an enterprise version of the iPhone.  The reason is that it’s so pretty. And while the iPhone has a first rate design that not even Samsung dare copy, I wonder if it’s too nice.

What do you think?  Can Apple make a form factor that some in enterprise can use and perhaps more durable?

I think it can be done without Apple having to compromise over design.  Perhaps this is why many rumors in the Web being circulated are about Apple abandoning the glass back in favor of an unibody design.

Or if Apple doesn't go this route, it should at least consider enterprise users when designing future iPhones and other iOS devices.

Blastr: Bootleg Trailer for Man of Steel

According to Blastr, this is the full length trailer of Man of Steel.  So, watching it before it's gone.  It might be gone by now...unless it's not.

Enjoy!

Can't wait!

Gartner (Microsoft Ally) Has One Word On Window 8: "BAD" (Not In The Good Way)

Source: The Register.

"Bad".

That's how Gartner, a Microsoft friendly analyst firm, described Windows 8.  It looks like more and more people will be opting for Windows 7 and wait it out to see what Windows 9 will offer.

There's more.  Gartner tried to make the best of it.  Windows 8 could be good on a tablet but definitely horrible as a desktop experience.

This will give competitors, well, Apple, a very good opportunity to capture a larger segment of the PC market with its upcoming Mountain Lion which has many new features that both home and enterprise users will really like.  And Apple has retained the familiar look and feel of the Mac OS X even as it lightly peppered a few iOS features as not to annoy users - more like beta testing them to see how well they do.

To be fair, Gartner has been more wrong than right.  Only DigiTimes is worse.

Should Apple’s Patents That Have Become Standards Be FRAND Patents?

Google argues that the valuable mobile patents that Apple owns which makes the iPhone an “iPhone” should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory and subject to standard essential patent rules. I can’t say that I agree or disagree because of the patent system, which essentially lets anyone’s grandmother patent just about anything without really looking into the background of these so-called patents and whether they really are worth patenting.

I do know that companies that patent just about everything and everywhere do spend billions upon billions to patent them.  So, who is to say what patent, hence, which features should be licensable by the patent holder’s competitors.  Furthermore, what if a patent holder simply says its ball can only played on its court and nowhere else, it is no one’s rights, a corporation or government, to come and force the patent holder to open up.

I don’t know Google’s strategy in this.  Intellectual properties are essential for innovation.  Apple suing folks is within its rights to do that just as Google, Microsoft, or anyone else should be allowed to do the same.  I’ve always contend that if anyone finds Apple ripping them off, sue them.  And if one company runs into a patent roadblock, innovate around it.

On the other hand, Apple is very stingy about its patents and it has thrown its weight around the world in various legal jurisdictions on mundane things like product designs.  I’m not a patent or trademark attorney so I don’t know how firm a legal footing Apple has had.  Judging by its win-loss record, not very.

At the same time, one has to wonder if patents, trademarks, or other intellectual property rights mean anything to Google at all.  Sure, its competitors have used patents to try and stifle Android advances (not very successful) in the mobile market but Google continue to disregard them through its partners.  On top of that, Google bought Motorola largely for its patents and it realized much of what Motorola owns are essential standard patents, not like those that Apple owns that makes the iOS devices singularly unique from the rest of the market.

Hence, Google now wants Apple’s patents invalidated if possible but barring that, it wants the government to force Apple and others to label their patents as FRAND.

Why this now?  Well, Google is very late to the patent game regardless of whether it’s the video or mobile market.  And it has tried to use its own technology to build its own standards, albeit with much success.

Having said that, Google does have a point but I don’t think they’re arguing it correctly.  They need to attack the issue at its core which is the broken patent system.  Until then, everyone should play by the same rules regardless of which end they’re on.

Google’s argument is a very big danger to innovation.  My guess is that if the shoe was on the other foot, Google would not be making this argument.  If that’s the case, since Google owns a large portion of the search market, it should be forced to open up its search patents as well? Bottom line is this:  innovate, innovate, innovate regardless of the state of the patent system.  Learn to change the rules of the game all you want but you still have to bring your best to the market.

Mobile: Billions In Charity From Gates & Google, Should We Buy Them Over Others?

I happened to venture onto this Reuters post via Huffington Post about how the super-rich amassed as much as $32 trillion in offshore havens to avoid taxation.  That's quite a lot of money. If you consider just how much taxes various government entities missed because of this over more than four decades.  But this is an issue that will never get resolved but I that's not why I mentioned it.

It got me started thinking about the hundreds of millions in Google's case and billions in Microsoft's Bill Gates' case that were spent to help better the human condition, I kinda asked myself if we should do more to support their goods and services.

Should consumers ally themselves with a company's products and services that does more to better the world than those of competing companies that doesn't?


More at Clouding Around.