If this is news to you, you are probably like me reading very specific tech blogs who see Nokia tumbling to death without looking at the whole picture (or the wrong tech blogs to at least grasp a glimpse of the whole picture).
Ben Thompson on stratechery:
The Asha 501 blows this away: the battery life is amazing – 48 days on standby – and that color screen is looking much more impressive.
Nokia is particularly well-suited to this market; their phones have always been the most durable, with the best battery life, and their distribution channel is still unmatched. If the company returns to prominence the headliner will likely be Asha, thanks to a strategy predicated on identifying a new axis of competition4 instead of simply trying to be a little bit better.
“Your mother does not work here, clean up yourself!”
I am so totally not into body building, but I love the “lost & found productions” films of “This must be the place”. They really have a beautiful style of filming.
This headline will destroy the world. NOW READ MY ARTICLE!
This headline will destroy the world. NOW READ MY ARTICLE!
No, it will not. It will never. But it will try to capture your attention.
We are so used to headlines like:
Is One World Trade Center really the tallest building in the West? The Verge
How Apple can stop Google from taking over the iPhone. Again. iMore
Five reasons Apple is doomed, doomed, doomed Computerworld
Or as an even more obvious example pointed out by Horace Dediu:
Why am I picking headlines related to Apple? Because they are the most obvious examples and I am pretty sure this applies generally. My newspaper here in Germany often makes such lurid headlines, too.
If you really want to find a lot of this just very lurid headlines, just head over to the “accurately” named site: http://appleisdoomed.net/.
The problem with headlines
or should I perhaps write:
Headlines are BROKEN, they can’t be fixed
and then piggyback and say they actually can be fixed? 2
First, what is the general consent of what a headline is supposed to do if you are a regular publisher
It is supposed to attract a reader so he will jump into the article and read it. Probably spend some time on the website so he might possibly click on an ad. I don’t think a publisher has a real interest to give you real information to perhaps save your time and give enough information to you so you don’t read the article. Please contact me, correct me in the comments, if I’m wrong. There are obviously exceptions.
What do you as a reader probably expect from a headline:
That it gives you enough information to figure out whether it’s worthwhile to read that article or not
Might it be possible that there are too many articles written where the actual data behind it not really justify writing a whole article about it? As an effect, you need a misleading over-exaggerating lurid headline to trap your readers into going into the article?
Headlines should theoretically give you a one line overview of the gist of the article. They should not give an exaggerated statement which is then to be dismantled in the actual article. That’s just a disservice to your readers.
Look at the headlines in this very article, look at the bold headline at the top: This headline will destroy the world. 3 This is the style headlines are written these days. A proper alternative headline would be:
Why headlines often are misleading and wasting your time
Although headlines starting with “why” are problematic, I am 100 % behind that headline. They are often misleading, I’m trying to explain here why they are and reading something that doesn’t give you any value is a waste of time. I think this headline fits. Put differently:
Because they aren’t summarizing the article anymore. They won’t give you the gist. They are so lurid, annoy people, and in the article itself calm the same people down again. But I’m repeating myself and probably had to many paragraphs where it isn’t needed. You can of course write an article about bad paragraphing.
I just want you as a writer to perhaps give your headline at least a second shot whether if it’s lurid or not. And if it’s lurid, please consider the option that your article wasn’t worth being written in the first place.
And you as a reader, please think about just not reading lurid articles. You could consider such a headline as an insult to your intelligence. 4
Now I am done. If you read through this point. Thank you. And think about which articles you want to read. I don’t know whether this article even was worth your time.
If you haven’t heard of it, Horace Dediu answered to the question of why the headline is wrong first with an explanation, that quarterly sequential measures just don’t make sense and followed up really nicely with It’s like saying “Fire is cold” without adding “compared to the surface of the Sun”. (https://twitter.com/asymco/status/324907953272541184) ↩
Sorry, I’ve got a bit angry there ↩
The second part is to make clear it’s not meant serious ↩
Oh boy, that sounds snobby ↩
After having listened to by now 2 out of 2 great episodes, I feel comfortable really advising you to listen if:
- you are comfortable with a relaxed talk
- no specific agenda
- really free form topics
well gosh, just listen to it. It’s great! 1
Be warned. I might not have an objective perspective as they mentioned my blog here positively, but you have to believe me, it’s a nice outbreak of “conventional fixed” podcasting style! ↩
It’s difficult to pull yourself away from the feeling that you need to be posting more and doing everything you can to keep numbers up, but when it comes right down to it, it’s all about who is paying attention to your work, not how many.
What if Apple doesn’t „innovate“?
Well, it could mean that Apple is screwed. But even if Apple is screwed, why would I care?
The only reason Apple could be screwed (and go bankrupt) is them not delivering experiences up to their expectations (so I wouldn’t mind them going bankrupt as a consumer) or they were „out-innovated“ 1 by another company which is even more innovative, so why would I care about Apple anymore? I mean, I can happily move all my data to another platform.
There are Apps for almost everything on any platform, I would just have to find new ones.
I don’t get why people care so deeply.
Wait a moment. Is it because of the stock market? Well, then, I couldn’t care less. Sorry, but I don’t hold Apple Stock.
let’s make a neologism here ↩
Innovation, Invention - thoughts from a student
Today, I woke up and as always, just catched up with my twitter feed and found this tweet from (really you should follow him!) @zcichy:
“Make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.”
He followed up with:
“a procedure in which repetition of a sequence of operations yields results successively closer to a desired result”
and concluded with:
Iteration is the mechanism that drives innovation.
This got me thinking, what really is innovation? Is it all related to what a user notices at his product? Is a laminated display to be considered innovation?
So essentially the question:
Does innovation have to be end user facing? And if yes, please properly define end user. Good luck!
Another nice aspect is that tech companies really really often use the word innovation, but not as predominately as you might think. Yet as the first example to search for, because it’s often mentioned, I searched for Apple regarding innovation, and Apple is obviously making up its thoughts 1. And others, like well established and thoughtful people like Horace Dediu from Asymco is thinking about innovation. At one time at his podcast 2 he sort of analysed the change in speaking in press releases. There is this last paragraph in Apple Press Releases, which is essentially the same but at the same time not:
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also spearheading the digital media revolution with its iPod portable music and video players and iTunes online store, and has entered the mobile phone market this year with its revolutionary iPhone.
The word innovation is in there. Now look at 2013:
Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple has reinvented the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App Store, and is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices with iPad.
I don’t see a single mention of innovation.
Related to this, again, asymco has a nice piece.
Studying industrial engineering with economics and a focus on sustainable ressource management,
at one time 3, you might hear the courses “ressource strategies” and get a proper defintion of innovation. So according to my professor, there are 4 types of innovations:
- Basic innovation (laying the foundation) -They open up whole new fields by introducing a completely new technology, driving economic groth, closely related to Kondratiev wave 4. Best example: steam engine
- process innovation -You need less input for the same outpout. Example: line production
- product innovation -Innovation in products, example: sacless vacuum cleaner
- organizational innovation -Decrease in hierarchy, another example would be the building of Joint Ventures when they never existed before
I leave it up to you to conclude what specific thing falls into which category.
Continuing from the course:
Innovation as a process
has 3 phases:
- Invention (finding ideas, generating ideas)
- Innovation (selecting ideas, everything what comes after prototypes, so real products on the market can be counted as innovations, the prototype itself is not an innovation, the product is)
- Diffusion is happening the moment other companies grap the idea and make something alike. The photocopiers started.
I for myself haven’t concluded yet whether I fully agree with the views of my professor, but as is, this is one scientific definition of innovation.