HTC pop-up ads

The phone maker says the pop-ups have been seen because of an “error” to the annoyance of users.

Source: Backlash over pop-up ads on keyboard – BBC News

HTC has responded to the fuss over the pop-up ads on its Android keyboard. The company says the move was “an error”.

Yeah right.

From the outside it looks as if some bright spark thought selling pop-up ads could claw back revenue for the phone maker. HTC was already on the ropes. This error could be the last straw that finally kills the brand.

There’s a big picture here too. Many technology consumers have had enough of flaky business models where they are the product. HTC’s keyboard ads is a mere extension of a trend that was already well underway.

 

They capture data and insights about us and will become irresistible to hackers.

Source: Why concerns about smart speakers are real – The Listener

Peter Griffin writes:

Let’s not kid ourselves – these smart speakers are not really about our convenience but capturing more data and insights about us as humans and consumers and channelling us to the various online services those tech companies control. That’s why Alexa made its debut and why Amazon made the Dot such a cheap device.

If this doesn’t scare you, then you haven’t been paying attention. Which is exactly what the big technology companies behind these speakers rely on.

George Orwell’s 1984 was a set book when I was at high school in the 1970s. At the time we write essays imaging a dystopian future where a totalitarian government would spy on its citizens. We may get there yet.

What Orwell and none of us worrying about privacy in the 1970s came close to grasping was that people would gladly buy the Big Brother snooping technology themselves. Nor did we imagine the main purpose of the snooping would be to find ways to fleece us.

a post

I’ve a few ideas about new ways of working as a journalist that overlap with the Indieweb movement.

The first is having a syndicated work portfolio. If you like, a single source, feed or river of everything I post elsewhere.

This means linking back to my stories published on mainstream media sites. I want to do this even when those sites don’t reciprocate my links. At the moment I sometimes write a linking blog post on my site.

Here’s one from last year: https://billbennett.co.nz/agility-knowledge-economy-key-for-auckland-as-an-emerging-global-city/

My second idea is to somehow consolidate the comments that fill different buckets at places like Facebook, Google+ and Twitter. There are also some on Disqus. There have been times when there are two or more conversations covering much the same aspects of a story. It would be better if the interested commenters could see what others have to say and interact.

Indieweb central repository

Then there’s my unrealised idea of moving to more of a stream-of-concious style of reporting. This is not so much Jack Kerouac style, but more like the daily live blogs you see on sites like The Guardian. I like the idea of writing a post then update it as the story evolves. This would be easier to manage with a central repository.

Last and not least, there’s my need as a journalist to own my work outside of the big silos. I’m not a snob about FaceBook or Google, but I am aware their shareholders get the reward for my effort when my work appears there. It won’t happen overnight, but the Indieweb may hold the key to redressing the balance in the future.

Sky TV to become Vodafone-SkyHere in New Zealand, television stories dominate the week’s telecommunications news.

Sky and Vodafone bow to the inevitable and call off their merger. Meanwhile TVNZ goes all in on streaming video.

For more than 40 years journalists have written about convergence. The telecommunication triple play idea: combining voice, data and television, is well over 20 years-old. I first heard about it in around 1990. That’s right, it pre-dates the commercial internet1.

Almost overnight, we’re on the other side of the revolution. Some bewildered people are looking back and wondering what happening. The rest of us wonder why it took so long to get here.

You say you want a revolution

The revolution is not that hard to understand, television uses electrical signals. They used to be analogue. Digital is better. Once TV was digital, it was only a matter of time before it became another stream of bits travelling through networks.

It took longer for the industry to grasp what that means in practice. Today we have Netflix and a cluster of junior would-be netflixen. We have binge viewing. We have on-demand viewing. Yacht races from across the world beam on to our mobile phones as we commute to work.

What we still don’t have is the choice and flexibility we get from other online media. That’s coming.

History lessons

If you look at the sweep of online history, a merger between Vodafone and Sky TV makes perfect sense. It made sense to the management and board of both companies. If you look at the deal with the eyes of a competition regulator, nixing the deal makes sense. It could have established a monster.

There is something odd about the Commerce Commission’s decision on the Vodafone-Sky merger. Yes, a merger would give one telco access to the crown jewels of sports programming. Yes, it could be exclusive access.

But Sky still has a monopoly on that material. A stand-alone Sky can cut an exclusive deal with a broadband company. Indeed, it’s quite possible that it will strike an exclusive deal with Vodafone. Today’s agreements and contracts between the two companies point in that direction.

Exclusive anyway?

So the Commerce Commission vetoed a merger because of something that will happen anyway. Am I alone thinking that is odd?

Whatever the logic, Sky and Vodafone have come to terms with the decision. The two issued a terse statement to the New Zealand Stock Exchange on Monday. It gave no reasons. But said they withdrew their High Court appeal protesting the Commerce Commission’s decision.

The marriage may be off, but the two companies remain good friends. The relationship is still on.

Free Sky Sport for Vodafone customers

In June Vodafone said it would give 12 months’ free Sky Sport to customers buying broadband and a basic Sky TV service. This is, more or less, the kind of arrangement the Commerce Commission worried about.

Elsewhere, Vodafone mobile customers can get a deal which includes free Sky Neon. And Sky is providing Vodafone with exclusive live coverage of All Blacks matches.

There’s a secondary commercial logic here, the phone company is now the team’s sponsor. Yet both deals have a whiff of the exclusivity that the Commerce Commission feared. Remember, in February the Commerce Commission said a proposed $3.5 billion merger would reduce competition.

Separate, but vertically-integrated

It said Sky and Vodafone had an opportunity to create a vertically-integrated business. That would give a single telco access to all popular sports broadcasting rights. There was a fear the market power wielded by the new business would lock out other potential bidders.

Now rivals fear the two non-merged companies are doing the same thing anyway. They are building a form of vertical integration without all the parts being in a single company.

The tragedy here is that, unlike Australia’s ACCC, our regulator can’t impose rules. That way it could OK the merger and insist the new company licence Sky content to all-comers.

There’s a ridiculous lack of broadcasting oversight in New Zealand. The Commerce Commission’s job is to ensure competition. We have intense telecommunication competition, but one company holds a TV sport monopoly.

TVNZ goes all-in on digital

From Monday, Television New Zealand will livestream channels One and Two. Viewers will be able to see all broadcast material over the internet on PCs, tablets and phones. Everything will be available online in HD 720p format. There will also be a new catch-up on-demand service.

Some material will be in box-set format for binge viewers. Programmes will be on Chromecast from next month and Apple TV later this year.

TVNZ plans to optimise its streaming service for mobile devices. It will also keep programmes available online for longer.

For now, there are no plans to do anything about television transmission. Although TVNZ says that could change depending on demand.

The ghost of Netflix

All these moves acknowledge the changing way people use television. The spectre of Netflix is somewhere there in the background.

The key problem for TVNZ is that it earns its revenue from advertising. This is more annoying and intrusive online than on broadcast TV.

If TVNZ wants to address Netflix head on, it might think about offering an ad-free paid option. Of course, it would need to have enough high quality material to make that viable. It could start by investing more in its news and current affairs programming.


  1. People started talking about the idea in the 1990s. I first heard the term around the time Kiwi Cable was building an HFC network on the Kapti Coast. The first serious attempts at triple play didn’t come until later. ↩︎

deathtostock_modernworkshop-04At The Register Shaun Nichols writes:

“The tech press has dared to lean away from its core mission of making technology companies more profitable, says tech advocacy house ITIF.”

The ITIF or Information Technology and Innovation Foundation is an industry think-tank. It issued a report looking at “a change of tone in technology reporting” between the 1980s and this decade.

Long story short, it says the media moved from a positive attitude towards the industry to confrontation.

This, according to the ITIF, is because being tough on the industry makes it easier for tech media to turn a profit.

It goes on to talk about the media being ‘biased’ and distorts the public view of technology.

Yes, it’s all stuff and nonsense. There’s a lot to unpack, but here are a couple of ideas to think about.

Advertising

In the past publishers made money selling advertising to technology companies. They were a great sales conduit. It worked.

The technology industry was the tech media’s most important customer. Rivers of gold poured in.

While there are publishers who publish nice stories in return for advertising dollars, that was never a great business model. Reader are not fooled. They don’t stick around for blatant propaganda.

The advertising money didn’t buy favourable coverage, at least in the better publications. It did foster a favourable attitude towards the industry. The coverage reflected this.

The partnership also meant journalists and publishers spent time in the company of tech industry people. That too is good for creating a positive attitude.

One conclusion of the ITIF report is more advertising would repair media relations.

Readers and journalists

In the old model, advertisers paid for journalism, but journalists serve readers. Few understood this then. They still don’t.

As Nichols says, we’re not industry cheerleaders. We don’t earn cheerleader, public relations or marketing-type salaries.

Our job is to inform readers. If there is more cynicism in technology media (see the next point) then that is what readers want.

Modern reporting tools mean we know what stories rate from the minute they go online. Guess what? Readers are less likely to click on happy-slappy, isn’t everything wonderful darling stories.

In other words, journalists and publishers respond to reader demands.

Don’t shoot the messenger if they now have a darker view of the tech industry. Get your own house in order.

It’s all nonsense anyway

To argue tech media is meaner than it ways, say, thirty years ago is bonkers. The big newspapers and media sites are full of thin press release rewrites. It is common for blatant propaganda to appear as factual news.

Take, for the sake of argument, Computerworld New Zealand. Thirty years ago, even a decade ago, it was breaking news stories. It was quoted in Parliament. Today, it runs nothing that didn’t start life in a public relations office.

That’s not to say all the tech media is soft. It isn’t. But the ratio of soft stories to more hard hitting news is off the scale. You have to wonder if the ITIF is paying attention.