Learning more about the hotel marketing system Techcrunch loved

If you read Techcrunch they love pretty much any startup, but they dedicated more words and images to this one than usual: Buuteeq. Sarah Lacy, there, wrote that it’s a cool company with an awful name. What does it do? Helps independent hoteliers market themselves online. So, I sat down with Forest Key, founder, to learn more about it. It is indeed impressive and I learn a lot about how hotels market themselves.

View the original article here

AT&T should shut up about Verizon iPhone

I see over on Business Insider that AT&T’s PR boss is already bashing the Verizon iPhone that will be announced next week.

AT&T should shut up.

I still can’t use my iPhone in parts of San Francisco and at CES? AT&T was nearly unusable.

AT&T has absolutely NO credibility to bash its competitors. It has, simply, provided horrible service over the past three years and I’ll be very happy to leave it, even if top-end speeds are slightly slower.

Why am I happy to leave AT&T? Because it has proven unable to support us at big events. Yes, SXSW was pretty good. But the World Series? Unusable. CES? Unusable. Web 2 expo? Unusable.

They refuse to make the kinds of investments they need to make to keep our service up and running and now they are trying to bash Verizon?

Hello AT&T. Every Verizon phone last week at CES worked just fine.

You should shut up. Maybe after 40% of your customers leave because you mistreated us for so long your service will be faster. But it won’t matter at that point because you mistreated us for so long.

Sincerely, Robert Scoble, a guy who has paid you many thousands of dollars over the past three years to have your horrid service.

UPDATE: Oh, and now I see that Verizon is going to be offering iPhone/Verizon users unlimited data plans, in contrast to your lame 2GB cap. Screw you.

View the original article here

I was wrong about Facebook’s valuation. Way wrong. Lee Lorenzen was right. Way right.

Back on October 11, 2007, I wrote that Lee Lorenzen was nuts. Back then he said that Facebook was worth $100 billion. He’s getting more and more right every day and I’m getting more and more wrong. Especially after Goldman Sachs just kicked in $500 million and valued the company at $50 billion.

I told Zuckerberg to sell at a $15 billion valuation. Why? I had watched other companies, like PointCast, turn down offers to sell and face doom. But, Zuckerberg and Lorenzen had real vision and I didn’t.

Ahh, always fun looking back at history and seeing just how wrong I was.

So, where do I buy some stock for the IPO? Let’s see, if every user of Facebook buys $100 worth, that’d be a $600 billion valuation at IPO. Can I get in before that happens?

View the original article here

Fred Wilson and Fortune are right about Android vs iOS (and everyone else), but I hate it

Fred Wilson is recommending developers invest first in Android and Fortune has a similar article about why 2011 is going to be the year that Android explodes. Why? Market share. Android is about to really take off, his thesis goes.

They are both right. But I hate it. First, let’s talk about why they are right.

I’ve been playing with a Nexus S lately and it finally is “good enough” for me to recommend to family members and friends as a smart phone.

I’ve also had some quality time on the Samsung Galaxy Tab, iPad competitor. It, too, is competent and no longer has the kinds of problems that let me confidently warn my friends and family away from Android platform.

These devices are fast. They have most of the apps you’ll need (maybe not the sexiest ones, but most of the ones that you’ll need). A good web browser. Really good maps, contacts, and phone-handling apps. Etc etc.

Compare Android to every other platform and it stands up as the best choice. Yeah, I know, MG Siegler over at Techcrunch got close to recommending Windows Phone 7 to everyone (he’s an iPhone lover like myself) but notice how many major things he said sucked about that system. The Web browser sucks. The lack of apps sucks. The lack of integration into Google’s many excellent systems like Google Voice, Google Contacts, Google Mail, Google Calendar, or Google Maps sucks (I still don’t like Bing’s maps as much, and that’s the most competitive web service Microsoft has going in my view).

And Windows Phone 7 is superior to Nokia’s OS and RIM’s OS, which have even more significant problems to solve (bad user experiences, difficult developer systems, inadequate app stores, very few modern apps, etc).

So, if I take off my iPhone-loving-hat and look dispassionately at the field I see that 2011 is going to be a great year for Android, a moderately good year for Windows Phone 7, a struggling year for Nokia and RIM (unless they noticeably change the game), with a wildcard year for Palm/HP (we’ll know more about that in about a week, because they are announcing some stuff at CES).

So, what about iPhone? Well, there is one thing neither Fortune nor Fred Wilson are including in their analyses: the Verizon phone. It came up at dinner conversation last night with family members (who aren’t geeky and don’t read Techcrunch). There is a LOT of pent up demand for an iPhone on Verizon. If all the rumors about an iPhone on Verizon are true, that’ll give iPhone a big shot and continue keeping it in the top two of the superphone category (unfortunately Nokia has started calling a wide range of its phones “smart phones” which makes the term “smartphone” totally useless). Most people, when they think of a modern high-end phone are thinking of iPhone, Android (and only when put on a big screen phone like the Nexus S), Windows Phone 7, RIM, Nokia’s N8, etc. This is the only category of phones I care about. I really don’t care that in some poor country Nokia sold hundreds of millions of single-chip, small-screen phones that barely can use text features, not to mention have decent access to the web.

But I don’t see how Verizon will sell enough iPhones to keep it in the numbers race with Android.

Now to why I hate this.

In my usage of the Android-based Samsung Nexus S, I’ve found it’s still behind Apple’s iPhone in almost every way. Even AT&T is far superior to T-Mobile (T-Mobile doesn’t even work in my house and I live 16 miles from Silicon Valley. Arrrrgggh).

The iPhone is easier to use. Smoother, especially when scrolling tweets. More consistent UI. Better designed hardware (the Samsung is, while the best Android phone on market, according to Engadget, not even close to as well designed as the iPhone).

Plus, overall, the apps on both iPhone and iPad are still noticeably ahead of those on Android platform. Today.

Yes, I know both platforms have their fans. I’ve argued both sides of the argument with friends and family. The Android wins if you want Google integration. The iPhone wins if you want best overall experience.

But with the Nexus S Android has caught up to be “close enough” to iPhone that I can no longer confidently state that the best system is Apple’s.

Add price into that equation and I will be recommending Android to a wide range of people in 2011.

I hate that. Because it’s not the best designed device.

So, what can Apple do?

1. Push onto more carriers.
2. Lower price.
3. Come out with some major innovations, particularly for developers (if you haven’t watched my interviews with the smart people behind the funding of Siri, that was bought by Apple, you really should — that interview gives insights into what Apple could do this year to stay in the game. Part I. Part II).
4. Integrate further with other systems in the home. One of the demos of the iPad that gets everyone going is when I show off how to use my iPad as a remote control for my Apple TV.
5. Make a deal with Facebook. Normal people are ADDICTED to Facebook. Ever sit in a lobby at a restaurant and watch what people do on phones? I do. Facebook is #1 app by far. What if next iPhone had best-of-breed integration with Facebook?

Anyway, unless something major happens this year (it probably will, the world keeps speeding up) it looks like Android is gonna take off.

I hate that.

I sure hope Steve Jobs has one of those moments where he shocks the world again and keeps this game interesting. I sure would hate it if Google took over the world of mobile the way Bill Gates took over the world of desktops. And, yes, it sure does feel like early 1995 in the mobile world. So, Steve, what you got up your sleeve?

UPDATE: I did a followup to this post about why 2011 isn’t 1995 for Apple.

View the original article here

Dear dad, don’t listen to my cheapskate brothers about iPad apps

This letter is to my dad, we got him an iPad for Christmas.

Dear dad,

Alex told me he counseled you against buying any apps that cost money. Sounds like Ben also is of that bent. Sounds great to be a cheapskate, right? After all, you’ll save money. I’d question my brother’s motives, though. Maybe they want more inheritance?

Anyway, to me the best apps cost money and you should expect to spend $200 to $400 in the first year on apps. Here’s some reasons why.

1. Paid apps are better games. Look at Angry Birds. They have free versions on Android, but on iPad and iPhone their versions cost five bucks. The thing is, on the free version you have interruptive advertising. Do you really want to live in a world where every few minutes an ad gets displayed? I don’t. So I invest in apps that cost money and apps that have a real business model behind them (IE, where I’m at least a customer that turned over some cash). Plus, I know that Scrabble is one of your favorite games. That costs $4.99. What a deal.

2. Paid apps help teach science. I know you do lots of tutoring at local high schools. One of the most expensive apps, The Elements, costs $14. This app is magical, though, and will open science up to kids in a new way. I wish I had this back when I was in Chemistry class.

3. Paid apps reward the arts. There’s a photographer, Quang-Tuan Luong. He took 10 years to photograph all the US National Parks. 3,000 photos. And you can own them all for $4.99. If enough people do that? Well, then, it’ll encourge more photographers and artists to share their work in apps.

4. Paid apps help you travel. The best apps, like TripIt, have “pro” versions that cost money. In this case TripIt costs me $49 per year. What do I get? Information. I often know my flight is delayed before the pilot tells everyone else. And it helps me get alternate flights and helps me with finding the best seat, and more.

5. Paid apps help you get better news. The Wall Street Journal costs $17+ a month. I know you buy lots of magazines and newspapers, why would it be any different on an iPad?

6. Paid apps help you read longer items. I paid $4.99 for Instapaper, which helps save web pages for later offline reading, optimized for readability. Invaluable.

7. Paid apps help you find better restaurants. Yeah, you can use the free Yelp app (I do that too) but Zagat’s app is better for finding the best restaurants. It costs $10. What’s a meal at a high-end restaurant cost? $50? Some, like at French Laundry, cost $330 and up. Having one extraordinary experience is worth the app’s price. Why? Because they can afford to have moderators that clean up the content, plus they have hooks into other systems, like Foodspotting and Foursquare, which give them better data.

Anyway, there’s some selfish reasons to pay for apps, too.

1. App developers are watching what platforms make the most money. So, if you want better apps, support the developers and they’ll work on more stuff for you. Otherwise they’ll go work on other platforms that have more customers that’ll pay for apps.

2. It gives you leverage. If they start selling all your private information, you’ll be able to scream about it. People who only use free apps should expect there’s some other business model in play behind the scenes.

3. The quality of the apps is higher when you pay for them. Do you work for free? I don’t. Neither do my cheapskate brothers. Yet they want everything for free. But, who do you think developers will do their best work for? A group of people who spends $5 to $15 on them? Or a group of people who forces them to do unnatural acts like put ads into their apps (which encourages them to sell your privacy down the street)?

Me? I’m a selfish baaassstttarrrrddd. I want the best experiences, and I’ve found the best way to get those is to pay for some apps.

–Your son, Robert

View the original article here

Behind The Scenes Of ‘TRON: Legacy’ – The Actors Talk About Making the Film

Disney has released fifteen minutes of behind the scenes footage from TRON: Legacy as they increase their marketing campaign in preparation for the December 17 release of the film. The footage is fairly raw, unlike a traditional BTS feature, which would be inter-cut with interviews that give the context for the footage. One does get a sense of some of the technology used in making the film, as well as some of the techniques employed.

We also hear from TRON: Legacy stars Jeff Bridges and Garrett Hedlund, along with producer Sean Bailey and director Joseph Kosinski, about what it was like to make the highly-anticipated sequel.

In the footage there are a few shots of Jeff Bridges in “the vault,” which is a room of any size, painted green, and filled with sensors designed to capture the movement and facial performance of the actor. The capture is used to assist in the creation of the CGI version of Bridges as Clu – a.k.a. the young Kevin Flynn – as well as the environment in the scene as well as the camera angles. This was a process which blew Jeff Bridges away. He shook his head in wonder, saying, “Wow man, making movies without cameras — what an idea! When they first said that, I said ‘what are you talking about’!?!”

He said that the one of the the most surreal moments in making the movie was when he was first scanned, so that the computer could create a digital imprint of him in order to create his younger avatar, which audiences will see in the film. The actor said it was “Just like the first Tron (when his character is “digitized” onto the grid) but for real!”

This method of filmmaking took some getting used to for the actor, who likes to “relate to the lens and have a costume and a set.” Although, he feels that the best thing to do in acting (and in life) is to adapt to the the reality of what is happening, and adapt quickly, so for him this work became about becoming “like a child, when you don’t have all the cool gear, and you have to use your imagination.”

As far as where this new technology will lead, Bridges, as well as many others, speculate that the possibilities are endless:

“They’re going to be able to combine actors too — I’m not sure how I feel about this — but they’re going to be able to say ‘hey, let’s get  Boxleitner, and Bridges, and throw in some Brando and see what happens.”

Though the cost and time commitment involved in the capture process (it took two years to create the look of Clu, and then longer to create movement) will likely limit its use in feature-film productions, at least for now.

In the footage, you are also able to also see Jeff Bridges in the capture helmet as he portrays Clu in a scene set in the “End of the Line Bar”, with live-action actor Michael Sheen.

It feels as though the scene in which “the sirens” first give Sam Flynn his grid wardrobe and identity disk is choreographed somewhat like a dance. You can hear a count out for the movement of the  four exotically beautiful “programs” charged with preparing Sam for the “games,” a.k.a. “Disk Wars.” You can also see some of the choreography from the fight scenes, which Garrett Hedlund, describes as “unlike any I have ever seen.”

Take a look at the footage below:

First time director Joseph Kosinski has a fair amount riding on the success of this film, and so does producer turned Disney President of Production, Sean Bailey. This footage may be intended to prep fans for the vastly different, and far more modern version of The Grid that they will be introduced to in TRON: Legacy.

Some fans speculate that Disney has pulled the copies of the original Tron from shelves in an effort to disassociate this film from the now dated look of the original, so that casual movie goers will not assume that they will see more of the same in TRON: Legacy. Of course, it’s possible that Disney is simply hoping to time the release of the remastered original film, with (what they hope will be) the blockbuster success of the sequel. Sean Baily would simply say “We have some big plans for the original Tron,” while emphasizing that TRON: Legacy is a “standalone movie.”

TRON: Legacy – which was green lit due to the enthusiastic audience reaction to the test footage released at Comic Con three years ago – is now depending on that sane audience to show up in force and bring ten friends each.

TRON: Legacy hits theaters on December 17

Follow me on twitter @jrothc and Screen Rant @screenrant

View the original article here