<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for jonathansalembaskin</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/jonathansalembaskin/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/jonathansalembaskin/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:39:11 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: DoJ Files Motion to Compel Apple to Cooperate in San Bernardino Case</title><link>http://www.wired.com/2016/02/doj-files-motion-to-compel-apple-to-cooperate-in-san-bernardino-case/#comment-2524889590</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm suggesting no theory, but rather stating fact. Apple has elected to make some grand statement about privacy, despite the fact that its device(s) are robust engines for making content public. Keep in mind that anything transmitted to or from the killer's smartphone was already obtained by the government, thankfully, and it was always scrutinized and exploited to turn a profit at any number of businesses.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:39:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: DoJ Files Motion to Compel Apple to Cooperate in San Bernardino Case</title><link>http://www.wired.com/2016/02/doj-files-motion-to-compel-apple-to-cooperate-in-san-bernardino-case/#comment-2524886614</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Good point. A citizen could choose to store personal photos in a safe instead of a shoebox, but it would still be searchable with a court-issued warrant. The government, unlike the commercial entities that are exploiting and monetizing our privacy, only exerts the authority that we give it. To assert there's some protection above-and-beyond our social contract is brilliant PR strategy, nothing more.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:35:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: DoJ Files Motion to Compel Apple to Cooperate in San Bernardino Case</title><link>http://www.wired.com/2016/02/doj-files-motion-to-compel-apple-to-cooperate-in-san-bernardino-case/#comment-2524169925</link><description>&lt;p&gt;To argue that a new tech can somehow make functions that were once desk-bound (and entirely searchable with a warrant) into some untouchably private possession is not consistent with our legal or cultural history. I wrote about it: &lt;a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/apples-iphone-terrorism-surcharge-jonathan-salem-baskin?trk=mp-reader-card" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/apples-iphone-terrorism-surcharge-jonathan-salem-baskin?trk=mp-reader-card"&gt;https://www.linkedin.com/pu...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:22:50 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: DoJ files motion to compel Apple to comply with FBI order</title><link>http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/19/doj-files-motion-to-compel-apple-to-comply-with-fbi-order.html#comment-2524166676</link><description>&lt;p&gt;To argue that a new tech can somehow imbue functions that were once desk-bound with a new, intrinsic privacy protection is not consistent with our legal or cultural history. I wrote about it: &lt;a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/apples-iphone-terrorism-surcharge-jonathan-salem-baskin?trk=mp-reader-card" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/apples-iphone-terrorism-surcharge-jonathan-salem-baskin?trk=mp-reader-card"&gt;https://www.linkedin.com/pu...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:20:18 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Ford Joins the Automotive Crowd in Silicon Valley with a New Research Center</title><link>http://www.wired.com/2015/01/ford-silicon-valley-research-center/#comment-1814795412</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think you're right in noting that Ford is "late to the show" for innovation theater, but the bigger question is how does opening a storefront for innovating by innovation experts connect to the real work of innovating that has been going on at Ford for years (and quite successfully)? &lt;a href="http://j.mp/1xP4hEV" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://j.mp/1xP4hEV"&gt;http://j.mp/1xP4hEV&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2015 11:13:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Ford Opens Silicon Valley Research Center</title><link>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2475611,00.asp#comment-1814658335</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It's a bit of a contraction that Ford wants to tap into a global, seamless and utterly virtual community of digital development via the four walls of a local, geophysical office in one particular location, isn't it? Innovation happens everywhere (and everyone is/can be involved). It might make sense to tap into that ongoing experience the way Epson did via hardware hackers in Indonesia. It's a lot less sexy as a press release, but it made much more of a difference. I wrote about it recently: &lt;a href="http://j.mp/1yGkTTh" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://j.mp/1yGkTTh"&gt;http://j.mp/1yGkTTh&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:23:30 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Innovation Is Best Antidote to Gloom Ahead at Davos, Breyer Says</title><link>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-15/innovation-is-best-antidote-to-gloom-ahead-at-davos-breyer-says.html#comment-1796232324</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm similarly hopeful, actually, but not because of startup venturing as much as the creativity I'm finding at large enterprises. Big businesses have resources, people, customers, and the wherewithal to contribute jobs/taxes to communities; the challenge has always been to get to them think and act entrepreneurially. It's happening, though in fits and starts. I documented one example just today in Forbes: &lt;a href="http://j.mp/1ucmnz2" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://j.mp/1ucmnz2"&gt;http://j.mp/1ucmnz2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:03:59 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Today&amp;#8217;s iPhone Anniversary Reminds Us What Real Innovation Looks Like</title><link>http://www.wired.com/2015/01/todays-iphone-anniversary-reminds-us-real-innovation-looks-like/#comment-1784450304</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I couldn't agree more, both about Apple specifically (people tend to discount its innovation by burying it in the context of all of human history, which is purposeful) and innovation in general (CES2015 evidenced a lot of improvements and variation, but few innovative breakthroughs). If anything, what was innovative about CES this year was how many different ways brands tried to claim "innovation." I wrote about it: &lt;a href="http://j.mp/14f62CN" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://j.mp/14f62CN"&gt;http://j.mp/14f62CN&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2015 10:13:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: McDonald&amp;#039;s sales fell more than expected in November</title><link>http://www.cnbc.com/id/102213990#comment-1732037755</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This comes as no surprise, though I'm a bit taken aback that it's still scrambling to emulate its pricier competitors. I wrote about the innovation challenge/opportunity last month, and it has nothing to do with technology or acting more like Chipotle: &lt;a href="http://j.mp/1t6Mb2E" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://j.mp/1t6Mb2E"&gt;http://j.mp/1t6Mb2E&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2014 14:50:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Facebook May Soon Launch an Anonymity App, But Is It Already Too Late?</title><link>http://www.wired.com?p=1589181&amp;preview_id=1589181#comment-1624163452</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It's a distraction. The real privacy issue isn't individuals having the capacity to hide content from one another, but rather the data that Facebook acquires and then repurposes for commercial gain.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:36:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Mobile Sales - Mobile sales soar, apps and responsive design surge - Internet Retailer</title><link>http://www.internetretailer.com/2014/08/18/mobile-sales-soar-apps-and-responsive-design-surge#comment-1553563439</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Really interesting stuff, but the data can be interpreted in many different ways. For instance, much of the "mobile" sales may simply be actualized within the home...just not on a desktop or laptop, so the trend is less about purchasing on the run, per se, as it suggests the rewiring of home Internet access. If you strip out purchases made on tablets, and float the hypothesis that those devices were more likely to be used at home as an alternative to wired devices, then sales activity on smartphones is 1) huge, and 2) hugely directionally relevant.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also, the mention of apps in the headline is a bit confusing, insomuch that the data you cite doesn't directly reference app sales or usage of, say, free vs. paid apps. I just wrote about the consumer-facing app market at Forbes, FYI: &lt;a href="http://j.mp/VETHUt" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://j.mp/VETHUt"&gt;http://j.mp/VETHUt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:34:09 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why Big Data Isn’t Enough: Tomorrow’s Technology Will Be Built Around Workflows</title><link>http://innovationinsights.wired.com/insights/2014/07/big-data-isnt-enough-tomorrows-technology-will-built-around-workflows/#comment-1505399305</link><description>&lt;p&gt;There are many historical perspectives from which to consider the big data management challenge, the least of which is to remember the cross-disciplinary nature of its conception and implementation. I wrote about it recently i regard to how it helped America "win" the Vietnam War: &lt;a href="http://j.mp/Usv7Wc" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://j.mp/Usv7Wc"&gt;http://j.mp/Usv7Wc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:07:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How far are we from real-time big data decision-making?</title><link>http://techpageone.dell.com/business/how-far-are-we-from-real-time-big-data-decision-making/#comment-1505398502</link><description>&lt;p&gt;History has taught us that big data are no different from any other technology solution; namely, that smart business governance must look at is as something far more broad and strategic as simply tech, or that it can yield actionable conclusions devoid of the biases and proclivities of humans. I wrote about one such instance -- how bid data helped America "win" the Vietnam War: &lt;a href="http://j.mp/Usv7Wc" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://j.mp/Usv7Wc"&gt;http://j.mp/Usv7Wc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:06:52 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: RIP, Jay Lake</title><link>http://www.writermag.com/2014/06/02/rip-jay-lake/#comment-1416678754</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Well said.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2014 17:31:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: $35 billion Publicis-Omnicom ad deal unravels</title><link>http://www.cnbc.com/id/101657166#comment-1377433525</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It's fitting that the top execs nixed the deal that would have ultimately benefited them (and their financiers). The failed merger is great news for the employees, their clients, and suggestive of a huge opportunity for the ad industry overall: &lt;a href="http://onforb.es/1m6snIi" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://onforb.es/1m6snIi"&gt;http://onforb.es/1m6snIi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2014 18:31:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Omnicom, Publicis Abandon $35 Billion Global Advertising Merger</title><link>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-09/omnicom-publicis-abandon-35-billion-global-advertising-merger.html#comment-1377432525</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It's great news, especially if you're an employee, a client, or work anywhere in the ad industry. Here's why: &lt;a href="http://onforb.es/1m6snIi" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://onforb.es/1m6snIi"&gt;http://onforb.es/1m6snIi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2014 18:30:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Publicis Says Omnicom Merger Talks Broke Down Because of Inequality</title><link>http://edit.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/publicis-says-omnicom-merger-talks-broke-down-because-inequality-157580#comment-1377431206</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think it's great news for the companies' employees, their clients, and for the ad industry overall: &lt;a href="http://onforb.es/1m6snIi" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://onforb.es/1m6snIi"&gt;http://onforb.es/1m6snIi&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2014 18:29:45 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Dove&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;Beauty Patch&amp;#039; Has 13 Million Views in Less Than a Week</title><link>http://edit.adweek.com/adfreak/doves-beauty-patch-has-13-million-views-less-week-157047#comment-1355776458</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I wonder if Dove chose to focus more on the "real" part of its business, and less on the "beauty" made-up marketing content, the resulting conversations would be more meaningful? &lt;a href="http://onforb.es/1ilrKdS" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://onforb.es/1ilrKdS"&gt;http://onforb.es/1ilrKdS&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:29:47 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Zappos Hilariously Takes Down Kanye West, but CEO Tony Hsieh Insists: &amp;#039;I Admire Him&amp;#039;</title><link>http://edit.adweek.com/adfreak/zappos-hilariously-takes-down-kanye-west-ceo-tony-hsieh-insists-i-admire-him-154045#comment-1137054969</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Humm...bickering with a nutty star is a statement about the brand? I wonder if we're not seeing the slightest indication that content for content's sake isn't the viable marketing strategy we once thought it was? &lt;a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2013/11/23/does-bickering-with-kanye-do-anything-good-for-zappos/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2013/11/23/does-bickering-with-kanye-do-anything-good-for-zappos/"&gt;http://www.forbes.com/sites...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 24 Nov 2013 09:04:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology, Art, And Why The Future Of Branding Is Nonfiction</title><link>http://www.fastcocreate.com/1680472/douglas-rushkoff-on-art-technology-and-non-fiction-branding#comment-488918666</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Douglas is spot on! The idea that brands are narratives of experience vs. stories or overlays is very powerful and keyed to the reality of p2p communities. My co-author Sue Unerman and I wrote an entire book about it, just out, entitled "Tell The Truth," in which we explore brands that have figured out how to deliver the qualities and dimensions of truth into the mediasphere (as Douglas suggests, enabling people to talk ABOUT brands and what they know vs. trying to talk TO them). &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:28:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Question 5, Week 5</title><link>http://tellthetruthbook.com/question-5-week-5/#comment-159910380</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think it is (well, I know it is from my own experience, too), but I wonder if it's sustainable? Do conflicting truths eventually require that they be resolved? Maybe it's that a greater truth emerges that obviates the need to resolution, so using the example of cake and diet soda I might tolerate that conflict until such time that the dinner party next month requires that I fit into my tux, so I must change my behavior.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:03:30 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Question 5, Week 5</title><link>http://tellthetruthbook.com/question-5-week-5/#comment-159910278</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think it is (well, I know it is from my own experience, too), but I wonder if it's sustainable? Do conflicting truths eventually require that they be resolved? Maybe it's that a greater truth emerges that obviates the need to resolution, so using the example of cake and diet soda I might tolerate that conflict until such time that the dinner party next month requires that I fit into my tux, so I must change my behavior.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:03:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Question One, Week One&amp;#8230;</title><link>http://tellthetruthbook.com/mark-zuckerberg-question/#comment-138411643</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I wonder. Is "image" synonymous with "false" or not completely true? The presumption is that we must share everything about ourselves with everyone -- this is "radical transparency" and it's an absolute good -- yet when in all of human existence has this ever been considered a reasonable thing to do, let alone true? We choose to share different aspects of ourselves with different people, for reasons that need to be substantiated only to ourselves. Who is Mark Zuckerberg to tell me that doing so lacks integrity?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:36:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why Your Social Media Initiatives Will Fail In 2011</title><link>http://www.thekmiecs.com/marketing-advertising/why-your-social-media-initiatives-will-fail-in-2011/#comment-116549414</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I suspect the biggest reason why social media campaigns will 'fail' in 2011 will be that they'll likely have been sold based on such convoluted, nonsense ROI claims that nobody will be able to prove their "success."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Social is nothing new. Pretending that it is qualifies as the Big Idea. Maybe in 2011 we'll figure out that the key to effective selling is selling effectively, social or otherwise.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:37:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Beyond the iPad: Get Ready for the Internet of Things</title><link>http://breakingmedia.com/2010/05/get-ready-for-the-internet-of-things/#comment-49971894</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Jonah, great essay! It reminds me of some of the promise for RFID a few years ago, in that the chips would make possible the mapping of the presence of things as inert as sweaters and sticks of gum. Therefore your prognostication might include an Internet of smart Things that keep track of many more dumb things...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonathansalembaskin</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 17:14:28 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>