Wal-Mart Unveils New Web Program

One of the most appealing aspects of online shopping, aside from the anonymity of the whole process, is the convenience to the consumer. Online shopping allows for shoppers to avoid the time wasted browsing up and down the aisles looking for specific goods and even allows for them to customize their products of choice. Nowadays, most chain retailers offer online shopping services, though the success of each company varies greatly.

According to government census figures, the value of electronic shopping and e-commerce sales between 2007 and 2008 totaled about $222,464 million. The decision makers at Wal-Mart, however, have made some not-so-slight modifications to their business plans. Instead of delivering the products to your home from a warehouse, customers will have the opportunity to shop for in-store inventory at specific store locations then pick up the selected items on-site. If the selected products are not available at the store location of your choice, then they may be shipped to that store for free. In fact, you will be texted—if you so desire—when your order is ready to be picked up. I think that this is a brilliant example of corporate America adapting to technology and participating in the phenomenon of constant connectivity.

Wal-Mart has been testing the program since October in about 750 stores to successful results and is planned to include about 40,000 items. I believe that this system will largely be successful so long as Wal-Mart approaches the marketing aspect of it in a way that promotes efficiency. So long as the consumer believes that participating in this program will save them time—and perhaps even money—then the company can rest assured that online sales will increase.
Wal-Mart’s in-store traffic, however, has been declining over the last few quarters, and this move is believed to partly be aimed at reversing that trend, as consumers will be picking up their packages at Wal-Mart stores and might be inclined to do some more shopping while they’re in the vicinity.

The Future of Angry Birds

The mobile device application brought to us by Rovio, “Angry Birds,” seems to have received its second…or third…or fourth wind. According to a New York Times article, with its holiday releases—Halloween, Christmas, and Valentine Day—“Angry Birds” has reached almost approximately 100 million downloads.

“Angry Birds” is fascinating in how its reported development cost was only about $150,000 when games like Sony’s “God of War III” came out to a $44 million expense. Typically, companies the size of Rovio are unable to absorb flops in the games they develop. But with overhead costs as low as what they incurred and the amazingly high popularity they achieved, there seems no place else for the company to go but up.

“We’re building an integrated entertainment franchise where merchandising, games, movies, TV, cartoons, and comics all come together, like Disney 2.0,” said Peter Vesterbacka, the head of Rovio’s business development.
And Mr. Vesterbacka’s Disney reference shouldn’t be taken lightly, either. Rovio is essentially following in the footsteps of early Disney in how they’re trying to brand the characters in their little series through their flourishing line of merchandise like cute plush toys much like how Mickey Mouse was first established by Steamboat Willie and was cemented by similar toys, comics, cartoons, and even his own video game series’ .

What’s most interesting about Rovio is its potential for expansion. The company has recently secured $42 million in a financing round led by venture capital firms Accel Partners and Atomico Ventures. But why would the company need to secure fundraising when its profit margins are as high as they are now? Surely the ad revenue itself should have supplied the company with enough money to create another sequel, even if they spent over ten times the amount to develop it as they did the original game.

But Mr. Vesterbacka and the rest of the Rovio team have got their minds on bigger and better things. One of the partners at Accel Partners happens to sit on the boards of Facebook and Wal-Mart Stores, both of which could play vital roles in the future of the company. Rovio plans to bring a new, cooperative version of its game to the Facebook platform this spring. Soon enough, millions of people will be mounting assaults against pig fortresses with their friends from all around the world. And as their virtual reach extends, so too does the companies physical presence as they consider branching out from Helsinki, Finland to cities within China, the United States, and South Korea.

All that’s left to do now is wait for the Broadway musical about the plight…of the Angry Birds!

Unplugging Egypt

Amidst the protests, bands of looters, and general unrest, the Egyptian government did the unthinkable. In an effort to control the population and put a stop to the protests, Mubarak disconnected the country from the Internet. The fact that this seemed to be the most effective way to stop the opposition in its tracks highlights just how connected we have become. Rather than gain control of the streets, the government simply unplugged the population.
Egypt was disconnected from the world almost overnight. For five days, practically no information went in or out of the country via the World Wide Web. According to the New York Times, the government began by blocking social networks like Facebook and Twitter in an attempt to stop protesters from organizing and speaking out. Less then twenty-four hours later, “they drilled unexpectedly all the way down to the bottom layer of the Internet and stopped all traffic [flow].” This depravation of connection was met with anger and fear. Many argued that the blackout crossed the line, depriving people of the right to be constantly connected.
This exploitation of people’s reliance on technology sends a sobering message. While the ability to be constantly connected has enabled organization and mobilization of protesters, it could have become the Achilles Heal of the revolution. Like any machine, a movement that depends on the Internet dies when the connection is lost. Fortunately, the disconnection did not put a damper on the protests; in fact, it inflamed them. Some say that the tactic would have worked perfectly if they had brought “down the curtain” sooner. Either way, the continued protests show that the revolution cannot be unplugged, and that technology is being properly used as a tool in Egypt.
While many were outraged that they had been disconnected, others were simply astonished that the government had succeeded in the “dark achievement that many had thought impossible in the age of global connectedness.” The scope and speed of the shut down was “unprecedented” and could be devastating if used again. Indeed, the Internet “off switch” could prove to be the weapon of the future with the ability to isolate a population.
While the fact that the Egyptian government thought the protests could be shut down with the Internet speaks volumes about human reliance on technology, the fact that the Internet can be shut down on that scale is a much more pressing issue. This new reality forces us to look critically at our reliance on technology and ask ourselves some difficult questions. What would happen if something like this were to happen in America? Could we still function without being connected (whether it be to the world or with someone down the street)? Finally, why do we feel so violated when we are disconnected? Is being constantly connected a right, or is it just something that he have come to expect?

Online Libraries- the New Theater

Ever since I began living by myself at college, with no parents to nag me, I have been watching some of my favorite TV shows and movie clips before going to sleep. This habit started as a rebellious- “I am mature and independent now” statement, but it developed into a daily hobby because of the easy access to this media online.
Netflix, Hulu and iTunes are the largest “online theaters”, enabling everyone access to all kinds of movies and shows for a trivial fee. Not only is the process effortless, the products are incredibly satisfactory. People can watch any movie, at any time, in any place, as long as they are connected to the server. Consequently, there is a major decrease in people’s interest in network television and cable. More specifically, Comcast- the biggest cable company in the U.S., has been experiencing a major increase in the number of cable-service-cancelations.
Interestingly enough, Comcast has been taking a friendly, competitive approach to this issue by advancing its own online applications and services. The company came up with a library of movies called Xfinitytv, offering all the popular TV and movie channels to signed members. In addition, Comcast developed couple of small advanced gadgets for its users such as a remote control to the TV through a laptop keyboard and a remote DVR programming Web browser.
The pitch which is most likely to restore the peace within the company is the incorporation of the iPad or the Android tablet into its future technology. Comcast is currently working on its Xfinitytv iPad app which will allow users to transform their iPads into an on-demand, light, comfortable-to-use, touch-screen remote. Nevertheless, Comcast hints about developing its revolutionary technology of a live TV accessible to watch on the compatible iPad screen.
While all these innovations will ultimately improve people’s media experience and will provide overall satisfaction, I wonder if this rivalry between monopoly companies to become exponentially more technologically advanced will ever cease. Whatever happens, I strongly believe we cannot ignore the social evolution we are all experiencing, at this very moment. We do require new ideas and tools to accommodate those social changes. Comcast’s approach shows us: “We need to work with the changing times instead of fighting them.”

The Greatest Marketing Tool- the iPhone App

One of my favorite ways to spend a beautiful day when I visit my parents’ house during weekends is flying with my dad around the Bay Area in his small private plane. About three years ago during a routine flight, my dad asked me to video tape the view. After a while, my hands started aching, which gave me an idea that I immediately shared with my dad. Transforming my initial idea into an actual patent, my dad established a new startup called Flyvie. Flyvie offers a product which is GPS based that tracks the flight and records it using digital cameras, and simultaneously saving all the data on a small memory card. This special application is later downloaded on a web browser, and the detailed flight can be viewed online by signed members. This product enables flight instructors and new pilots to re-visit their flight and mark both mistakes and achievements.
This product started out as a compact package including a laptop , two small digital cameras, a GPS center, and a memory card. Even though many flight schools and private instructors found this tool to be extremely helpful and purchased the kits in large numbers, we knew we were not reaching the full array of potential customers. That is when we came up with the idea for an iPhone app.
Considering the current social evolution, including the introduction of smart phones and constant accessibility to resources, we knew that a simple iPhone app (called Flyvie Lite) would be more applicable to the general aviation public. Indeed, just as we expected, once we came up with a free app which combines both the built-in GPS and camera applications on the iPhone, more people started showing interest. Even though the final product did not appear to be as professional as the initial product, pilots seem to prefer the accessible, friendly, cheap iPhone app (as long as they have iPhones, of course).
What I find the most fascinating about this experience is the obvious trend among any startups or technology mediated ideas: the necessity to attract more customers and expand the business using iPhone applications. The development of such app was a natural next step, which also ended up being a smart one.

The Fate of the e-book

As a college student (and an English major), I spend a lot of my time in the library. The library is a beautiful place full of information that has the distinct scent of knowledge. The books that line the shelves connect students with history, politics, art, famous authors, culture, and tradition. The tradition of checking out books from the library is one that is often taken for granted. Where do these books come from? Does the library purchase all of these books, periodicals, films, and other items? Finally, how many lives do library books have (or rather, how many times can a library book be checked out before it is laid to rest)?

In the world of constant connectivity (and e-books), these are questions that publishing company HarperCollins recently had (though for online e-libraries), so they have decided that beginning March 7, e-books will only be allowed to be checked out 26 times. This is for financial reasons, as it isn't fair to the author of the publisher to have As explained in a recent New York Times article,

"The announcement was a reminder of the publishers’ squeamishness over having their e-books available in libraries. More people are using libraries for e-reading, a practice that does not require visiting a library in person, and is possible on many electronic devices, including the Nook and the iPad."

With the world of technology, it's sad to think that the tradition of checking out books from the library may be lost. It's comforting to know, however, that somewhere out there, there are publishing companies like HarperCollins that have decided to put a limit on how much their beloved books are viewed. E-books offer the potential for convenient reading. However, when it comes to publishing and money, it seems that some things will never change-whether in actual reality or virtual reality.

Millions of Apps, Billions of Dollars

Phones were once a means of simply calling someone. Then text messaging arrived, with a convenient means of contacting someone in a (once) private, quiet way. Now, phone apps provide entertainment. So, where phones were once meant for practicality, they're now meant for entertainment...oh and practicality (in that order).

According to a recent New York Times article, the future of applications looks bright. There are currently over 350,00 apps for the iPhone alone. In 2011 alone, it is estimated that

"Corporations will spend up to $17 billion creating apps for their products and working with third-party services and companies that manage these apps. The combined revenues from mobile applications, services and business management will reach $54.6 billion a year by 2015."

So, with these developments, it's interesting to consider that every application that we purchase fuels this multi-billion dollar industry. As an iPhone user, I admit that while most of my apps were free, I've spent about twenty dollars on apps, though these were for educational purposes, and not so much for entertainment. However, something that I've considered is that while apps can be useful, maybe they provide one more way of being distracted from human connection. Constant connectivity through apps may be the new text messaging-but this time, there are no other humans involved. We began with the phone (where people talk to each other and listen to each other's voices), to text messaging (where people contact each other with a diminished sense of human contact), and now to app use (where people are disconnected with other people altogether). Apps aren't going away, and I hope that they won't become the end-all of the functions that phones are meant to serve. The next thing you know, phones will only work if you buy an app for the cell phone function and an app for the text messaging function.

Social Networking: A Sense of Security

As a woman, I can attest that there have been times of discomfort during travel, in the past. Depending on where you are and whether or not you know people around you, it is natural to question and sometimes even doubt your security. I have many stories of my voyages on the Amtrak that made me uneasy because there was a man that was looking at me in a way that made me feel like I just wanted to hide. Sometimes random strangers can get too close in your personal space and make you feel uncomfortable. Or, my greatest moment of fear, when I was taking a cab in London and the driver used an alternative route (that later turned out to be okay, but had me screaming internally for the ten minute drive that seemed to last an hour). Apparently, false identity for cab drivers is a major problem in London, so everywhere you looked there was a sign warning tourists (especially women) to not get into cabs unless they had booked them through their hotel. Even though I had booked mine, those feelings of insecurity crept in and didn't go away until I got out of the car.

While this post isn't meant to bash the male gender, it is meant to bring light to the fact that women must be on their guard during travel. Thanks to technology (and social networking), perhaps fear has the potential to subside.

According to a recent New York Times article, Ihollaback.org is a social networking site

that encourages women to share stories and provide data about harassment so they can map locations where it occurred. The most impressive thing about the fight-back phenomenon is the youthful determination to organize and take concerted action about a problem that female travelers have long faced on the road, often alone and without recourse.

Because of this website, and other websites that are being created for the same purpose, women have the opportunity to inform and help each other on a global level. This website is an example of how social networking sites can be used to ensure support for users and provide a sense of security that no matter where we go in the world (or how many moments of discomfort we may have when traveling), there are other women who are looking out for us because they've been there and done that.

Stay Alive. Don't Use A Smart Car and Drive

Almost everywhere that you go, you are likely to see a campaign sign or bumper sticker that says "Stay Alive. Don't Text and Drive." Even when I took my driver's permit test last summer, one of the questions on the test was whether texting while driving is safe. The obvious answer is "no," yet there are a lot of people on the road who don't quite understand this concept. While not texting during driving is an important message, it's interesting to think that texting may be more dangerous on the road than any other distraction...Or is it?

In a recent New York Times article, columnist Maureen Dowd discusses how automobiles are now "smart cars" that possess the capability to read your text messages to you, manage and play your iPod, adhere to your emotional needs (i.e. you're having a bad day, so your car will cheer you up through vibrating seats or heated steering wheel), and even manage your email for you. All of this while you're driving! Is this safe? Perhaps the larger question is whether or not it's rational to countenance any distraction whatsoever. What happened to simply listening to the radio or having a conversation with yourself as you drive? Do our lives really demand that we be constantly connected? If so, where do we draw the line?

No research is available at the present time to offer a reference to the affect that these smart cars are causing on drivers, but there are many potential dangers to such technology. Sue Cishke, a Ford executive, argues:

Given that Americans are addicted to Web access and tech toys...It will never work to simply ban them. So we’ve got to figure out how we make people safer, and the more people can just talk to their car like they’re talking to a passenger, the more useful it would be.

Perhaps Ms. Cishke has a point. Maybe the automobile industry should serve consumers who demand smart cars. Or maybe the automobile industry should serve consumers with the need for boundaries regarding automobiles and technology that provide constant connectivity. Ultimately, safety is important, and it's wonderful to have automobile technology with vehicles that strive to protect and serve the driver. Still, there comes a point when too many bells and whistles pose a threat to overall security because of the fact that these same bells and whistles provide the most dangerous thing on the road: distraction.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall

"Unlike a mirror, which reminds us of who we really are and may have a negative effect on self-esteem if that image does match with our ideal, Facebook can show a positive version of ourselves,” said associate professor Jeffrey Hancock. “We’re not saying that it’s a deceptive version of self, but it’s a positive one” (CNN Tech).

There has been a growing concern that our generation’s dependence on Facebook and other similar social media networks to determine our self-worth has reached unacceptable levels. How can we define ourselves as unique, interesting, artistic, clever, cool, etc. while differentiating ourselves from everyone else who might hope to get the same image across?

Facebook is formatted such that you can learn almost everything and anything you want about your connections. Naturally, the idea of such openness is intimidating to many, and privacy groups, like the Electronic Privacy Information Center, have come together and garnered some influence within the government (All Things Digital). What these groups might want to consider, however, is that companies like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are ultimately around to maximize their net income despite the efforts these organizations go through to convince you otherwise.

Ultimately, Facebook is not an inherent right but a privilege.

I admit that all of this sounds ominous, but we must not forget that there’s a bright side to it all. With a few exceptions, you, and no one else, have almost complete control, as a Facebook user, to control the content of your profile. It is up to you to determine which celebrity/athlete/artist pages to like, whether or not you want to share your education and employment specifics, whether or not you will keep other peoples’ posts on your wall and comments on your pictures, and even whether or not others will be able to access your pictures from your page. Finally, it is up to you to decide what picture will summarize your online presence. I’m referring, of course, to your profile picture, often the first thing you notice when you click through to your friends’ pages.

I took the above quote from Jeffrey Hancock from an article on CNN Tech. The story covers Hancock’s report regarding the correlation between Facebook and self-esteem in a study of 63 students (click here to be linked to the report itself). It turns out that subjects who spent time on Facebook returned more positive feedback about themselves than those who were either staring at a mirror or a blank computer screen during the allotted time (CNN Tech).

“For many people, there’s an automatic assumption that the internet is bad,” Hancock said. “This is one of the first studies to show that there’s a psychological benefit of Facebook” (CNN Tech).

Does the research speak for itself?

Either way, perhaps some of us should consider lightening up.