thegoodfellas/blogset-br huggingface dataset:
to also have a private Internet and who also enabled the iMessaging as a copycat from BBM. The only thing Apple still has not is the QWERTY physical keyboards which after all these features, can be left out. SmashedBerrySo, the iPhone ended ruining Blackberry's appeal of productivity over the high end and profitable enterprise consumers. But they grew its participation between teens and low end consumers. Also consistently growing on emerging markets (Brazil and Indonesia). They have enabled a good support over social medias, which is the greatest demand from low end consumers and teens. And did it right. But Blackberry phonesdidn't lowered enough its pricing. Which is extremely important for having impact on those consumers and making the environment of BBM to work properly generating value.Because of that, RIM's effort on gaining market on lower end wasn't effective enough and Blackberry phones could not compete with other phones properly designed for those markets like qwerty Nokia's and lower end touch screen LGs and Samsungs. RIM ended smashed on the high end by the iPhone and low end by other more traditional feature phone companies.A way out of the trouble: why did RIM failed to react to this? The reader must be thinking that is easy to diagnose and find what is wrong after the mess is done. And yes, it is easy, and it is pretty comfortable for me to say what went wrong with RIM being outside and after the the patient is dead, or in terminal state. But there where something wrong with RIM that any business graduation student could point, and I'll try to show how this was the true cause of RIM's illness. Know who you areWhen the iPhone came in 2007 RIM trusted on its strong enterprise focused service and infrastructure to felt safe. And it was safe. The first iPhone couldn't harm the highly productive Blackberry, no matter how fun it was. Then in 2008 the iPhone 3G came and showed that with apps the iPhone could evolve from a cool touch screen feature phone into a true smartphone capable of delivering the true productivity that made Blackberry the king. After feeling the impact of that RIM failed to see that it was not the touch screen the element of productivity from the iPhone, but it was the ecosystem, the App Store. RIM reacted to this with wrong phones, the Storm, a resistive touch screen device, and the Torch, that combines a capacitive touch screen with physical keyboard. Both phones failed on sales. During the same moment RIM tracked the correct strategy and did focused more products on non enterprise consumers. But unfortunately at the same time was fighting for its position in enterprise. That only made the branding more confuse and kept RIM occupied with the wrong things until in 2010 came the iPad. The computing device that would have the greatest impact over enterprise users, for the same reason the iPhone 3G had. But now with a bigger screen.Again RIM tried to defend its enterprise territory with its own tablet the PlayBook. Another
fail. And the PlayBook is the point I'm looking for to show you what was wrong with RIM: an identity crisis.While writing this article I tried to look for how does RIM describes itself. Are them an enterprise solutions company? Are them a smartphones company? Are them a enterprise data and communication security company? All this three competences describe well what RIM is. But what is their priority? What is the goddamn core business of RIM? What is their mission and vision?Look what I found: No-thing. And look more: I've noticed more people looked for RIM's mission and vision statements and also didn't found it. I'm not sure if it doesn't exists but if it couldn't be found in annual reports then probably it doesn't exists or RIM don't want us to know about it, which ends in the same: in the moment of panic, RIM forgot who themselves are. For example look at these strategies: A - If RIM defined themselves as enterprise solutions then we could assume those are also productivity related solutions. In that case they could have since 2008 looked for a way of making Blackberry's ecosystem more developer friendly keeping the Blackberry a synonym of productivity.B - If RIM defined themselves as data security on wireless communications provider then they could have since 2008 looked for the solutions they are looking now: to license some services like the private and cryptography Internet or maybe the Blackberry system itself getting more focused on its core competences and developing unique solutions and becoming more unreachable by Apple. Also leaving the hardware for other OEM's that build much better hardware and are also tired of depending exclusively on Google.C - If RIM defined themselves as wireless provider then we could assume their business is selling messaging focused smartphones. Then they could have since 2008 focused on bringing the winner shape of physical QWERTY and best messaging to lower end markets using its better UX to compete side by side, on the same price level, with Nokia and Samsung, taking lots of market share from them. But what RIM actually did was to do those three strategies simultaneously. Ending to not doing any of them well. When the iPhone was introduced they trusted on strategy A. And when their position as productivity where offended they defended themselves with touchscreen, when apps was the right movement. When they intended go lower, with C strategy and deliver messaging focused smartphones to normal people, the enterprise focused branding helped to hold the price too high. When they intended, again, to provide productivity solutions with the PlayBook they mixed with the C strategy, and even named a enterprise focused gadged with the name PlayBook. What you mean "play"? Without even solving the problem of being developer unfriendly. And now, when Nokia, Microsoft, Amazon and others are intending to bid for RIM they think about licensing its OS and going with B strategy. When unfortunately is too late So, yes, bad management killed RIM. That is why as a management consultant the first thing I do
when I work with an organization is to work on its mission, vision and values with the entire company. Doing this work I'm helping and making easier all other decisions from high to lower management for the future and making the organization more protected against the danger of being blindly managed. It is very uncommon to see an organization with the size and the expertise of RIM to do not have a public mission and vision statements, the core of strategic planning. But is also not uncommon to see big management mistakes like this on Fortune's 500 companies.
Since the flop of last year Microsoft has evolved a lot their platform. Important missing things from last year's version, like the multitasking and copy and paste are there now. But anyway the sales didn't raised and now comes the moment of truth. Nokia has already showed us the beautiful Lumia phones. Samsung, HTC, and Fujitsu have already showed their Mango phones. And now they even have a new reason: Google just scared them when bought Motorola. They all with their Asian sense of self preservation wish to be less dependable of Google. And suddenly the WP became more interesting. Now, how successful will be the WP in a market dominated by the solid ultra loyal iPhone or the flexible Androids?First of trying to answer this is healthy to take a look to some cases of innovation adherence looking for an answer to what does make a new technology to be adhered or not?The case of JVC's VHS vs Sony's Betamax:On the market for Videotapes both Betamax had 100% marketshare on 1975. Beta had a higher quality but only 60 minutes capability and was more upmarket focused. Aiming people who wanted quality and were prepared to pay for it. While the VHS had 120 minutes with lower quality and superior support for rental chains. This superior support was due the ownership of these chains by Ferguson Eletronics, who were part owned by JVC. Sony also refused to allow pornography on their Betamax system. This is believed by some to have driven a significant amount of sales to VHS machines. With this, by 1981 Beta sales had sunk to only 25% and by 1986 to 7,5%. The case of Sony's Blu-ray vs. Toshiba's HD-DVDThis is a similar case where HD-DVD had the head start as the Blu-ray sales where slow to gain market share. The first Blu-ray Disc player was perceived as expensive and buggy. But the appearence of Sony's Playstation 3 helped turning the tide. By 2007 the BD had outsold the HD-DVD about two to one and by January of 2008 the Warner Bros. announced that it would release only in Blu-ray Disc after May 2008. This effectively included other studios that came under the Warner umbrella, such as New Line Cinema and HBO. This led to a chain reaction in the industry, with major U.S. retailers such as Best Buy, Wal-Mart dropping HD DVD in their stores. In February 2008, Toshiba withdrew its support for the HD DVD format, conceding victory to Blu-ray Disc.What do they mean?While most specialists on innovation can't say what exactly makes an innovation to become succesful and have high adherence most agree that for having adherence a innovation must have this things:1 - to add value by the technology itself2 - to add value to strategic stakeholders3 - to add value to end consumers On the technology itself, compared to VHS, beta added more value due higher quality even having lower time recording. To its strategic stakeholders VHS had a better support for rental chains which ended up adding more value to most of consumers,
mostly more focused on titles for rent then video quality.On Blu-ray vs HD-DVD the fact that the Blu-ray had superior technology was balanced by its also higher price and buggy state of development on early 2006. But was through getting the adherence of the strategic stakeholders (Warner Bros.) that provoked a chain reaction ending on Toshiba's conceding victory. The comparison between the two examples is important to show that not always the superior technology becomes the industrial standard and the participation of some agents inside the ecosystem is extremely strategic and this takes us back to our analysis of the smartphone ecosystems. iOS vs. Android vs. Windows PhoneIn the beginning of 2010, when happened the introduction of the Android handsets I made a similar analysis comparing the standardized iPhone with old Henry Ford's always black T-Models with the many colored Chevrolet. And the coincidence is that the standardized Fords created the market of assembly line made cars but lost its leadership for the new challenger Chevrolet. Based on that I stated that Android would surpass the iPhone on sales and they did it. In February of 2011 Android had surpassed not only the iPhone in the US but also Symbian OS globally. Now we have a new challenger. Which looks a bit like Ford and a bit like Chevrolet but also with its own peculiarities. The Windows Phone 7, now rebranded to Windows Phone, has in common with the iPhone the fact of being a hadly controlled ecosystem, where there is no way of installing content from outside the Windows Marketplace. Only Microsoft's authorized applications can go. You also can only set your phone by plugging it on your PC through a software similar to the iTunes called Zune. Apps developed for the Windows phone can also easily be ported the future Windows 8 and the XBox 360. Just like the iPad accept iPhone Apps. The OS also can't be changed by manufacturers or carriers. Is fully integrated to Skype and Facebook. From the hardware side the WP ecosystem looks more like the Android phones. Mostly Asian manufacturers with big black plastic bars with 4 inches screens but less flexibility for being ported to cheaper hardware. There are Android phones costing almost 160$ while the cheapest windows phones prices are something around 270$. From the perspective I used in the first comparison between iPhone and Android is clear that the ecosystem with biggest capability to being adapted to the widest demands from all kinds of players is the ecosystem with more possibilities of getting larger. From that perspective WP sits between the iPhone and the Android, but sitting a bit more closer to the iPhone. Although a new ecosystem is needed for saving most players from the division between iOS and Android we don't know if this hypothetic ecosystem should be better more closed or more open. For some players like developers the closed ecosystem makes their lives easier and their works more profitable. From the point of view of carriers (the players who actually sell the product to the end consumer)
the most open platform is the platform that can offer their own products and services on it more easily. That explain the impressive performance of the Android phones. And that points that Windows Phone would have less support from carriers then Android has as it explains why it didn't received this support until now. And lets remember that carrier support here is comparable to the doctor's opinion when you need a medicine. They have a strong power for influencing the consumer and would always prefer pushing those products that benefit themselves more. From hardware makers the Windows Phone was clearly left to second place. Some of them mentioned abandoning the production of the Windows Phone but I guess they gave it a second chance since Mango update and Motorola's acquisition. Anyway, none of them has possibilities of differentiating themselves through software (theoretically Nokia has but has not), and also, Windows Phone is licensed and they should pay something for using it, while the Android OS is completely free for manufacturers. Making their prices higher compared to Android handsets. From software point of view it seems the Windows Phone is aiming more over the iPhone. With "Apple like" uptate policies and "app" policies it seems to be aiming on users or developers who enjoy that kind of support security and predictability. Although Windows Phone seems to be very focused on developers, there will be a very long distance until it reach the amazing developers support it has.From distribution point of view the Windows Phone will face some of its greatest challenges. Outside the US, specially western Europe, home market of Nokia, the WP has quite good chances. The products would surely call some attention from consumers. But there is no special reason for carriers giving this system more support then they give to the strong branded iPhone. And more support then they give to the carrier friendly Android. The WP would also have to face the bad legacy of the Windows Mobile 6.5 brand and also the bad legacy of Windows brand in general. Even worse when the greatest competitor is strong branded Apple. This hard job would have to be done by Nokia supply and sales force. Which in Europe will be much easier. But in the US the home market of Microsoft, is the real challenge. Nokia has absolutely no carrier support there and won't even bring their new phones to the US in this Christmas. Neither Microsoft has carrier relationships since dealing with carriers was never part of Microsoft work before. In the US Apple has own Apple branded stores while Windows Phones would have to fight for space inside carriers stores where the Android is the their favorite. And probably will remain the favorite of the manufacturers also. Out of US and Europe the Windows Phones are too expensive for gathering enough market share and probably that isn't even the intention of Microsoft. It seems that the Windows Phone still has not gathered enough support from some strategic stakeholders. And even more from those who have more impact on
sales. Developers still in very little number, both carriers and HW makers had not given enough support for it until now and the only changes since the flop of last year was Mango (some more features to the OS) and Nokia's bet on Windows Phone. So it is unlikely they will give it a much bigger support now and still is a incognito how able Nokia will be to influence carriers on its support remembering that todays Nokia isn't the Nokia from Q1 of 2011 who was the biggest phone maker and now is on the third position behind Apple and Samsung. Because of all that, I say that I will be very surprised if the Windows Phone one day surpass the iPhone in marketshare anywhere. Considering that in Europe it has much better chances then in US. But in the US is very unlikely for that to happen. Much less likely for Widows Phone to surpass Google's Android.As a conclusion I state that the big unarguably leader on this round is still Google with it's flexible, carrier friendly, manufacturer friendly, virus friendly, Android OS. And also take this chance to remember you that Android is only one piece in the Google's strategy composed by search engines, Youtube, social media, cloud, Chrome browser and many other things plus Android. And would like to leave you with one little question: could you live without Google? I can easily live without Apple.With some sacrifice I learned how to operate Linux OS and now I can live without Microsoft at least 95% of my time.But there is absolutely no possibility of I living without any Google product. And believe me, I really would like to do it.
Aqui temos mais uma prova de que a tecnologia pode ser uma mao na roda para acoes de varejo. Em uma loja Selfridges londrina, a Tissot distribuiu relogios de papel para transeuntes, os quais se transformavam em modelos da linha Touch quando capturados por uma web cam.Incrivel...Confira! Pele revela em uma entrevista ter o sonho de fazer seu ultimo gol pela Selecao Brasileira. Se desse para fazer um replay na minha vida, talvez se eu fizesse o meu ultimo gol com a Selecao Brasileira, eu gostaria.Com criacao da Y&R e producao da O2 Filmes a Vivo resolve atender o pedido do ex-jogador.Leonardo Balbi, Diretor de Conta da Y&R, fala sobre o processo, A gente decidiu fazer uma mega producao de um curta-metragem, que em nenhum lugar mais ia ser visto, que nao na internet.A acao faz parte da campanha Eu Vivo a Selecao. De acordo com a Diretora de Comunicacao da Vivo, Cristina Duclos, usar o Pele como conteudo, e fazer uma homenagem a este atleta que mais do que jogar, viveu a Selecao com muito orgulho.Uma grande estrutura foi montada no Morumbi para a disputa entre Brasil e Argentina, com Pele em campo. Toda vez que a gente veste a camisa da Selecao Brasileira, entra em campo, e muito emocionante, diz Pele sobre a experiencia da partida.Foram mais de 400 figurantes, 250 profissionais, inumeras cameras espalhadas pelo estadio, alem da presenca de grandes icones do esporte, como Rivelino e Carlos Alberto.Dirigido por Luciano Moura e Nando Olival da O2 Filmes, o filme, com 7 minutos de duracao, ja conta com mais de 400 mil visualizacoes no YouTube.Veja a chamada e os dois "Making offs" e depois o video! Se coerente for nao levar para a copa o trio que estava jogando o verdadeiro futebol brasileiro, o futebol arte, o futebol gol, (Robinho, Neymar e Ganso), jogadores que ja estavalm entrosados desde o inicio da campanha do Santos...Se coerente for levar para copa jogadores como Kaka (ja com problemas antes da copa) e Felipe Melo (visivelmente percebido por todos pela sua falta de estrutura emocional)...Eu tambem me acho no direito de ter minha "coerencia"!....Vou torcer agora por uma selecao que desde antes da copa vem se destacando por sua "coerencia"...A Argentina!A coerencia anda de maos dadas com a selecao de Maradona. Afinal a Argentina e uma das selecoes de futebol mais bem sucedidas do mundo, vencedora da Copa do Mundo de 1978 e da Copa do Mundo de 1986, catorze Copa America, a Copa das Confederacoes de 1992 e as duas medalhas de ouro, a primeira nas Jogos Olimpicos de 2004 e nos Jogos Olimpicos de 2008. Somando todos seus titulos oficiais organizados pela CONMEBOL e pela FIFA, a Selecao Argentina e a Selecao de futebol que mais logros tem no mundo inteiro...E ainda por cima tem Maradona como tecnico. Jogador extremamente talentoso e celebrizou-se como um dos maiores, mais famosos e mais e polemicos jogadores do seculo XX. Reunia inteligencia, gana e um talento monstruoso, com dribles, habilidade para mudar drasticamente sua velocidade e de dar giros surpreendentes. Enquanto jogador, Maradona
foi reverenciado como uma divindade em seu pais natal, sendo criada inclusive uma igreja dedicada a ele.Seu maior momento foi na Copa do Mundo de 1986, que na opiniao popular foi ganha sozinho por El Pibe de Oro, outra de suas muitas alcunhas. Internacionalmente, Maradona tambem consagrou-se como heroi da equipe italiana do Napoli, um clube que, embora tradicional, estava entre os pequenos do pais. Com El Diez, o Napoli viveu momentos de gloria no final da decada de 1980, ganhando seus dois unicos titulos no campeonato italiano e lutando de igual para igual com as maiores equipes do pais.mundo inteiro.E o Messi?...O que falar dele?...Pra encurtar, ele conquistou a Bola de Ouro e o premio de melhor jogador do mundo pela FIFA do ano de 2009...E olha que ele nem desencantou na copa ainda.Quer mais "coerencia que isso?...Pois tem, a selecao Argentina alem de ser uma selecao que representa a america do sul tem as cores do Papao da Curuzu...Rsrsrsrsrsr...Vou torcer pelos hermanos da Argentina e talvez veja a "coerencia" ganhar a copa!...Avante Argentina!!!!
"Nao fume cha. Beba cigarros"... Que parada e essa ja?... CIGARRETEANao e cigarro... Nao e cha de cigarro.... Nao e cigarro de cha...Na verdade e uma embalagem de cha super criativa que parece uma caixa de cigarros... O cha e colocado dentro de saquinhos no formato de cigarrs, e esses saquinhos sao embalados em um a carteira "flip Top" com o mesmo desing usado para cigarros de verdade...Quando os cigarros, digo... Saquinhos sao colocados em agua quente se tornam uma bebida muito saborosa.... Que tal um cigarro das 17:00hs.... Opa!... Digo Cha das 17:00hs? Voce acha que a Coca Cola Zero tem o mesmo sabor da original?Pois e, eu acho bem parecida mas iqual mesmo nao e. Mas como diz o velho ditado... O que os olhos nao veem o "paladar" nao sente...A McCann Erikson criou uma acao em um cinema da rede espanhola Yelmos para provar que isso e possivel e poder afirmar que a Zero tem o mesmo sabor que a Original, pondo abaixo o preconceito adquirido pelos refrigerantes light, que sempre foram mais amargos...A Coca Cola Zero insiste no posicionamento apesar das pessoas afirmarem que o gosto e diferente da Original.Veja o Video! **Este Post e uma copia de um comentario que fiz no portal Terra, na coluna de esporte, apos ler o post: Designer critica logo da Copa 2014: "E uma porcaria"Sou diretor de criacao e pesquiso muito na internet... Tenho um blog onde falo de propaganda (despretensiosamente, fazendo elogios e criticas) e venho aqui defender minha classe... Sou um designer auto didata, com vivencia de mercado no meu estado (Para) que gira em torno de 16 anos, porem, formado em Comunicacao social "Publicidade" e pos graduado em Marketing...Nessa vivencia na area de comunicacao percebi que a maxima O cliente tem sempre razao, dos tempos de faculdade, e ate mesmo de vida... Ou seja, a FIFA, dona do evento como mencionaram em outros comentarios acima, nada mais e do que o cliente... Isso ocorre muito na vida dos profissionais que atuam na area do design assim como nas areas de publicidade e marketing... Cansei de escutar de clientes coisas do tipo: Gostei muito da marca, mas da pra trocar essa cor por rosa... Minha filha adora rosa. Apesar de ser uma loja que vende confeccoes e de que a dona mesmo seria sua filha, isso nao quer dizer que tem que ser rosa so porque ela gosta ou porque vende roupa... A cor e um dos muitos elementos que compoe uma marca e tem que ser estudada, pesquisada e enquadrada em seu nicho, atingindo e sensibilizando seu target para que o mesmo seja atraido por ela e passe a consumi-la de varias maneiras.Ai o dono da agencia chega e diz... O cliente ta pagando... o cliente tem sempre razao. Na verdade e isso mesmo, a marca e o produto que o cliente esta comprando e ninguem compra aquilo que nao quer ou nao lhe agrade.Porem, essa moeda nao tem so um lado, nem dois nem tres... Tem "TREZENTOS" . Olhando pelo ponto de vista do design a logo