Phone Pricing, the iPhone 5c and Contracts: Why No-Contract Carriers are Just a Marketing Scheme

Posted by Saturday, September 14, 2013 , , , , , , , , , , ,



Over the course of the last couple days, I have been voicing my distaste over the new Apple iPhones that were released – specifically, I have thoroughly decided that I am not a fan of the iPhone 5c.

In the first post that I put out, I made a comment that I was of the opinion that the iPhone 5c should only launch overseas, and that Apple shouldn’t bother with it here in America.

A lot of people wanted to know why I said that. Is it because I think other countries are less privileged than us or something?

No, actually this is not the case at all. You see, here in the United States we don’t pay all that much for phones, and it’s been this way for so long that we don’t think twice about it, except maybe for the fact that as consumers, we here in America aren’t really willing to pay more than a two hundred bucks for a phone, right?

So could you imagine paying seven hundred dollars for an iPhone?

This is where you violently eject the drink you were sipping on and laugh, or perhaps wonder why anyone would pay a price like that for a device that isn’t worth that much.

Well, guess what: it really is worth that much.

You see, smartphones these days have the power to do anything a modern computer can do, and then some. In reality, it costs apple well over four hundred dollars to produce an iPhone; but if that’s the case then why do we only pay two hundred dollars for it?

In steps the contract.

Have you ever wondered exactly why cellphone companies lock you into a contract? Most people don’t even think about it anymore because it’s just such a common thing. When considering a cellphone, your internal monologue usually goes something like this: “You want Verizon or AT&T premium service? You need a contract”. That’s just how the world has worked for so long now that the great question of “why” doesn’t even cross our minds. It seems incredible, too, that with so many “No Contract Phone” options the contract carriers would still be able to rope people into the contracts. How do they do that?

Allow me to answer the question you never thought you needed to know. On average, prepaid carriers will charge you fifty five dollars per month for “unlimited” smartphone service during the course of a thirty day period. To get the same deal, the average contract service runs about ninety dollars per month. Furthermore, a contract requires you to sign on for two years, with the threat of a “cancellation fee” that can be upwards of three hundred and fifty dollars in the event that you decide to jump ship early. So why do they do that? It doesn’t seem like a sound business model to charge more for the same service, right? Why are they charging you an extra thirty dollars per month?

To find out the answer to this, I’ll compare the price of a Galaxy SIII on a contract and on prepaid.

On Verizon services, the Galaxy SIII is currently available for free as an upgrade. On Boost Mobile, the Galaxy SIII will run you four hundred dollars.

Yep. Four hundred dollars.

How does that happen? The answer is simple: contract carriers are using the structure of a contract to reduce the price of the phone. In other words, a contract carrier charges you a higher monthly price because it is essentially subsidizing the price of the phone over two years. This is also why they don’t want you to cancel their service; if you did that, the company would lose money on the phone. On top of the cheaper phone, a contract carrier can also offer faster service and better coverage, but all of that is just fluff. What you, the reader, should walk away from this blog with is that a contract only serves one purpose: to put a phone in your hands without paying nearly a thousand dollars for it.

So in the end, what’s the point of “no contract providers”? The answer there is that it’s all about the marketing. Have you ever had a bad experience with a contract? Many people at one point or another have encountered an enormous cellphone bill due to some kind of overage (remember the days before text messaging was unlimited?) and as a result, they don’t want to be “locked in” by a carrier. They’re afraid that they’re being ripped off, mostly because the carrier didn’t properly explain the potential for overages or how the contract system works in general.

Fortunately, the days of massive overages are long past. Contract carriers have simplified and dramatically lessened overage fees, and there are new “transparency” rules in place for things like cancellation fees. However, a lot of people are still scared of the contract, and no contract services feed on that fear to draw people away from the premium service of contract carriers, all the while continuing to provide phones at a non-subsidized price.

Okay. So, iPhone 5c? You said something about not marketing it in America?

Right. So now that you know the difference between a subsidized price and an unsubsidized price, let’s shed some light on the iPhone 5c.

First off, the subsidized price of an iPhone 5c is ninety nine dollars. Unsubsidized? Three hundred dollars.

Subsidized price of an iPhone 5s? two hundred dollars. Unsubsidized? Eight hundred.

Subsidized price of an iPhone 5? Ninety nine dollars. Unsubsidized? Eight hundred.

So let’s look at those numbers. Over the course of the contract, the “time to profit” point on the iPhone 5c through the course of a contract is much sooner than the other phones. What is time to profit? Think of it as a phone provider asking the question “at what point in a contract while paying the subsidy cost will  the customer pay off the cost of the phone and we’ll begin to make a profit?”

So the iPhone 5c makes a profit a whole lot faster because it’s cheaper to build. The crazy part about that is: the iPhone 5 costs the same amount of money on a contract, has the same hardware as the iPhone 5c and is built a whole lot better! In other words, if you’re thinking about a cheap iPhone, in our country, you would be a whole lot better off just buying the iPhone 5. After all, it is the same price.

So, what good is the iPhone 5c, and what does this have to do with other countries?

Most countries in the world do not have the ability to subsidize the price of a phone. In China, for example, it’s normal for individuals to dish out eight hundred dollars for a phone. They don’t subsidize the phone, which means no contract, but also means an expensive phone.

So, the iPhone 5c would be fantastic in markets like China. Why? People would only have to pay three hundred dollars instead of eight hundred for the phone!

Great idea!

This is why I believe it shouldn’t have ever been launched in the United States. Here in the US, the iPhone 5c is nothing more than a money-hungry grab at profit. In China, though, it’s a brilliant and ethical way to get iPhones into the hands of the average person.

So there you have it. This was more of an informative post than news, but it is something that I believe all phone users should get a clear explanation on – after all, we’re the ones under contract and buying this hardware. We have the right to know what we’re getting ourselves into.

Stay empowered, and the next time you walk into a phone store to get your next upgrade you’ll be prepared.
 
Image Source Found Here

The Offical Breakdown of the iPhone 5s: A Surprisingly Solid System

Posted by Friday, September 13, 2013 , , , , , , , , , , ,


 
After doing a lot of reading on the iPhone 5s, this device seems to be pretty good on paper. It's one of those things that I hate to admit (because I'm not typically a fan of Apple) but I believe in being fair.

For the past few days I have been yearning to do some research on the iPhone 5s and how its changed; I am particularly interested in the details of the fingerprint scanner, but other ventures have sucked away my time. So at long last I have finally been able to take a look into the yet-to-be-released phone.

The changes of the new iPhone can be summed up into two categories: technical changes in the phone, and other changes, which I will hence be dubbing "iFluff" - things that have been added just because they're easy to market as "cool". The major iFluff upgrade? The fingerprint scanner.

Yes, Apple has added the much-talked-about fingerprint scanner to it's new phone, but to be honest it's probably the least interesting upgrade on the list. However, I will be going into great detail about it. I really wasn’t interested in looking into the fingerprint scanner because I thought it was cool, though; more realistically I wanted to bash it (because I think it’s nothing more than a novelty) and bash it I will.

At the end of the day, the rest of the iPhone 5s has very little to be negative about though, and all-in-all despite the fact that the advertising over-glorifies it to the point of puking rainbows, I would give the device a healthy 9/10 in terms of it’s features and hardware.

That means a lot coming from me. I don’t really like Apple, but fair is fair. It’s a good phone and for the rest of this blog I'll be breaking down what makes it something to talk about.

First: This phone is the first device - ever - to run on a 64 bit processor and operating system.

This doesn’t mean much to people who are non-technical, so let me break this one down real quick. In terms of computer processors, there are two types: 32-bit and 64-bit. Saving all of the technical mumbo-jumbo, what you should walk away with from this paragraph is that 64-bit systems are the newer, faster ones. You should also know that regular computers have been off of 32-bit for about five years now. So why hasn't this technology moved to smartphones yet? It has been difficult to get that technology down to smartphone-size and I definitely give Apple kudos for doing it first. 

To the consumer, the whole "32-bit vs. 64-bit" thing doesn’t mean much – right now. The problem is that 64-bit systems don't really work faster unless the programs on that system are optimized for it.
What does that mean? Well, it means that there is an inherent problem with the initial transition to 64-bit: the software now has to come up to meet the hardware, meaning that most apps won’t even take advantage of it yet. In other words, we probably won’t even feel the difference of 64-bit until the iPhone 6 is on the horizon. However, Apple is setting themselves up to continue to be a smartphone player in the future by making the switch now. IN the end, it will mean that Apple will be the first to optimize, the first to get faster and this will mean that Apple stays in the lead when it comes to the speed and fluidity of their devices. It seems that while everyone else was revolutionizing the accessory market with smartwatches, Apple was working on a 64-bit phone. Well done. I still think Apple needs a new toy to prove they can continue to innovate in the overcrowded smartphone market, but that’s a point I’ve already made.

Second: iOS7 is really very nice.

Even though this isn’t really an iPhone 5s-specific thing, I have to give it mention. I am very, very pleased with the iOS7 system. It’s brighter colors, flatter look and more robust set of features bring it (finally) up to par with the android systems in terms of “cool-things-my-phone-can-do” stuff, and these little gadgets suck in new users better than any marketing method. Case and point: the main selling point of the Galaxy S4 is its ability to track your eyes. It’s a novelty, but its just one more cool thing it can do to allow its owner to say “my phone is cooler than yours”

iOS7 is finally supporting lock screen notifications (those things that tell you when you have messages, voicemails, etc. that you see when you first turn on your phone), a radio service similar to Google Play or Spotify, and quick-switches for phone features like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. These are things that android has had for years now, so it’s about time Apple jumped on the band wagon.

Third: The Camera got a much-needed update

For those who aren’t familiar with the issue, the iPhone 5 has a major camera problem when in sunlight. Apple opted to use a sapphire lens on its camera on the iPhone 5; sapphire is a good choice because of its thinness and durability. However, the small size of the camera on the iPhone 5 caused the sapphire lens to make photos, well….sapphire-colored, when in direct light. Therefore, the iPhone 5s received a wider lens. This should correct that issue.

All in all, this whole group of things stacks up well. New features, a new chipset running on a 64bit architecture and a fixed camera mean the only thing consumers will be worrying about is the durability of the phone, which still lacks. Oh, right, and the fact that the phone keeps a record of your fingerprint.

So, let’s move on to that fingerprint reader.

This so called “revolutionary security device” gave me a good laugh today while I was catching up on the details of its function.  I’m disappointed that Apple centered its focus of changes around it when so many other, more significant things changed in the iPhone 5s.

First off, let me start by saying that Apple’s fingerprint scanner is by no means revolutionary. The Motorola Atrix HD had a fingerprint reader back in 2011, and there are even a handful of other devices that have had it since then. Heck, even computers running windows 7 have had fingerprint readers for years. Fingerprint authentication isn’t anything new and if you’re attentive you’ll note that you really don’t see them on anything nowadays, simply because they were expensive to produce and didn’t really change anything.

Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s move on to Apple’s device, which is apparently “revolutionary” now that it’s in an iPhone and not in the hundreds of other devices they’re already in. The fingerprint scanner itself is known as “Touch ID” and saves your “fingerprint data” in an encrypted section of the processor. Apple is doing this because they are ensuring us that reading a fingerprint is more secure than typing in a passcode.

Except, Apple doesn’t believe it’s more secure than a passcode. As it turns out, if you reboot the phone or wait longer than 48 hours between successful unlocks, the phone reverts to a “backup passcode” that you have to use to unlock the phone.

Apple’s reasoning for this “feature”:  To prevent phone-thieves from “stalling for time while they figured out a way to circumvent the fingerprint reader”.

What?

So, Apple, what you’re saying is “Fingerprint reading is less secure, but it’s cool so we’re going to put it in. However, to keep your phone secure, we’re going to make it so that you have to get into the phone the old fashioned way if it gets hijacked”.  Now, that’s just funny to me. Also, the Touch ID is already being reported to have spotty functionality at best when hands are “sweaty, wet or dirty” and you essentially have to poke the home screen dead-on for the phone to work, so forget one-handed unlocking.

So, what is the verdict on the Touch ID system? Fail. Also, I’m not happy with Apple claiming to keep my fingerprint data in the wake of all the news about the NSA hacking into everything. For all I know, they’ve hacked into my cat by now. The last thing I want them getting is my fingerprints – not cool. Now before everyone tells me I’m overreacting, I should note that I fully understand how the Touch Id system works: I understand that it’s kept on an encrypted part of the chip, and never gets transferred over the internet, etc. etc. But, if the NSA can get into a Blackberry – which is certified in security far beyond any Apple product - I trust nothing.

At the end of the day, the iPhone 5s is a solid device wrapped in a package of fluffy iSheep wool. Despite this, I would still recommend the device to a consumer, especially if you’re already an Apple user – this one really would be worth your money if you're looking to upgrade. If I were you, though, the first thing I would do once I unboxed it would be to turn off Touch ID. It’s useless. As for the second thing? Put an OtterBox on it. The iPhone 5s still retains classic Apple fragility, and besides - TouchID doesn't even work with an OtterBox. How could it, when the OtterBox cases cover the button?
 
Image Source Found Here

Apple is Following the Lead of Nokia

Posted by Wednesday, September 11, 2013 , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


I am officially taking issue with the iPhone 5c.

Why, you ask?

For starters, its marketing scheme is a direct rip-off from the Nokia Lumia 920.

Okay, enough with the one-line-impact-phrases; allow me to explain myself. I am currently the happy and proud owner of three regularly-used devices: the Nokia Lumia 920, which is my business phone, and the HTC One, which is my personal device, and a first-generation iPad, which serves as my regular web-browing and email tool. In owning the Lumia 920 it has quickly become my favorite smartphone, being extremely durable, smooth to use and incorporating a large volume of business-oriented tools like Microsoft Office. When you couple all of that with a phenomenal camera, a scratch-proof screen / scratch-proof body plus great battery life, you get one heck of a phone.

Before I purchase anything, I make darn sure I know what I’m buying – this behavior largely stems from the inevitable truth that I’m very stingy about what I spend money on. That being said, when I looked into purchasing the Lumia 920, I looked into everything, including its hardware, software, and projected market longevity. Now when I say “projected Market Longevity” this is by no means an exact science. I “calculate” market longevity by essentially evaluating the branding and advertising scheme that the company (in this case Nokia) is implementing towards their brand and taking into consideration the company’s marketing budget for said brand and release cycles as a company. From there, I essentially just do my best to judge how long that particular device is going to be marketed, receive updates, and be produced.

So what’s the point of saying all of this?

While I was evaluating Nokia’s strategy for the Lumia 920, I noticed something important: Color was a thing. Nokia was trying to stand out from Apple by breaking away from the stereotypical black and white and producing a series of colorful devices. In fact, one of their most prominent advertising pictures was this photo here:

image source found here


Look familiar? That might be because it looks a whole lot like this iPhone 5c advertising picture:

image source found here


Crazy, right? I only pieced this together because of my borderline-obsessive need to know everything about a product before I buy it, but that’s pretty cut and dry. It seems to me that Apple has recognized the consumer interest in color, and is following in Nokia’s footsteps.

So what’s the big deal? It's just color. 

For the consumer, this doesn't mean much. However for the investor, little things like this are a bad sign. I take minute details like this into consideration all the time when making judgments on the future of a company or product, and I am sure that investors do precisely the same thing. Seeing Apple blatantly follow-suit in such a way as this further underscores the company’s recent lack of innovation. With Apple’s failed “Special Event” behind us, where the Cupertino company essentially released more of the same, seeing more signs that Apple is having a difficult time innovating is definitely a scary thing. It’s things like this that cause sharp drops in stocks, and I feel as though Apple carelessly overlooked these small details.

Unfortunately, the list of painful details in the fine print doesn't stop with the whole "color fiasco". There's also the fact that the iPhone 5c launched with its own, unique dock and won't work on any docking devices designed for the iPhone 5s, and then there's the fact that the iPhone 5c even launched at all. 

...wait what? 
Yes, the iPhone 5c being launched in-general is a big, blinking red sign that Apple is struggling to keep its valuation high, meaning that they're concerned about how valuable their company is (because their stocks keep dropping).

This is the point I'm trying to make: the fact that Apple is forcing you to buy unique hardware for the iPhone 5c, combined with a "follow-suit" marketing campaign and the fact that the iPhone 5c was an unneccessary device in the first place shows clearly that the iPhone 5c is nothing more than a blind attempt at turning a high profit on a low-cost item. Apple isn't producing that phone for you or for any consumer - they're producing it to line their pockets.

So, what does this mean for Apple?


I feel as though Apple currently has enough iSheep to still have a good flock after the wolves have fed, but I see a major decline in the company’s valuation in the near future. The iPhone 5c will not be the cause of the decline, but it will certainly be the early warning that most of us miss.

Oh, and although I have no qualms with the iPhone 5s (other than that it’s an overpriced, overglorified iPhone 5) or Apple as a company, I genuinely hope the iPhone 5c is the next Apple Maps. 


top image source found here

Disappointing Day for Apple

Posted by Tuesday, September 10, 2013 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



At 10am PT today, Apple held what was the much-anticipated “Special Event” at their headquarters – an event that was shrouded in rumors of new releases and changes.

Apple is notorious for doing everything it can to keep the general populace in the dark about its releases right up until the very end, and they are normally very good at it; however it seems that this time around there were enough legitimate leaks that many of the rumor-mill sites hit the nail on the head in regards to what the ordeal was about and left little to the imagination. As everyone (at minimum) expected, the “Special Event” held today was centered on the unveiling of the new iPhone 5s and the newly-developed-and-launched iPhone 5c. 

As my readers may already know I did not exactly have my hopes up about the event as a whole; in fact just yesterday I posted a guess as to what could be expected from this launch, and I also included my prediction as to how investors would perceive the announcements that were to come. I surmised that Apple would likely release three products: two iPhones and a new iPad. I also predicted that if Apple only launched the two iPhones (and possibly the iPad) without the added launch of some other sort of innovative technology, it could be expected that a notable loss of interest from investors and from the public would instantly follow.

Okay, Okay. So what actually happened at the event?

During the course of what ultimately turned out to be nothing more than a very over-dramatized release party, Apple did not even so much as launch a new iPad – all they did was launch the iPhone 5s and the iPhone 5c. Furthermore, aesthetically and technologically speaking the new pair phones were shown to be just as I had feared they would be; the iPhone 5s is nothing more than an iPhone 5 with a fingerprint reader and a few upgrades (albeit a significant camera upgrade, but this is to be expected based on their previous camera issue in the iPhone 5) and the iPhone 5c is nothing more than a plastic iPhone 5 with  bunch of colors. Aside from these changes, there is virtually nothing different in the iPhone 5s from the iPhone 5, and as for the iPhone 5c… well, I didn’t even think that should have launched in the first place.

So what does this all mean for Apple, and for consumers?

The end result of this less-than-exciting launch was that we saw a significant drop in Apple’s stocks today. Apple closed the day down two percent, which is not good considering they just launched the product intended to carry their profitability for the next year. If Apple is going to continue to stay in the good favor of stockholders and investors, they will need to make some kind of splash soon with a new product. Holding a launch like this without really innovating anything was not good for Apple. Even iOS7 (which I personally think is quite the beautiful system) is already experiencing mixed reviews from developers, and the negative commentary behind the software mixed with uninteresting hardware might result in a serious hiccup for Apple.

In my opinion, today’s launch was definitely not a business-savvy maneuver unless Apple has something like a Google Glass competitor up their sleeve that’s aimed for launch in the very, very near future. After all, we are seeing a lot of shifting in the mobile market right now, and we have historically seen that when a company sits still in times like these, it never ends up well. Google is currently launching their first original Motorola-branded smartphone, and Microsoft is currently moving into position to make some big changes in their mobile business. Even Blackberry is making ripples with the undertones of a Microsoft buyout. Without any real innovation, Apple is just leaving that door wide open for Microsoft and Google to walk through.

So is all hope lost for Apple?

I want to be optimistic and say that this launch being so underwhelming means that something huge is in the pipeline, but I can’t say that with any kind of assertiveness. It’s just a hope and it is not based on any sort of facts, but I would like to believe that Apple has yet to lose its touch; unfortunately, though, the cards don’t seem favorable right now.

I will be closing this with some extra resources for you. Below I will be linking the keynotes to the new iPhones and the new iOS (for those who didn’t catch that a few months ago). I feel I should also point out that I will be posting again very, very soon covering a small conspiracy I noticed, regarding the iPhone 5c; to give you a little teaser, I think Apple shot it’s “Innovation” slogan in the foot with the iPhone 5c by using similar marketing tactics to the Nokia Lumia 920 – but, we’ll get to that in the next post.


iOS7 Keynote can be found Here

the iPhone 5s and 5c keynote can be found Here

Image Source found Here


Is Apple Running Out Of Hat Tricks?

Posted by Monday, September 9, 2013 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



In recent weeks I have been putting a lot of focus on Microsoft thanks to all of the uproar surrounding a slew of changes that’s occurring with them. However, I think it’s just about time I put just a little emphasis on Apple. After all, they are set to launch a bunch of stuff soon.

Sorry for not getting around to talking about this launch sooner; I have held out on writing about it for as long as I can, because my honest opinion is that I don’t expect us to see anything exceptionally unique come out of it. Admittedly though, the world is a mysterious place and we could experience the unexpected. I’m going to break down the facts and see if I can come up with some conclusions on what we can expect from this announcement, and in the wake afterwards.

By now, most people who keep up with technological news are aware that Apple is being watched for signs that they can’t hold their own without Steve Jobs at the helm. Since his passing, the world has kept a keen eye on the company, as they have historically been unable to hold it together without him. Even though the iPhone 5 was released after Steve Jobs’ passing, many investors wrote it off as pre-planned, and because of this the world is watching this upcoming release intensely to see if Apple really still has all of its ducks in line.

So this means their next release better be pretty spectacular, wouldn’t you agree?

On September 10th the world is officially expecting the announcement of two new iPhones – the iPhone 5s and the iPhone 5c – the iPhone 5s being the latest and greatest iPhone, while the iPhone 5c is said to be a more cost-friendly and probably-plastic version of the iPhone that will possibly sacrifice some key features to keep the cost down. I also believe that Apple will be releasing a new iPad; the prices of both the iPhone 5 and the iPad have been getting slashed in major retailers and I can’t imagine Apple cutting prices on the iPad if they weren’t on the verge of a new product release for the iPad line.

So, we have our preliminary lineup: two new iPhones and an iPad. Not so bad, right? Wrong.

As of right now I have three questions about the expectations of September 10th and its impact on the technological world: what is it that the public is really expecting out of these new devices, what could Apple possibly offer us in the iPhone 5s that isn’t in the iPhone 5, and why is Apple producing the iPhone 5c in the first place? I ask these questions because the answers to them will lead us to the answer of the question that is on everyone’s mind: is Apple falling apart?

As always, Apple has remained secretive about almost everything (and will right up until the announcement), but it has been speculated that there will be very little changing in iPhone 5s compared to its older brother save a small camera and processor upgrade. However, one thing has been leaked: it seems that the iPhone 5s will contain a fingerprint scanner. The news that the iPhone 5s has a fingerprint scanner on it at all genuinely disappoints me and throws up an early red-flag that the iPhone 5s is going to be a flop. Here’s where I draw my concern with this leak from: short of a few hardware updates, the only difference between older the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 4s was Siri – a novelty. When the new “4s” came out, it’s only change was a novelty and we really didn’t see any innovation between the two devices. I feel as though Apple is setting everyone up for another “4s situation” in the sense that they are going to market the 5s as a new phone when in reality the only major change is the fingerprint reader, which is really no more useful than Siri and is all-in-all just a novelty and nothing more. Fingerprint readers really don’t provide a tremendous increase in security to a phone, and the only thing this fingerprint reader is going to do is be fun to play with and drive the price up on the iPhone 5s. Meanwhile, the actual hardware itself will probably be imperfect at first anyway, making it less of a seamless integration and more of a “we need a wow-factor” afterthought.

With Apple under the microscope by investors right now, they really can’t afford to have the iPhone 5s come off as “The iPhone 5 with a fingerprint reader”. It will scare investors into thinking their innovation has been stifled and I’m sure that if this is the case, we’ll see Apple’s stock decline by close on the 10th.

To quell the words that I’m sure will surface from that statement, I understand that a sub-brand such as the iPhone 4s or the iPhone 5s is designed to be non-innovative and merely an evolution of its original, but is that really what Apple needs right now, with the condition of the criticism they face? If anything, they really should have skipped out on the iPhone 5s and moved right to the iPhone 6, but we’ll get to that later.

So, the verdict on the iPhone 5s: prepare to be disappointed. It’s most likely going to be an iPhone 5 with a fingerprint reader.

Onto the iPhone 5c: launching this device at all is really one move I don’t understand. Apple’s explanation for this device is that they wanted to ensure Apple products were affordable for everyone and thus wanted to create a device that could be purchased at a low price point – but there is a problem with this. Historically, Apple has been able to offer budget iPhones all along without adding another product to their line. How do they do this? Simple: they just slash the price of the previous iteration and boom – instant budget-phone. There is no doubt that this is already happening in retailers now as companies like WalMart gear up to stock the new phone. So, why did Apple pay a bunch of people to create an intentionally sub-par device to fill a so-called “gap in their business model” when they were already inadvertently doing just that with older iterations of the phone? There is no doubt that we will see features missing on the iPhone 5c and with its plastic shell I’m sure we can expect hardware specs similar to the iPhone 4…. But wouldn’t it just make more sense to remarket the iPhone 4 then, and avoid the plastic look and avoid brand fragmentation? I would think so. In the end, I don’t see the iPhone 5c selling in the United States. The iPhone is a status symbol – just as equally, the iPhone 5c could become a symbol of “I couldn’t afford an iPhone 5s so I bought this” (you know how mean kids can be). If you market a product as “the iPhone for everyone else”, are you really expecting it to do well, when it essentially turns it back on virtually the entire history of your previous business model?

I think the answer here is that Apple is looking to grab the profit form a low-cost, high-margin phone and not considering the repercussions of such an approach. This is just my humble opinion.

Verdict on the iPhone 5c? In my opinion, Apple shouldn’t even launch this in the US. I can see it doing well in other markets where phones are much more expensive, but here in the US I couldn’t imagine it selling to expectation at all.

As for the iPad, well, speaking of brand fragmentation the iPad was a mess from the time the iPad three was released. I don’t want to see how they decide to brand this iPad – in fact, I hope one doesn’t even launch. Before another iPad launches, Apple needs to bring the fragmentation on the iPads under control. Therefore, my verdict on this product is simple: if you’re going to launch a new iPad, kill all sales and support for the previous versions. You need to wipe the slate clean on the iPad and start fresh – and whatever you do, Apple, don’t name this one just “iPad” again. Please.

So, I know this all seems pretty pessimistic, and it is. However, we have still seen some pretty good things come out of Apple. iOS 7 seems gorgeous, and after playing around with it I’m very impressed. However, Apple needs to do more than just come out with a new Operating system if they don’t want to end up like Microsoft. If the new iPhones and iPad are all that Apple has to offer on the 10th, then god speed to them - I can envision the stock plummet already.

Okay, so what would Apple have to do to save itself from that fall?

Release a Google Glass competitor, tomorrow and beat Google to the punch on wearable computing, then surprise us all with a massive screen on the iPhone 5s.

If Apple wants to keep investors from panic-selling, they need to innovate in the absence of Steve Jobs. This release is Apple’s chance to prove to the world that they can produce quality products without Jobs at the helm, and if they miss it, then they will have a hard time doing it next year after a year of interim for Apple investors to watch the iPhone 5s be nothing new, the iPhone 5c fail and other tablets really begin to catch up to them. Furthermore, while we’re waiting another year to see innovation from Apple, Microsoft will be plugging away at their changes, meaning that the lack of innovation soon will mean giving Microsoft the chance to spring into action.

Apple needs to do something remarkable, and I think the only way to do that is to move into wearable computing, and to ensure that they don't get left behind in the smartphone market. One of the major changes happening in the smartphone world right now is a movement towards bigger screens. This surge of large-screen popularity can be seen In the wildly popular Samsung Galaxy S4 and the HTC One, not to mention the over-the-top devices like the Galaxy mega. If Apple continues to ignore these two portions of the market, I don't believe that it will do the company any justice.

So my verdict on what needs to be done? Apple should increase the screen size of the iPhone in the 5s iteration, nix the iPad release, only release the iPhone 5c overseas and release a Google Glass competitor. Sounds like a lot, but this right here would be my dream release from Apple, and in my opinion would snatch them from the jaws of death.

Also, while I'm on the topic of wearable computing, Apple had better not produce a SmartWatch. If they jump on the SmartWatch bandwagon, they will only further be proving that they aren’t interested in innovation, because the SmartWatch market is likely to die very quickly.


In the end, we’re either going to be dumbfounded by an amazing innovation in the next 48 hours, or we’re going to be severely disappointed. I’m bracing for the worst, and hoping for the best. If we don’t see something spectacular come out of them, I believe we could potentially see a large shift in the mobile market over the year after. Who knows? Maybe we’ll see the first WinKiaBerry.


Image Source Found Here

Microsoft: The World’s most Massive Jigsaw Puzzle

Posted by Saturday, September 7, 2013 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


 
As we all press endlessly into the future, we cannot help but wonder what it holds for us and when it comes to technology, people like myself try as best as possible to see into the future.

Why?

It’s fun.

That being said, I have always been one to keep an eye on Microsoft and their antics, especially lately with the Nokia Buyout and the rumors that Microsoft could potentially be in the market to buyout blackberry as well. Microsoft has been the dominating presence of technology in the past but is still struggling to regain its foothold after the mobile paradigm shift of the last decade.

In the wake of the recent buyout, what is Microsoft going to do during the course of the next five years? The company is in a churning state of change and as of right now, investors are worried (and so am I) about its future.

Though I think I’ve officially put it all together.

You see, in recent news there seems to be a leak of Microsoft’s latest software update to Windows Phones known as GDR3 (or General Distribution Release 3). This leak, which was a craigslist find, seems to outline some major changes that lay the foundation for what is known as Windows Blue, the grandiose update supposedly linking all of the different Microsoft platforms once and for all, thus unifying the new platform across all devices.

It’s interesting that we hear news about this now, right after the acquisition of Nokia, and in the wake a new rumored Nokia device, the1520, which keeps up with the large-screen trend by upping to a phablet.

So what can we expect?

Well, here’s my theory. Many people believe that the surface branding is going to die; I don’t believe that to be true. In fact, I wholeheartedly believe that the Lumia line is what Microsoft is going to kill. Microsoft is going to do it’s best to keep the branding under one name: Microsoft. As I said in a previous blog, Microsoft’s most difficult challenge is going to be to bring the branding issue under control that has been plaguing them. Therefore, Microsoft is going to rebrand the next Nokia device (likely the 1520) to “Surface Phone” or something along those lines, and will make it the transitional device on a slow step-down to a 4.5in surface device. Once this is done, Windows will release the “Blue” update and unify all of the devices, thus making the interface the same across all of them. During this time, I’m expecting to see one or two more companies scooped up, namely Dell and Blackberry, as Microsoft drops third party support and brings hardware production under one roof. Sub-brands like Dell, AlienWare and blackberry will be integrated into the Microsoft brand, and suddenly we will see a very apple-like, IT-and-Business-Friendly, all-1st-party Microsoft.

While all of this is plausible, it is of course quite a distance off in the future and could be massively interrupted by the change in management that is on its way. Furthermore, my prediction hinges on Microsoft’s ability to bring the desktop and laptop market in-house – something that could spur a lot of problems, but also potentially open up the market for other up-and-coming operating systems like Ubuntu Edge and Chrome. Things like this could spell death for companies like Acer and HP though, who have already seen a few woes in this new mobile universe we live in.

All-in-all, I think one thing is for sure: Microsoft cannot keep living on the edge of first party – they will have to tip one way or the other, and continuing to trust other companies with their Operating system is not something that I believe Microsoft wants to continue doing. The advent of bloatware and other issues with Windows PCs is putting a blemish on their name that only going 1st party can eliminate. Since this is most likely their goal, I have based my prediction off of what is most likely to need to occur, and then judging what I believe to be the only logical steps to get there.

In short, this is my prediction, based on a little research and mostly intuition.  I’m sticking to it, so let’s see what happens in the next several months.
Photo Source found Here

The Real Competitor to Galaxy Gear

Posted by Friday, September 6, 2013 , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


 
 
For quite some time now I have been covering the antics of Google as they produce their new Glass technology, and although I didn’t pick up a developer copy due to the heavy price tag, I will be one of the first to grab the consumer model assuming that the price comes down in the way that was promised by Google.

It seems that no one yet has announced a real competitor to Google Glass and although it’s likely that other companies are just simply keeping tight lips on those projects, we have recently seen something happen in the world of tech that I almost didn’t see coming:

Smartwatches.

Google is currently paving the way into a new generation of technology in which our everyday-use devices will be blended into our fashion and worn on our bodies. When Google announced Glass, the whole world stirred with the potential of the next sci-fi tech to become a reality.

The result is this: several companies, including Samsung and Qualcomm, have jumped on the bandwagon with something called a smartwatch. These things are essentially glorified Bluetooth receivers; they read your text messages, show you missed calls and in some cases they can even scan QR codes.

That sounds pretty cool, Especially if the price is right. However, because of the timing and the looming arrival of Glass, I’m concerned about the longevity of such a device. Let me explain.

Glass has been in development for some time now, and has a slew of developers working on apps for it. Furthermore, it has the ability to do virtually everything the Galaxy gear and other smartwatches can do, plus a few other cool tricks. It can take pictures and video, provide you with traffic updates, give you the weather and much more. In fact, the potential of the Glass system is virtually limitless, and it’s quite clear that Google is taking their time to make sure that they get it right.

So the question I have is this: why did all of these companies decide, just now, to release these smartwatches when a better, and most likely more well-thought-out, technology is knowingly on the horizon?

That’s not a rhetorical question. I genuinely don’t understand.

I wholeheartedly believe that Glass will kill the smartwatch; they will become inconvenient and a waste of money as soon as Glass is released. Why? Well, who wants their text message popping up on their phone, in their glasses and on their watch? It’s too many places. Furthermore, even a deal for some kind of integration between the two would be relatively silly. You could potentially use a smartwatch as a control for Glass I suppose, but then you would have to look at it, and wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of it?


As of right now, I see the smartwatch kind of like a mini-DVD. It seems like a good idea until you realize that DVD’s just work better, and mini-DVD’s don’t really revolutionize anything.
 
Picture source: Droid-life.com

Microsoft Should Acquire Blackberry

Posted by , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


 
image source: tech2.com

Not too long ago, I wrote a blog post regarding my belief that Microsoft should acquire Nokia, and sure enough, about six months later it happened. Although I can’t speak for Microsoft's final motives (and I can’t say that I definitively predicted the cause) I was of the "an-acquisition-is-genius" opinion because of the apparent fragmentation issue that Microsoft is having with its products and I am citing this as a primary reason why Microsoft continues to trail in the mobile market. A major drawback of the Microsoft name right now is that they have too many products out (this is, at least in part, a result of the antitrust break-up that occurred in the company several years ago - Microsoft never really recovered from that). From where I sit, it seems that the corporate structure of Microsoft is creating an environment where many of the development projects aren’t talking to each other. The result is that Microsoft is producing a lot of half-assed products and services, many of which are being cancelled, or the names changed which ultimately just creates further confusion. Microsoft truly needs to simplify and unify its fragmented branding and when I wrote my last blog, I felt that bringing Nokia in-house would provide them with the hardware patents, structure and manpower they needed to really get a good grip on their first party hardware. Once Microsoft gets a grip on their hardware and operating system, it should be easy to simplify the software branding and bring everything under control.

So, in short, I truly believe that acquiring Nokia was the right move for Microsoft.

Now as we know the announcement to buy up Nokia came on the heels of another announcement – Ballmer is on his way out, and Microsoft is left with the challenge of finding a new CEO in the wake of what is already a large shake-up in the form of the acquisition. A lot of investors are concerned with this ordeal as a whole– why? Well, most CEO’s don’t want to take a company over that already has the next two years planned out and stockholders are therefore concerned about whom may be currently under consideration by the board. Many CEO’s want to change things – after all, that’s what corporate executives do best, right? Why else would every operating system ever look completely different from its previous iteration? Ballmer has already done all of the hard work, like acquire Nokia and reorganize the company, removing the former stack ranking system that is cited as a primary cause for development fragmentation in the company.

Ahem, let me get back on track. Here’s the point of this blog: I don’t think the next two years are as cut and dry as people are making it. My point in mapping out everything I did above is to illustrate one fact: The Nokia acquisition was a move to strengthen only one part of their business: first party consumer hardware. Right now Microsoft is currently trying very hard to make a name for itself in the consumer market again (primarily by taking on an Apple-like model and producing all of their hardware in-house) and we have all been focusing on that as analysts, but I feel Microsoft’s strategy is much deeper than that and if we all take a step back for a second, this is quite clear. Looking at the broader strategy of Microsoft may also reveal that the job of the upcoming CEO may not be as pre-planned as we are leading ourselves to believe.

Back in the day before Apple really began to pose some competition, Microsoft made a name for itself in the consumer market in a way that was different from other companies: they cornered the consumer market by first being the number one business system. Microsoft was able to overshadow Apple in the business world for a few simple reasons: Microsoft products were (and still are) less expensive, easier to maintain, and more versatile than the products of other competing companies. Building on the foundation of these basic principles, Microsoft plowed ahead in the business market and then moved into the consumer market as almost a secondary business.

The question here is this: despite the overwhelming presence in business why did people buy Microsoft products for their homes?

The answer is actually more simple than you think: No one wants to learn two systems.

If a person uses a certain system at work (in this case, Windows), they want to come home and use the same thing, because people simply don’t like to do more work, and incompatibilities between the two systems and the usage differences end up causing a major inconsistency when you’re trying to easily sync your information across device and work efficiently. All in all, what this means is that although Mac devices might be better for home use, learning two different systems and having to make continuous conversions to transfer data is just something that people don’t want to do. Switching back and forth between a PC and a Mac is like going back and forth between driving a Honda and a plane, and I truly believe that Microsoft recognized this when initially breaking into the consumer market.

In short, Microsoft has always known that a major key to dominating the consumer market is to be the overwhelming presence in the business market.

…Okay, so how does this all tie in to the title of the blog?

Microsoft has been able to make leaps and bounds in its consumer electronics and software over the past few years, but it’s hurting. We all know that the Microsoft systems haven’t lived up to analyst expectations  - so what is Microsoft to do?

Buy Blackberry.

Acquiring Blackberry could seriously change the game for Microsoft. Blackberry is known for two things: business-friendliness and security. If Microsoft were to get it’s hands on the patents that Blackberry holds and implemented the security features available on those devices into existing windows phones, matched with the physical integrity/build quality of Nokia devices and perhaps a well-timed release of Windows Phone Nine, well, we could suddenly have one very, very serious mobile contender.

A "WinKiaBerry" could function with the integration of a Microsoft product (for active directory and email, vpn, etc.) the security of a blackberry device, the software of Microsoft (including office) and the strong, long-lasting quality of a Nokia device. Something like that would dominate the business and IT marketplace and re-affirm Microsoft’s position in the business market, thereby keeping them in the game for the consumer market, and buying them time to stabilize their new “first party” approach.

In my humble opinion, Microsoft purchasing Blackberry would be a smart move, and if we see something like this happen then the next CEO would have a lot of changes on his plate. This could ultimately quell investor worries and perhaps even move the stocks up quite a bit – besides, Blackberry is still hurting pretty badly, especially as the new Blackberry 10 system’s “newness” luster begins to fade and the stocks continue to fall.

So in the end, I see Microsoft running with this Nokia deal in their consumer market while working on an acquisition deal with Blackberry and ultimately setting themselves up to make a strong run at the mobile IT market – a market still in churns as BYOD reigns in the wake of a good successor to Blackberry.

An opportunity like that is almost too good to pass up.

Validation, To a Degree

Posted by Tuesday, September 3, 2013 , , , , , , , , ,


I have always been on and off with my blogging. Anyone who has followed me for any period of time knows this.

However, I think I just found my spark again. Why? Well, let me tell you.

Recently, I wrote a post called "Microsoft Should buy Nokia. No, Really" outlining why I believed it was truly a wise business decision for Microsoft to break its partnership with Nokia and simply acquire them. sure enough, six months later, it happens. Then, I wrote another interesting post regarding some older tech that I believed should be returned to smartphones. Six months later, the HTC One features one of the things  that I had humbly hoped would return.

I wrote a total of two really in-depth posts, expecting little return on these, and I nailed a 2-0. I impressed myself a little, so I'm taking this opportunity to briefly pat myself on the back.

I've been in the technology field for a while now despite my age; however, it hasn't been very long that I've been writing about it. When I came out with those first few posts, I was apprehensive-at-best about their validity, and whether or not I was just spewing ignorant pseudo-knowledge out of my mouth. But it appears to me that I do have a level of understanding for this world, and that little bit of a push was just what I needed to get back on my saddle and really begin to write.

The long and short of all this? Expect to see more from me. I will be jumping on the tech-blogging bandwagon again and pick up the pace to see how this goes. I hope you all will be there with me for the ride.

See you on the next post.

Image source found here

Technology That Should Return To Smartphones

Posted by Wednesday, April 24, 2013 , ,

I don't know about everyone else, but there have been times where I have found myself missing some certain functionality in smartphones.

Right, sure What else is new?

Well what I'm talking about is not just any functionality, but functionality that used to be in old smartphones, or even PDA's that was once extremely useful to me, and is now no longer available. It seems like as smartphones move forward into the future, certain things get left behind (that are still widely used technologies) because the smartphone market believes they are "antiquated". In the end, though, the consumer knows better.

Infrared: Also known as IR, this technology was in PDAs, but never really translated over to smartphones thanks to the advent of Bluetooth. However, IR can be used in several other ways besides just pairing devices, such as controlling your television, your ceiling fan, or anything that uses a remote control. I remember using my HP 111 PDA in combination with Nevo controller software to run virtually everything in my household, right from my PDA. Pretty cool, right? This is a feat that hards to accomplish with smartphones, even today, and using old technology I was able to do it in just a few minutes.

The use of Serial ports and expandable HDD slots: My old Compaq 110 PDA had an IDE-like port on it (which attached to the serial port on the bottom, and sat on the back like a kind of case) that would allow me to use my windows mobile-enabled device to browse through hard drives on the fly without needing a laptop. For any tech, this would be an extremely useful tool that I wish I could find a system for on my current Windows Phone. For someone working on computers all the time, this technology used to be indispensable. However, the advent of the SD card killed this technology.

Windows Mobile 5: I know, I know. I might get reamed out for adding this here, but there was one thing great about windows mobile: It's file system was accessible and compatible with a Windows PC. I loved being able to use my PDA as a flash drive with a readout. I never had a moment of "did I save that to my flash drive?" because I could pull it up on my PDA and check, then connect my USB cable to my PC and upload it again later, just like a flash drive. Pretty Nifty, right? Not to mention that I could download and install my own custom java applets, which can be really, really useful. Sadly, though, the virus was the killer of this technology, and the amount of times you reformat your device due to an unauthorized java applet was very high; however, the trick there was to live and learn - and back up a lot. Which I didn't mind after weighing the benefits.

Ethernet Ports: Yes, it's true. Older PDA systems actually had Ethernet ports on them. I just want one to wire my smartphone into a system. The troubleshooting possibilities are endless.

So why am I mentioning all this? Well, I've been thinking this over and I have been getting more and more tired of carrying my laptop around to troubleshoot computers every time I need to work on a network. Wouldn't it be convenient for us professionals to have a company produce a new smartphone that has the connectivity features that would be useful to us to allow us to use our mobile device for troubleshooting?

It may be just a pipedream, but I know I would buy one.

Don't Buy Into Wireless Ac For Your Home Just Yet

Posted by Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Most people have wireless in their home these days. Those people who use their computer frequently know that wireless can be slow (and is in fact much slower than a wired connection); these people usually end up "wiring in" their most-used electronics and leave the wireless for their mobile devices, such as their tablets.

However, in the past few months a new system, "wireless Ac" has been developed that can supposedly hit speeds "over the air" that are as fast as wired internet.

That sounds really cool, until you factor in a couple of major problems.

Like any other device that has just been released, if you buy in early, you'll be paying a premium price for the new technology. Currently, on the east coast I have been seeing wireless Ac routers running for about $115. Which doesn't seem too bad until you realize that the router won' even work.

Wait, what?

That's right - you see, a wireless system has two parts, the router and the receiver. The receiver has to be built using the same technology as the router (i.e. wireless n router needs a wireless n receiver) and the fact is that virtually none of the mobile electronics on the market today are using the wireless Ac technology.

So, what happens? Well, most new wireless Ac adapters are built with wireless N backwards compatibility. That means that your electronics will pick up the signal, but it likely won't be any faster than your old router, meaning you just paid a pretty hefty sum of money for the same thing you had before. The only way to get wireless Ac speeds right now is to pick up a USB adapter that will set you back roughly another $100, and since most mobile devices don't support these kind of adapters, this is really only useful for a desktop or laptop PC.

In my opinion there isn't enough literature out there on this, so I figured I'd throw a blog up on it. Final verdict: hold off on wireless Ac until mobile devices start coming out that have the hardware to pick it up. That is when this new technology will really begin to become useful. Until then, beware of buying a wireless Ac router, and getting tricked into thinking it's working when you're only getting wireless N service.

Also, remember: wiring in is always faster and more reliable. Have a computer at the other end of the house? Go with a powerline kit.

Microsoft Should Buy Nokia (No, Really)

Posted by ,


How's that for a title?

Microsoft has, for a long time now, been trailing Apple. This is nothing new, but after hearing it a lot, you get to wondering why. After all, Mac systems are terrible business machines, they have loads of compatibility issues and are seriously overpriced. So what's going on here?

The answer is simple: on an Apple product, the entire unit - hardware and software - is tailored by Apple to be as appealing as possible.

Microsoft has been (up until very recently) a software-only company, producing nothing more than their operating system (Windows) and some software to throw onto it. That model has worked fine for them up until the last few years as the tablet market has really taken off.

Why the tablet market? Answer: Apple thought ahead.

In the process of creating the iPad, Apple patented things. Then, Apple patented more things, and finally ended by patenting more things. As a result, very few other companies have been able to produce a tablet as iconic as the iPad, simply because every time one does emerge, it is stepping on the toes of an Apple patent somehow (Galaxy Tab, anyone?). When the iPad was released, it was a surprise to everyone. There weren't many companies that saw it coming, and then everyone started playing catch up; it was virtually the iPhone all over again. So, the iPad has enjoyed it's glory days for a while now, sitting on top of its patents and eating up market share.

Meanwhile, there have been dozens of other companies doing their best to produce a reasonable competitor, and none have emerged. This was partially the fault of Microsoft, who didn't believe in tablet computing until Apple got it to work correctly (darn them!). Microsoft, under the impression that the iPad would flop, took a gamble and didn't panic.

The result of that Gamble was Windows 8, which is already being compared to Windows Vista - slipshod, buggy and unintuitive.

However, there is hope.

Microsoft finally got sick of the 3rd party problems, and made it's own tablet. The Surface.
Have you tried it? It's pretty cool, and the keyboard mechanism is also fantastic; it's really what the Asus Transformer has been trying to do all along, just done right.

Unfortunately though, a lot of Microsoft's 3rd party companies aren't exactly thrilled that Microsoft is making a competitor, but there isn't much they can do; after all, their only other option I Android, and Google has the Nexus so it's the same all the way around.

However, Microsoft has an opening here.

With the downfall of RIM, and Nokia moving into their market share, Windows Phone 8 is expected to grip 10% of the market by the end of this year. Seeing as it's only a few years old, that's really, really impressive. However, Microsoft still has very little control over the hardware, and despite Nokia's reputation for being indestructible, I have a firm belief that Microsoft will have a hard time really breaking into the market until they create a 1st party phone. However, this is unlikely. Nokia an Microsoft have an agreement, and I have a gut feeling that agreement includes Microsoft and Nokia not competing with each other (notice that there isn't a Nokia Tablet in the works?).

So what are two struggling companies to do?

Merge.

A Nokia/Microsoft Merger would be an ideal solution. Microsoft would obtain the Nokia patents, and be able to implement them into the next version of the surface, and rebrand the Lumia to a Surface Phone (or something like that) and finally go completely first party. Granted, this would shut out companies like HTC and Samsung, but Samsung has already announced that it plans to develop its own OS soon, and HTC is heavily leaning on Android, so I don't consider those to be large losses.

In the end, a first party tablet and phone, mixed with the 3rd part computer ecosystem would be a great compromise for Microsoft and would settle them right back into their own niche.

What do you think?


Note: This is an opinion article and in no way reflects fact or rumor. This is strictly written hypothetically.

Image source found here

Is Tumblr Starting to Get Serious?

Posted by

We all have our social media preferences. Some of use Facebook, others Twitter. Still others venture out further, and touch networks like Pinterest. In this age, social networking is really no longer restricted to one outlet; the teen years of the new millennium have ushered in the age of multiple-outlet networking. As time goes on, the competition in the social industry becomes stiffer and Facebook is no longer the de-facto outlet to post your thoughts. In the wake of this, some social networks have thrived, while others have either fallen behind (MySpace, anyone?) or become stagnant. Tumblr is one such network, and has had a hard time in the market due to the advancing competition. So, as a company trying to survive, what are they to do?

Tumblr has always had a hard time turning a big profit, and so naturally the first thing that comes to mind when trying to save them is "how do we make more money?" Tumblr's answer: take their ads and go mobile.

Theoretically, a mobile ad campaign is a great concept, seeing as this is a totally untapped resource for Tumblr. On top of that, they have attracted big names such as Warner Bros. and this is encouraging for them. However, I think Tumblr might be getting a bit ahead of itself with this mobile ad campaign.

Wait, Why? You just said this was a good idea!

Simple: Tumblr is currently shrouded in obscurity when it comes to its use, and most new Tumblr users are finding it hard to adapt because of this. Let me explain.

You see, Tumblr is supposed to be a blogging platform, and technically it is; you can post things to your page, and this becomes your "blog". However, Tumblr is designed so that your blog is naturally hard to find. Therefore, it does not attract serious bloggers, but rather a younger crowd of people who are looking to generate something more like an online diary, only visible to a select few people. This means that the heart of Tumblr is not actually social, but is really closer to what you would expect to see in a high school lunchroom: a gathering area for cliques. We know this bad, because Facebook has tried to defeat this by increasing its methods of new friend discovery several times in its life. The problem with this form of social networking is that few people often venture out to find new connections, thus limiting the full use of the site and limiting content distribution, which is a turn off for marketers.

I like the idea that Tumblr is finally getting serious about becoming a more "real" social network, and turning a profit, but I feel as though the platform really needs to go through some refining before they can truly become a competitor in the social network industry. Tumblr needs to make a decision: are they a blogging platform, or a diary platform? In my opinion, once this is clarified, then their user base can expand based on a clear definition of service, and prove to potential advertising investors that their money will be worth it.

After al, Tumblr does get its user to spend more time on it on average than Facebook. There is some real potential there for advertisers. Tumblr just has to make the advertisers see that first.