Disqus - Latest Comments for mattattakk

Re: 4 reasons why The Watch won’t be Apple’s next big hit

Matthew Buckland — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:18:52 -0000

@Rand Careaga - will happily eat my words if I am wrong, have no problem with that. Have got some predictions right, and some wrong. I think what matters when predicting anything is that there is a strong argument and critical thinking that accompanies the claim. You can see, in the above article, I do attempt to provide some of that. I must point out that I do find a lack of counter reasoning from critics of the article. ie please disagree with me, but, if I am going to take any cognisance of what you say, please provide an argument too. Thanks for your comment :-)

Re: Critics of Native Advertising miss the point: here is why

Matthew Buckland — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 09:00:03 -0000

We meet again :-) I think the advertising context (such as medium and type of content) is important. For example we may perceive product placement in a movie as innocuous, as this is entertainment. (But it needs to be subtle so it's not irritating), and therefore it can be "invisible". In a documentary or news context, you'd need to be stricter about transparency and labelling advertising as advertising... here, invisibility can be perceived as deception for the reasons spelt out above.

I agree with you on Apple... but to some extent the example is a misnomer. Apple did not need to advertise initially due to the incredible hype. This is the reward the early innovator and those that are first-to-market reap. Now Apple finds itself in an increasingly competitive environment. As its products gets commoditised, like old IBM '80's mainframes, the company will need to advertise to stand out from its competitors. If I am not mistaken, they are a very big TV advertiser for example.

Re: Print actually trumps digital in the attention economy: here’s how

Matthew Buckland — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:32:12 -0000

Just seen your comment this morning :-) There is no humour whatsoever in this piece. It's deadly serious. To Respond:

You Say: The core of your argument appears to be: print is quaint and beautiful, like a fine cognac. Digital is more like J&B or Bells. Yes, it'll win the numbers game but those with refined and sartorial tastes will still want to sit back on their Eames chair, drop a needle on their vinyl, smoke their cigar (even though they KNOW it causes cancer) and read their magazine or their newspaper. Because they can. Because a man of refined tastes just does that kind of thing.

I Say: I'm analysing consumption habits, and I am saying people still read print magazines and prefer them in some instances. I'm saying that digital had eaten into this market, but won't finish it off. Compare it to the invention of the electric heater. The common sense view was that this would replace fireplaces (they are so dirty, smelly, take some time to set up etc etc), but yet people prefer the experience of a fireplace, compared to a heater and use both side by side at different times. Not everyone gravitates to the most efficient medium. People prefer experiences. Print is that fireplace. Digital is an electric heater.

You Say: I don't want to say this is utter drivel because I'm sure this captures a certain portion of the market quite well. But this is not a business. It's to take print from a mass medium to the pursuit of hobbyists and snobs. And that is a market for some advertisers but not those who rely on print as they do today.

I Say: Not sure about hobbyists, but snobs possibly. Advertisers love well-heeled niches of consumers with disposable income. The airport, those that can afford to fly, is full of advertising last time I checked. But this is not my argument. I'm not saying print is valuable because it will create a well-heeled niche -- I am saying its valuable because it is able to attract our attention because a print newspaper or print magazine is a "dedicated device" (to that media it carries) that exists physically in the same space as we exist -- and that this is a distinct advantage over digital media and tools that tends not to. Exactly zero digital devices are dedicated to one media product. They are dedicated to an endless array of digital media and tools -- and that is steep competition for our limited attention.

You Say: Pitting digital and print against one another in this way is like comparing the theory of evolution to creationism; or homeopathy to scientific medicine. By drawing the dilemma you are conferring an equal status on two things which are not even of the same kind, never mind realistic competitors. Print may indeed appeal to the connoisseur - but that won't save it from certain destruction, and very soon.

I Say: They are comparable. Many media companies carry the same content, albeit formatted differently and enhanced, on both digital devices and in print. The business model is roughly the same too (possibly a problem -- but that is another debate), therefore a comparison is apt. I consume media in both digital and print format -- and I ask myself why, how etc. I don't say at all that digital and print have equal status, and in fact clearly say in my article mention that I feel digital is far bigger, better for a variety of reasons. What I do say though is don't write off print. It is a serious player now, and will be for some time because it can effectively grab our attention.

Thanks for the debate.

Re: Apple TV review: for those with money to burn

Matthew Buckland — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:23:57 -0000

so I agree with you up until a point. I stream wirelessly... and I should have raised this in the article (which I didn't). The problem with where we are on this: it is never 100% perfect, especially for HD movies. But I still would want the flexibility of a single centralised media centre that has everything that can receive a hard drive and stream to the rest of my devices...

Re: Apple TV review: for those with money to burn

Matthew Buckland — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:20:38 -0000

well, I agree with you on email, but not on web browsing (and many other computing functions). I think browsing can be a "lean back" activity, and it is perfect for TV. TV's are already computing devices, so I am not so sure you can really argue against a very powerful and already-prevalent trend that companies are investing billions into.

Re: Apple TV review: for those with money to burn

Matthew Buckland — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:17:59 -0000

Ah, but you have to use another device to get that functionality out of the Apple TV, which I think is a dependency and a weakness. Why should I need a further device to get browsing functionality, when the media centre attached to my TV should be able to do it?

By the way with XBMC or the like you can mirror your iPad pretty easily. It doesn't have to be an Apple TV

Re: Apple TV review: for those with money to burn

Matthew Buckland — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:15:13 -0000

This article is about what I think Apple TV should be relative to its competition, and how I think it fails as a media centre.

Re: iPad mini review: why Apple thinks you are an idiot

Matthew Buckland — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:56:33 -0000

...I think Apple has excelled at getting you to part with your hard earned cash and buy products that quickly become obsolete. As much as I like the iPad mini, gonna wait for the superior product to come out... not this "experiment"

Re: iPad mini review: why Apple thinks you are an idiot

Matthew Buckland — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:09:02 -0000

Thanks for your comment -- I'm not sure there is a rule that says Apple needs to follow a path like it did with the iPad and iPhone, where screens are first low res, and then retina later. What I am saying is that Retina is now the bar, so I think it's backwards to launch a device that is obviously below the bar and looks inferior. Further, I am saying that against Apple's own high standards, this is a failure. Apple's high stock price, as you quite correctly pointed out, is based on this quest for high quality and standards -- and that is what I am judging the company on in this review.

With regards to the Jobs statement. I probably didn't qualify it as well as I should have: Job's was a detail and control freak... I just can't seeing this pass by him. And yes we don't really know -- and its clearly a theory. A theory is based on empirical evidence and an argument. It's ok to theorise and it is not pointless even though we "don't know what Jobs would have done". That is in fact what strategy is all about -- predicting outcomes. I think my argument is plausible, and I await your plausible counter-argument!

Re: iPad mini review: why Apple thinks you are an idiot

Matthew Buckland — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:53:10 -0000

@David. The reasons for the iPad mini are pretty obvious: 1) they needed to keep the device thin and light with max battery life, which Retina chews up; 2) the smaller screen meant the non-retina display looks fractionally less appalling than it does on an iPad 2 or less; 3) Possibly, and we don't know this, the mini was manufactured further back than we think it was, meaning Apple had already invested in the old displays... it's unlikely, but a possibility

...so these are the reasons. But the reason I didn't explore them in the article is that they are irrelevant. They are excuses. We expect better of Apple, to be on the cutting edge. That is why it has a stock price and a reputation like it does. Of course we could lower our expectations and judge Apple just like any other company... then an iPad Mini with an inferior display will be ok... but that would be silly, wouldn't it?

Re: The great internet radio swindle

Matthew Buckland — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:54:36 -0000

I agree that advertising people tend to see everything through their own lenses (and it gets irritating), but in this instance this story is all about advertising, because these internet radio stations are "selling" their audience to advertisers. This is the crux of the matter. I agree, ND handled the situation badly, but as explained above, analytics is more complicated than many initially thought, and I'm not sure they realised the extent of it (being an ISP, not Nielsen, Google or Effective Measure).

Re: The great internet radio swindle

Matthew Buckland — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:49:02 -0000

Hi OnlineGuy. I think I explained above why I think Netdynamix would not have had a strong understanding of the stats requirement (thinking that what it had was sufficient) -- and that it had strayed into a discipline that was more complicated than it had initially thought (often happens with internet which converges disciplines). I don't think this article casts ND in a positive light either.

Re: The great internet radio swindle

Matthew Buckland — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:39:17 -0000

Hi Sean

Do you seriously think that in an article all about stats and importance of trust I would "lie" about the stats of this site?

The stats cited in my article were these from Google Analytics (May month 2012) which I had referenced in the article -- and which I've uploaded below for your benefit. In the article I gave an understated view of the stats (they are actually higher).

http://memeburn.com/wp-cont...

Kind regards
Matthew Buckland

Re: The great internet radio swindle

Matthew Buckland — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:23:46 -0000

hi anonymous -- have responded to a similar comment like this below -- regards Matthew Buckland

Re: Facebook fundamentals: Why its share collapse simply does not matter

Matthew Buckland — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 04:19:02 -0000

...sorry you feel that way. We take what we do very seriously. It's obviously difficult to respond to a broad statement like that. Would you like to point out any particular argument in this article or another story that you feel is amateurish or bullshit and we can respond?

Re: Five reasons why QR codes are — mostly — a crock

Matthew Buckland — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 04:27:09 -0000

@Gezaldo -- yeah and we have discovered for ourselves what a crock it is :-)

Re: Samsung Omnia 7: It’s not about the phone

Matthew Buckland — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 03:59:56 -0000

@sillyi -- the article was cut off prematurely by mistake. have a read now

Re: Mandela ‘death’ hoax exposes weakness of Twitter as news platform

Matthew Buckland — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 07:32:12 -0000

My feeling is this has little to do with Twitter as a platform and everything to do with its use. Twitter is a platform with good, bad, useful, and useless information. It can be a good news platform, and a bad news platform at times, and both at the same time. The point is: How do people use that information?

Journalists should know about checking sources and verifying information, and most get it right. For non-journalists -- it's a skill that is still being understood and learnt and will become part of online culture in the future.

Re: Now Groupon faces legal wrangle over groupon.co.za domain

Matthew Buckland — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 03:32:35 -0000

Hi tom -- let's not be naive, shall we? And I tell you what... if they give up the domain for nothing and hand it over -- Memeburn will write about that too.

Re: 5 reasons why the iPad is a fat waste of money

Matthew Buckland — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 03:46:43 -0000

the "baiting" comments never cease to amaze me. I write for no reason other than to express what I believe. I own an iPad, I'm a fan of Apple products, but I was disappointed in the iPad and I know it could be better. I've spent three months using it and have come to these conclusions.

Like many iPad 1.0 owners, I'm going to feel like a tool when they release the new one.

Oh well... the life of an early adopter. We're such suckers.

Re: Evly.com first look: Will this new crowdsourcing social network work?

Matthew Buckland — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:44:41 -0000

...not sure i understand the acerbic criticism in these comments. Innovation is a difficult game -- no-one knows whether it will work or exactly where you are going. You have more failures than successes. But you guarantee success because you keep creating, you keep evolving, you never give up.

Fair criticism is one thing -- but the nasty stuff? Am I naive or is this a world where we want other's to fail and we don't support entrepreneurial spirit? Is this the kind of entrepreneurial environment we're creating? The projections are a bit wild, but these guys should be celebrated for getting off their behinds and starting something. It's never perfect at the start, but if they keep driving and evolving they may get there.

Re: The Memeburn iPhone 4 review: Please just go get it

Matthew Buckland — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:53:00 -0000

they're good, but not as good. get an iphone. take the hit.

Re: The Memeburn iPhone 4 review: Please just go get it

Matthew Buckland — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 05:38:11 -0000

LOL -- it looks so cool, I'll forgive it for the fact that it can't phone properly :-)

Re: The Memeburn iPhone 4 review: Please just go get it

Matthew Buckland — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 03:34:50 -0000

yes, please don't take my comment literally!

Re: And the iPad goes to …

Matthew Buckland — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 06:03:06 -0000

@rich -- disagree with you. I think just retweeting the same thing over and over again is spam. If you're asking people to come up with a creative, unique phrase -- I don't think that's spammy, but adds value. I'm sure the winner of the iPad is quite happy.