Along Interstate 20 in Texas, somewhere between Abilene and Eastland, stands a billboard that bears the Texas Tech University logo and reads, "We make Texas better."
The billboard does not mention Texas Tech's academics, or athletics, or grad school acceptance rates, or faculty. Its simple statement focuses on the bottom line: that, ostensibly, this university makes the world a better place.
Does your organization make the world a better place? Or does your organization merely fill the world with stuff? Does your organization enrich lives? Or do you act as if people's lives (customers' lives, employees' lives) exist to enrich your organization? Does your organization exist merely to make a profit? Or worse yet, does it exist merely for the sake of existing?
I would assert that if an organization does not make the world a better place, then it has no reason to exist. If an organization does not bring life, or joy, or love, or friendliness, or peace of mind, or greater wellbeing to the lives of people, then it has no reason to be.
We are all created to give something to the world. To enrich. To bless. Our organizations should do the same, or else we have deeply missed our calling.
Now, as we go about seeking to enrich the world, we had better have the excellent work, excellent products, and excellent service to make that happen. Texas Tech University had better have the stellar academics, the great athletics, the astronomical grad school acceptance rates, and the highly illustrious faculty that are critical to its mission. Texas Tech had better be instilling in its students the healthy worldview, the critical thinking, the character, the desire for excellence, and the drive to innovation that transform them into citizens who can make the world a better place. Organizations cannot approach the goal of enriching the world in the same way that the folks in this commercial approach the goal of ideation:
However, if we go about our business of making products and offering services without ensuring that we actually are making the world a better place, then we have missed the point entirely.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Giving Handles, Selling Blades
(or, How to Make Money by Giving Free Stuff)
I just bought my first iPhone last week. Since then, my continuing odyssey through the wonderful world of the iPhone App Store has inspired some musings on why free apps (and other free products) can be great money-makers for an organization. Absurd, you say? Let me explain with an example.
One application I have downloaded is RunKeeper Free, by FitnessKeeper, Inc. The app uses the iPhone's GPS and a timekeeper to record distance, duration, pace, and speed. RunKeeper Free also provides me with a Google Map of my route, plus allows me to save my run history to the app and/or to the RunKeeper website, where I can also view Calories burned, elevation, and start/end times for each activity in my history. And, of course, because of the iPhone's multitasking abilities, I can also listen to my tunes while RunKeeper tracks my workout.
FitnessKeeper, Inc. also offers a paid version of the application - the RunKeeper Pro. For $9.99, the RunKeeper Pro provides the same features as RunKeeper Free, as well as audio cues, training workouts, iTunes playlist integration, the ability to post geo-tagged photos and status updates, and integration with social networking sites. The RunKeeper Pro also runs without the small, silent, inobtrusive ads contained in the free version - ads which, incidentally, I did not even notice until their absence was highlighted in the description for RunKeeper Pro.
A download button (linked to the iPhone App Store) for the RunKeeper Pro is included on a screen within its free counterpart.
So, if FitnessKeeper, Inc. offers a robust $10 application, why do they also offer a free version? Won't the free version cannibalize the paid version? Would anyone pay $10 for the Pro version when he can get the most valuable features for $0 with the free version?
The answers to the last two questions are "probably not," and "yes," respectively.
iPhone users who would download the free version (me, for example) would probably only download an app like this if it were free. If the only version available were the paid version (or the $10 paid version anyway), such users would probably decide that the app was not worth downloading after all. They would choose another, free, app, or no runner app at all.
Some iPhone users will download the $10 RunKeeper Pro right off the bat, even though they know that a free application with most of the same features is available. These users are probably either hard-core runners (possibly), exercise-motivation-seekers, or gadget aficionados (most likely). To these users, it is worth $10 for audio cues, pre-programmed workouts, playlist integration, photo-sharing, and social networking features unavailable in the free version. Thus, offering the RunKeeper Free does not steal the business of these paying customers.
Still other iPhone users will download the RunKeeper Free, and later decide to upgrade to the $10 RunKeeper Pro. Perhaps they loved the free version so much that they were ready to try the paid version. Perhaps their curiosity got the best of them, and they just had to try out the additional features. Or perhaps they developed into such avid runners that they came to see the RunKeeper Pro as a good buy.
Whatever the reason for the upgrade, the RunKeeper Free paved the way for some prospective paying customers to become actual paying customers. The free version enabled FitnessKeeper to build trusting relationships with potential customers. And it provided opportunities for RunKeeper Free users to show off the app to their running buddies, some of whom might be the types that would purchase the paid version.
And so, one can think of the RunKeeper Free as less of a profit-less product, and more of a marketing tool for the RunKeeper Pro.
It's like the strategy of razor manufacturers. Gillette, I'm told, sends a free razor to young men on their eighteenth birthdays. Those young men like the experience of shaving with a Gillette razor, so they keep coming back to Gillette to buy replacement blades.
Also, free products (or paid ones, for that matter), like the RunKeeper Free and RunKeeper Pro can connect the organization to fans who might also pay money for other items. FitnessKeeper could have among its customers a market for more FitnessKeeper gear, like t-shirts, running shorts, sweatbands, socks, watches, etc.
What products can your organization give away for free? And not just demos or promotional products, but real, useful tools that can benefit consumers and can help you to start building a fan base? Out of that trust-relationship, those fans may become paying customers for your other product offerings. Or, even better, they may spread the word to others like them who become paying customers, too.
I just bought my first iPhone last week. Since then, my continuing odyssey through the wonderful world of the iPhone App Store has inspired some musings on why free apps (and other free products) can be great money-makers for an organization. Absurd, you say? Let me explain with an example.
One application I have downloaded is RunKeeper Free, by FitnessKeeper, Inc. The app uses the iPhone's GPS and a timekeeper to record distance, duration, pace, and speed. RunKeeper Free also provides me with a Google Map of my route, plus allows me to save my run history to the app and/or to the RunKeeper website, where I can also view Calories burned, elevation, and start/end times for each activity in my history. And, of course, because of the iPhone's multitasking abilities, I can also listen to my tunes while RunKeeper tracks my workout.
FitnessKeeper, Inc. also offers a paid version of the application - the RunKeeper Pro. For $9.99, the RunKeeper Pro provides the same features as RunKeeper Free, as well as audio cues, training workouts, iTunes playlist integration, the ability to post geo-tagged photos and status updates, and integration with social networking sites. The RunKeeper Pro also runs without the small, silent, inobtrusive ads contained in the free version - ads which, incidentally, I did not even notice until their absence was highlighted in the description for RunKeeper Pro.
A download button (linked to the iPhone App Store) for the RunKeeper Pro is included on a screen within its free counterpart.
So, if FitnessKeeper, Inc. offers a robust $10 application, why do they also offer a free version? Won't the free version cannibalize the paid version? Would anyone pay $10 for the Pro version when he can get the most valuable features for $0 with the free version?
The answers to the last two questions are "probably not," and "yes," respectively.
iPhone users who would download the free version (me, for example) would probably only download an app like this if it were free. If the only version available were the paid version (or the $10 paid version anyway), such users would probably decide that the app was not worth downloading after all. They would choose another, free, app, or no runner app at all.
Some iPhone users will download the $10 RunKeeper Pro right off the bat, even though they know that a free application with most of the same features is available. These users are probably either hard-core runners (possibly), exercise-motivation-seekers, or gadget aficionados (most likely). To these users, it is worth $10 for audio cues, pre-programmed workouts, playlist integration, photo-sharing, and social networking features unavailable in the free version. Thus, offering the RunKeeper Free does not steal the business of these paying customers.
Still other iPhone users will download the RunKeeper Free, and later decide to upgrade to the $10 RunKeeper Pro. Perhaps they loved the free version so much that they were ready to try the paid version. Perhaps their curiosity got the best of them, and they just had to try out the additional features. Or perhaps they developed into such avid runners that they came to see the RunKeeper Pro as a good buy.
Whatever the reason for the upgrade, the RunKeeper Free paved the way for some prospective paying customers to become actual paying customers. The free version enabled FitnessKeeper to build trusting relationships with potential customers. And it provided opportunities for RunKeeper Free users to show off the app to their running buddies, some of whom might be the types that would purchase the paid version.
And so, one can think of the RunKeeper Free as less of a profit-less product, and more of a marketing tool for the RunKeeper Pro.
It's like the strategy of razor manufacturers. Gillette, I'm told, sends a free razor to young men on their eighteenth birthdays. Those young men like the experience of shaving with a Gillette razor, so they keep coming back to Gillette to buy replacement blades.
Also, free products (or paid ones, for that matter), like the RunKeeper Free and RunKeeper Pro can connect the organization to fans who might also pay money for other items. FitnessKeeper could have among its customers a market for more FitnessKeeper gear, like t-shirts, running shorts, sweatbands, socks, watches, etc.
What products can your organization give away for free? And not just demos or promotional products, but real, useful tools that can benefit consumers and can help you to start building a fan base? Out of that trust-relationship, those fans may become paying customers for your other product offerings. Or, even better, they may spread the word to others like them who become paying customers, too.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Exceptional Customer Service Strikes Again
The story you are about to read is true.
Some of my marketing consulting work recently required me to have some informational booklets professionally printed. I sent the booklet to the printer in two batches - in the first batch, I ordered only one copy, so that I could show it to my client for approval before running the rest of the copies. After I got my client's opinion and made a few changes, I ordered a larger batch of the booklet.
For the first batch, I used a local printing company - let's call it Company A. I had never before worked with Company A, but I had heard of them and was willing to give them a try. Company A was professional, and turned out a great-quality product to me within my four-day deadline. I felt badly that my four-day deadline was a bit short, but I was under a time crunch myself, and was relieved that Company A was able to print my project, with great quality, on time.
Sometime after this first booklet came back from the printer, a friend of mine recommended that I try another printer in town, with whom he had had excellent previous experience. He suggested that I investigate whether this second printer - Company B, let's say - could print my booklet at a lower price than Company A.
I showed my first booklet to Company B, and, sure enough, their price quote per copy was 14% lower than I had paid for the booklet from Company A. Eager to try to save money without sacrificing quality, I placed the order for the second batch of booklets with Company B.
When I placed my order with Company B, my deadline was, unfortunately, even shorter than that for Company A - three business days, rather than four. With Company A, the graphics I sent were able to be printed without any manipulation. With Company B, their designer had to fix a few things for me. Company B then had to show me a proof. I then made one more change. Company B printed another proof. I then gave the okay, and Company B printed five times as many copies as Company A.
My order from Company B was ready for pick-up the very day after I had placed the order.
Company B delivered my project three days earlier, for 14% less per copy, and with more work on the part of the vendor, than Company A.
Guess which vendor will have all of my printing business from now on?
Had the lower price been the only benefit that Company B provided to me, I would have been equally satisfied with both Company A and B. Company A gave me a great product and met my professional expectations; they were satisfactory. Company A was simply a bit more expensive on this project - no hard feelings. On my next print job, I might have gotten bids from both Company A and Company B, and simply selected the less expensive vendor once again.
However, my experience with Company B was so exceptional compared to my completely satisfactory experience with Company A, that it left me with an unequivocal loyalty to one vendor over the other.
Is your organization like Company A? Do you provide a great product? Are you professional? Do you meet your customers' expectations? Do you satisfy your customers?
If so, beware that a Company B doesn't come along and start providing, not only a great product, but an outstanding product. Not only meeting, but exceeding your customers' expectations. Not only being professional, but being servants. Not only satisfying your customers, but delighting your customers.
If your organization currently looks like Company A, I would recommend doing everything in your power to become Company B - quickly.
Some of my marketing consulting work recently required me to have some informational booklets professionally printed. I sent the booklet to the printer in two batches - in the first batch, I ordered only one copy, so that I could show it to my client for approval before running the rest of the copies. After I got my client's opinion and made a few changes, I ordered a larger batch of the booklet.
For the first batch, I used a local printing company - let's call it Company A. I had never before worked with Company A, but I had heard of them and was willing to give them a try. Company A was professional, and turned out a great-quality product to me within my four-day deadline. I felt badly that my four-day deadline was a bit short, but I was under a time crunch myself, and was relieved that Company A was able to print my project, with great quality, on time.
Sometime after this first booklet came back from the printer, a friend of mine recommended that I try another printer in town, with whom he had had excellent previous experience. He suggested that I investigate whether this second printer - Company B, let's say - could print my booklet at a lower price than Company A.
I showed my first booklet to Company B, and, sure enough, their price quote per copy was 14% lower than I had paid for the booklet from Company A. Eager to try to save money without sacrificing quality, I placed the order for the second batch of booklets with Company B.
When I placed my order with Company B, my deadline was, unfortunately, even shorter than that for Company A - three business days, rather than four. With Company A, the graphics I sent were able to be printed without any manipulation. With Company B, their designer had to fix a few things for me. Company B then had to show me a proof. I then made one more change. Company B printed another proof. I then gave the okay, and Company B printed five times as many copies as Company A.
My order from Company B was ready for pick-up the very day after I had placed the order.
Company B delivered my project three days earlier, for 14% less per copy, and with more work on the part of the vendor, than Company A.
Guess which vendor will have all of my printing business from now on?
Had the lower price been the only benefit that Company B provided to me, I would have been equally satisfied with both Company A and B. Company A gave me a great product and met my professional expectations; they were satisfactory. Company A was simply a bit more expensive on this project - no hard feelings. On my next print job, I might have gotten bids from both Company A and Company B, and simply selected the less expensive vendor once again.
However, my experience with Company B was so exceptional compared to my completely satisfactory experience with Company A, that it left me with an unequivocal loyalty to one vendor over the other.
Is your organization like Company A? Do you provide a great product? Are you professional? Do you meet your customers' expectations? Do you satisfy your customers?
If so, beware that a Company B doesn't come along and start providing, not only a great product, but an outstanding product. Not only meeting, but exceeding your customers' expectations. Not only being professional, but being servants. Not only satisfying your customers, but delighting your customers.
If your organization currently looks like Company A, I would recommend doing everything in your power to become Company B - quickly.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Volkswagen and the Theory of Fun
I feel slightly behind the times. Within the past five days, I have received links to this video series from three different people. When I did a Google search for the series, the first results page was full of blog references to the initiative. As much as I dislike following the crowd and talking about the same thing as everyone else, I must say something about this.
It is spectacular.
It is called the "Theory of Fun," and it is a new initiative by Volkswagen to persuade people to act responsibly.
The idea is that adding fun to a specific action will cause people to participate in that action - perhaps even changing their behavior over the long-term. This video shows how Volkswagen induced subway travelers in Stockholm, Sweden to take the stairs rather than the escalator, by turning the staircase into a working piano:
Climbing stairs is not the only thing that Volkwagen has made more fun. To see how Volkswagen put some fun into both recycling and throwing trash into the trash can, visit www.thefuntheory.com.
Volkswagen is also encouraging consumers to generate their own ideas for how to change behavior for the better by making things fun. People can submit their own videos from now through November 15 for the chance of winning 2,500 Euros.
Isn't it a brilliant idea? Changing behavior by making things fun? Of course, over the long-term, people should choose to do the right thing (i.e. exercise, recycle, refuse to litter) simply because it is the right thing to do. But why not use fun to start people on the path of building those good habits? It is like the scene in Mary Poppins in which Mary convinces the children to tidy up the nursery by turning it into a game. "Just a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down," Mary would say.
So why is Volkswagen doing all this? First off, getting masses of people to start taking care of the environment is a wonderful, rewarding, and wise thing to do. A clean planet is good for everyone. Secondly, engaging in social responsibility and creating free fun for people builds goodwill toward the Volkswagen brand. And third, if people start being more environmentally conscious, perhaps they will become more interested in purchasing environmentally responsible cars.
Do you have a cause that fits with your brand, like environmental responsibility fits with VW? If not, get one. Explore the basic need being filled by your products and services. Find out what your people are passionate about. Discover the root principle behind your mission statement. And make that your cause. Your company should not just add more "stuff" to the world; your company should make the world a better place.
Once you have a cause that fits with your brand, see if you can make it fun for people to participate. Walmart could encourage kids to "save money. live better" by giving them free musical piggy banks. Schoolteachers could make studying fun by creating educational games for their students. Hospitals and restaurants could encourage people to wash their hands by installing synchronized, dancing, multi-colored lights over the sinks in the restrooms. Your human resources department could encourage employees to turn in their paperwork by singing every time someone places their papers into the inbox.
Find your cause, and make it fun for people to join in. You'll be helping society, helping your customers, and helping your brand, too.
It is spectacular.
It is called the "Theory of Fun," and it is a new initiative by Volkswagen to persuade people to act responsibly.
The idea is that adding fun to a specific action will cause people to participate in that action - perhaps even changing their behavior over the long-term. This video shows how Volkswagen induced subway travelers in Stockholm, Sweden to take the stairs rather than the escalator, by turning the staircase into a working piano:
Climbing stairs is not the only thing that Volkwagen has made more fun. To see how Volkswagen put some fun into both recycling and throwing trash into the trash can, visit www.thefuntheory.com.
Volkswagen is also encouraging consumers to generate their own ideas for how to change behavior for the better by making things fun. People can submit their own videos from now through November 15 for the chance of winning 2,500 Euros.
Isn't it a brilliant idea? Changing behavior by making things fun? Of course, over the long-term, people should choose to do the right thing (i.e. exercise, recycle, refuse to litter) simply because it is the right thing to do. But why not use fun to start people on the path of building those good habits? It is like the scene in Mary Poppins in which Mary convinces the children to tidy up the nursery by turning it into a game. "Just a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down," Mary would say.
So why is Volkswagen doing all this? First off, getting masses of people to start taking care of the environment is a wonderful, rewarding, and wise thing to do. A clean planet is good for everyone. Secondly, engaging in social responsibility and creating free fun for people builds goodwill toward the Volkswagen brand. And third, if people start being more environmentally conscious, perhaps they will become more interested in purchasing environmentally responsible cars.
Do you have a cause that fits with your brand, like environmental responsibility fits with VW? If not, get one. Explore the basic need being filled by your products and services. Find out what your people are passionate about. Discover the root principle behind your mission statement. And make that your cause. Your company should not just add more "stuff" to the world; your company should make the world a better place.
Once you have a cause that fits with your brand, see if you can make it fun for people to participate. Walmart could encourage kids to "save money. live better" by giving them free musical piggy banks. Schoolteachers could make studying fun by creating educational games for their students. Hospitals and restaurants could encourage people to wash their hands by installing synchronized, dancing, multi-colored lights over the sinks in the restrooms. Your human resources department could encourage employees to turn in their paperwork by singing every time someone places their papers into the inbox.
Find your cause, and make it fun for people to join in. You'll be helping society, helping your customers, and helping your brand, too.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Perspectives from Inside the Organization
To read today's post, see my guest blog post on the Abilene Startup Blog, hosted by my friend @chadhutchins.
- Haley
- Haley
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Go Forth on a Levi's Scavenger Hunt
Yesterday Levi Strauss & Company launched a venue for destiny-seekers to heed the brand's call to "Go Forth."
The venue is the new Levi's scavenger hunt game, Go Forth, which leads players on a search for $100,000 in buried treasure belonging to the late Grayson Ozias IV. Grayson Ozias IV (G.O. Fourth - get it?) was a friend of Nathan Strauss (nephew of Levi Strauss), and disappeared in 1896, after leaving behind a series of wax cylinders upon which are recorded clues that lead to the treasure. Levi's will release these clues over a seven-week period; players visit levis.com/goforth to read the clues, deduce the cities to which they point, and discover the treasure.
While Grayson Ozias IV may be fictitious, the $100,000 treasure is not. The first player to solve the puzzle will win $100,000, and may vote for a U.S. nonprofit to receive $100,000 as well.
With the "Go Forth" game, Levi Strauss & Company and their ad agency Wieden + Kennedy are creating a fun blend of alternate reality and social media. The site, in addition to providing the game clues, also features a comments board and the @GraysonOziasIV Twitter feed. And according to MediaPost's Marketing Daily, Levi's is also promoting the game through its Facebook fan page, Twitter, ESPN Magazine, and online ads.
Bravo for Levi's and their foray into role-playing games. They are providing a free venue for customers (and potential customers) to interact with their brand and with each other, while promoting the spirit of 19th-century American pioneering upon which the company was founded. Creating positive brand experiences and allowing people to build relationships sound like great ways to sell jeans.
The venue is the new Levi's scavenger hunt game, Go Forth, which leads players on a search for $100,000 in buried treasure belonging to the late Grayson Ozias IV. Grayson Ozias IV (G.O. Fourth - get it?) was a friend of Nathan Strauss (nephew of Levi Strauss), and disappeared in 1896, after leaving behind a series of wax cylinders upon which are recorded clues that lead to the treasure. Levi's will release these clues over a seven-week period; players visit levis.com/goforth to read the clues, deduce the cities to which they point, and discover the treasure.
While Grayson Ozias IV may be fictitious, the $100,000 treasure is not. The first player to solve the puzzle will win $100,000, and may vote for a U.S. nonprofit to receive $100,000 as well.
With the "Go Forth" game, Levi Strauss & Company and their ad agency Wieden + Kennedy are creating a fun blend of alternate reality and social media. The site, in addition to providing the game clues, also features a comments board and the @GraysonOziasIV Twitter feed. And according to MediaPost's Marketing Daily, Levi's is also promoting the game through its Facebook fan page, Twitter, ESPN Magazine, and online ads.
Bravo for Levi's and their foray into role-playing games. They are providing a free venue for customers (and potential customers) to interact with their brand and with each other, while promoting the spirit of 19th-century American pioneering upon which the company was founded. Creating positive brand experiences and allowing people to build relationships sound like great ways to sell jeans.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Flash for All Smartphones...Except the iPhone
Users of Blackberry, Google Android, Symbian OS, Palm webOS, and Windows Mobile can expect to have full Flash player capabilities for their phones within the next few months, according to multiple sources, including Adobe.
Today at the Adobe MAX developer's conference in Los Angeles, Adobe introduced Flash Player 10.1, part of Adobe's Open Screen Project, an initiative to "provide a consistent runtime environment across mobile phones, desktops and other consumer electronic devices." Flash Player 10.1 is GPU-accelerated*, so users can view videos in HD, while [hopefully] conserving battery life and CPU** usage. Flash 10.1 will also support the capabilities of each mobile device, including multi-touch, accelerometer, gestures, and screen orientation.
Flash Player 10.1 will be available in beta for Windows Mobile and Palm webOS phones later this year; the beta version will hit Google Android and Symbian OS phones in early 2010.
One smartphone, however, is blatantly absent from this list: the Apple iPhone. Over a year ago, Apple declared that desktop Flash was too CPU-hungry, and Flash Lite too poor-quality, to be used on the iPhone. As early as June 2008, Adobe developers began work on a Flash version that would meet Apple's requirements. The latest news from Adobe was that the development of Flash for the iPhone is "in [Adobe's] court." There has been no word today on whether Flash capability for the iPhone is forthcoming.
Is this another case of Apple refusing to play nicely with other technology companies? Or is Apple waiting for a Flash Player version that will meet certain standards of quality for the iPhone? Or, as one blogger speculates, is Apple intentionally providing a respite for web users weary of tiresome Flash animations?
One report suggests that Apple might indeed be taking a step in the Flash-friendly direction. The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) reports that Adobe Professional CS5 will enable Flash animations to be exported to iPhone/iPod Touch applications. So even though iPhone users will be unable to view Hulu and Facebook videos on the device, they will be able to use iPhone applications that feature animation.
I look forward to seeing what Apple communicates with its continuing lack of Flash capabilities for the iPhone. Will Apple announce that a version of Flash Player will soon be made available for the iPhone after all? Will they report that the decision for the iPhone to go without Flash was made with the consumer in mind? Or does Apple have something else up its sleeve?
Stay tuned.
Brief glossary:
*GPU = Graphics Processing Unit
**CPU = Central Processing Unit
Today at the Adobe MAX developer's conference in Los Angeles, Adobe introduced Flash Player 10.1, part of Adobe's Open Screen Project, an initiative to "provide a consistent runtime environment across mobile phones, desktops and other consumer electronic devices." Flash Player 10.1 is GPU-accelerated*, so users can view videos in HD, while [hopefully] conserving battery life and CPU** usage. Flash 10.1 will also support the capabilities of each mobile device, including multi-touch, accelerometer, gestures, and screen orientation.
Flash Player 10.1 will be available in beta for Windows Mobile and Palm webOS phones later this year; the beta version will hit Google Android and Symbian OS phones in early 2010.
One smartphone, however, is blatantly absent from this list: the Apple iPhone. Over a year ago, Apple declared that desktop Flash was too CPU-hungry, and Flash Lite too poor-quality, to be used on the iPhone. As early as June 2008, Adobe developers began work on a Flash version that would meet Apple's requirements. The latest news from Adobe was that the development of Flash for the iPhone is "in [Adobe's] court." There has been no word today on whether Flash capability for the iPhone is forthcoming.
Is this another case of Apple refusing to play nicely with other technology companies? Or is Apple waiting for a Flash Player version that will meet certain standards of quality for the iPhone? Or, as one blogger speculates, is Apple intentionally providing a respite for web users weary of tiresome Flash animations?
One report suggests that Apple might indeed be taking a step in the Flash-friendly direction. The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) reports that Adobe Professional CS5 will enable Flash animations to be exported to iPhone/iPod Touch applications. So even though iPhone users will be unable to view Hulu and Facebook videos on the device, they will be able to use iPhone applications that feature animation.
I look forward to seeing what Apple communicates with its continuing lack of Flash capabilities for the iPhone. Will Apple announce that a version of Flash Player will soon be made available for the iPhone after all? Will they report that the decision for the iPhone to go without Flash was made with the consumer in mind? Or does Apple have something else up its sleeve?
Stay tuned.
Brief glossary:
*GPU = Graphics Processing Unit
**CPU = Central Processing Unit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
