Posts tagged Little
Analysis from Conductor reveals several strategies that superstar SEOs use to achieve success. Learn how Superstar SEOs approach content in today’s post-Panda/Penguin/Hummingbird quality content landscape and more.
View full post on Search Engine Watch – Latest
Apple had a choice earlier this year: Roll out iOS 7 to every iPhone, iPad and iPod that could possibly support it or only allow the latest version of operating system for new devices. It was a Catch-22 where Apple was damned if it didn’t … and has been damned that it did.
Apple’s iOS 7 is the biggest leap that the operating system has made since it was originally released with the first iPhone in 2007. And we are not just talking about the paint with the pastel colors, flat design, parallax and opaque menu dropdowns. iOS 7 had 1,500 new application programming interfaces in it to go with a 64-bit ARM architecture that future-proofs iOS for the next few years.
Yet one of iOS 7’s biggest problems has been supporting the past.
If you are running iOS 7 on an iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5 or an iPad 2, you are getting a double whammy of trouble. Apple, by necessity and design, crippled many features in iOS 7 to support older devices. This is mostly a function of hardware as devices like the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and the iPad 2/3 don’t support functions like AirDrop or some of the new camera features. At the same time, older iDevices just don’t have the power to run a lot of what is happening in the background of iOS 7. And it is causing problems.
Many Apple users with devices released in 2012 or earlier have reported that iOS 7 renders their smartphones “unusable.” Apps crash, the whole system lags and is unresponsive and battery life drains extremely quickly. Reports that the iOS 7 keyboard is slow and typing the wrong words has some users throwing a fit.
Why Fragmentation Would Be Good For iOS
Apple loves to tweak its competitors at its presentations. Microsoft has for years has been the target of sideways jabs by Apple executives. Google and its Android operating system are now a frequent target. Apple fans love to point towards Android and scream “fragmentation, fragmentation!” as a sign of the inferiority of Google’s mobile operating system.
Apple could probably use a little fragmentation at this point.
As of October 18, nearly 73% of iOS users were on iOS 7. That’s about 250 million devices upgraded in exactly one month. That’s an impressive feat, but one that’s also brought its own problems.
Most users hardly have a choice to download the iOS 7 update; their iPhone or iPads do it automatically when connected to Wi-Fi. The user still has to install the update themselves, but if they don’t, it just sits on the device, taking up memory until the user eventually installs it in place of iOS 6. One man in California has even taken Apple to small claims court because he didn’t want iOS 7 on his device.
To complicate things, Apple has made it basically impossible to downgrade from iOS 7 by deactivating authorization of new iOS 6.1.3 downloads. Users with older devices are stuck with iOS 7 whether they like it or not.
Apple did the same thing for users last year when upgrading from iOS 5 to iOS 6. The rollout was not without its problems, but not quite on the scale we have seen with iOS 7.
Apple has plenty of reasons to want all users on the latest version of iOS. It theoretically helps app developers create streamlined experiences and allows Apple to address any and all OS issues that arise with one update it can roll out to everybody (as it has done twice in the last month with iOS 7.0.2 and 7.0.3).
The ability to roll out an operating system upgrade to millions of people at once is a big selling point for Apple vis-à-vis its rivals. Google can’t do that, given that the Android ecosystem that involves dozens of hardware manufacturers and cellular carriers who are all part of the process.
At the same time, Apple would do well if it left some of the users on older devices out of the newest versions of iOS. Really, Apple would be doing them and itself a favor, given the performance problems that have plagued older iOS devices with the iOS 7 rollout.
But this is where Apple finds its Catch-22. Users who aren’t allowed to get the new version of iOS could be really angry. We’ve seen this over and over with Android. Yet users that do get the new version of iOS are also really angry because their devices just are not working as well as they used to.
View full post on ReadWrite
With Little SEO Value Left in Them, Are Press Releases Still Worthwhile? – MarketingProfs.com (subscription)0
With Little SEO Value Left in Them, Are Press Releases Still Worthwhile?
Here's the PR equivalent of your grandpa's story about walking five miles to school in three-foot snow drifts, uphill both ways… Back in the day, when distribution hinged on fax machines and tracking coverage meant cutting articles out of actual …
View full post on SEO – Google News
Eric Enge, co-author of The Art of SEO and a speaker at SES SF 2013 last week (here’s a recap of his AuthorRank session) just released Stone Temple Consulting’s study on whether or not Google+ shares alone can affect search engine rank. For the study, Stone Temple Consulting took three websites and had two unique pages […]
The post Study Determines Google+ Shares Have Little Impact on Search Rankings by @wonderwall7 appeared first on Search Engine Journal.
View full post on Search Engine Journal
The beauty of the Internet is that anyone can write and publish a blog on any subject they want—pure breed Labradors, open source software development, life as an Alaskan soccer mom, eco-friendly construction—the sky really is the limit. The downside of the Internet is that anyone can write and publish a blog on any subject […]
The post Blogging Success- A Lot of Hard Work and a Little Luck by @NickStamoulis appeared first on Search Engine Journal.
View full post on Search Engine Journal
Charles Foster Kane dreamed of Rosebud; Michael Dell yearned for his old company back. Yesterday, one of them got his wish, when it was announced that Dell Inc. shareholders would be returning the company to Dell’s ownership on Nov. 1.
Seven months, $25 billion and dealing with Carl Ichan may seem like a lot to pay for a company that primarily makes PCs in a market that is seeing a dwindling of PC sales—especially the Icahn part—but by convincing Dell’s shareholders to sell their stock back to him and his investor partner Silver Lake Partners, Dell may have done the best thing to keep his company alive.
That may not seem readily apparent if you listened to Dell CFO Brian Gladden’s remarks in yesterday’s call announcing the news. Gladden stated that Dell Inc. would pretty much stay the course, start to invest more heavily in enterprise software and services, such as cloud computing, and keep on making PCs and “other end-user computing devices”—what we call tablets.
On first pass, it sounds like Dell Inc. wants to become more like competitors Hewlett-Packard and IBM (though the latter sent its desktop business off to China’s Lenovo years ago). Which sounds a little nuts. Even if you put aside the heavy competition that these companies will bring to Dell (and, really, you can’t), Dell is focusing on a sector that is at best in flux right now, as consumerization of enterprise IT continues apace, and at worst in some peril, as trust issues regarding cloud computing are still being sorted out by companies in the wake of the NSA leaks.
But on further review, it may be that Dell is in the best shape moving forward precisely because of those potential hurdles.
The truth is, selling to the enterprise is no longer an easy game of checking off an order with “how many servers do you need?” and “You want desktops with that order?” IT is changing at a deep fundamental level, and IT administrators in the enterprise (and nearly every size of business, for that matter) are trying to figure out what to do.
Because of that uncertainty, you see software and hardware companies forced to adjust to market conditions at a pace that some would consider break-neck at times. That’s because, as mostly public companies, they must do everything they can to make money or stem the flow of losing money.
Public companies, because of their responsibilities to their shareholders, can only afford to take a certain amount of risk before they have to cut their losses and move on to another plan. This is why we see drastic moves like Microsoft becoming a “devices and services” company and more subtle moves like Google’s infamous Fall and Spring cleanings to axe cloud services that people might love but aren’t making the company any money.
But, as a private company, Dell may very well be in a position to take those risks and stick with them. Here’s one hypothetical: if everyone in the hardware market wants to put their eggs in the tablet basket (Dell included), they can, but if tablets somehow fail in the enterprise sector, then the public companies would likely drop their tablet products like hot potatoes. Dell, in theory, could stay the course, slowly and steadily filling orders for businesses that can make business use of the tablets, and innovating their tablet line to something that gets it right.
This example might play out, because for public companies, the definition of failure is usually “it’s not making us truckloads of money right now.” Public companies have less patience, because their shareholders do. A private company could take the risk and go for the longer play.
It may not be in tablets; it might be in PCs. In fact, I think ultimately PCs will be a good run for Dell Inc., as I remain convinced there will be a bottom to this PC decline, if only because some people have to get some work done. In their quests to bringing in the bucks, Dell’s competition might let their PC efforts slide, leaving more chances for Dell to capture more of a market that will never truly evaporate.
Whatever it is, Dell should be able to take its time and figure it out.
Is going private the be-all-end-all for Dell Inc.? No, because they could still make bonehead moves and drive themselves into the ground. But with more time and freedom to plan, they may have a better shot to react to this IT market than their competition.
View full post on ReadWrite
Big Data is a big deal for businesses, given the potential for marketing departments to discover our innermost thoughts and buying behaviors, and thereby tailor pitches to us. At least, that’s the dream. For now, at least based on the data marketing firms actually have on most of us, the dream is far from being realized.
The Sad Reality Of Big Data Marketing
We’ve all read about how marketers are now able to make highly tailored product pitches to us based on our web searches, online purchases and more. Our every click, registered and used against us. Our privacy, destroyed forever!
And yet the reality is kind of depressing. For all our talk about Big Data knowing so much, they marketers may actually know very, very little.
To help consumers understand the data being collected about them, Acxiom just launched a new website called AboutTheData.com. The site allows you to enter some personal information (name, birthdate, etc.) and discover what marketers think about you. Granted, the site is likely also a way for Axciom to build up its reservoir of data, but it’s kind of fun to see what the marketing data says about us.
For example, according to AboutTheData.com, I’m a 40-year old, truck-driving Arab that votes Democrat, has a newborn and is into fashion.
Well, one of those is true.
My friend and Businessweek reporter, Ashlee Vance, notes that according to the site, “I’m a single Italian woman with one child. Time to get back to work, algorithms.” Now whatever you may think of his first name, Ashlee is very much a man. And I think the closest he gets to being Italian is ordering pizza… at Dominos.
No wonder that my friend and PR executive Lonn Johnston writes, “I’m feeling much safer if this is how the big data rubber hits the patch of road that runs through my life.”
Not That It’s All Bad
Of course, much of the information on the AboutTheData.com site is pretty accurate. I do donate to charitable causes (How did they get my tithing receipts?). I have lived in my 1930s era home for 10 years. I do make a lot of online purchases and probably do roughly average the dollars spent that Acxiom believes I do.
What’s weird is that despite this data, the ads I still see on the web (mostly obliterated by studious use of AdBlock) are generally irrelevant to my interests. I want to buy a used Subaru Outback as my daughter is now crowding me out of our family driving pool, and have registered that interest by spending far too much time on AutoBuyer, Edmunds, KSL and Craigslist looking at these cars. But I’ve yet to see a single ad tailored to this obvious buying intent.
Instead I see the same stupid ads you see: how to learn a new language, weight loss miracle cures, etc.
Which is why I can’t credit Acxiom’s warning that opting out of its marketing data repository will somehow hurt me:
Opting out of Acxiom’s online and/or offline marketing data will not prevent you from receiving marketing materials. Instead of receiving ads that are relevant to your interests, you will see more generic ads with no information to tailor content. For example, instead of getting a great offer on a hotel package in your favorite vacation spot, you might see an ad for the latest, greatest weight loss solution.
I’ve never had a single ad giving me a deal on a Grand Targhee vacation. Or something urging me to get those new Rossignol S7s that I’ve wanted and demonstrated interest in by madly clicking on the new season’s models.
Or, really, anything that I actually want.
Maybe Acxiom and the other online marketing companies don’t send me such offers because they think I’m Arab. And drive a truck. And vote Democrat. But given all that they do know about me, I’d kind of hope to get an ad that actually mattered to me.
At least once.
View full post on ReadWrite
If you’ve received this warning, it’s because Google has determined your site isn’t serving the best possible quality of content for your visitors, primarily because it’s either nearly non-existent, or the content isn’t unique or original.
View full post on Search Engine Watch – Latest
A new research paper authored by Matt Schruers and published by the Computer & Communications Industry Association argues that search engines have been unfairly targeted in the quest to impede online copyright infringement. According to the paper, the perception is that search engines are the…
Please visit Search Engine Land for the full article.
One false tweet from a hacked Associated Press Twitter account wiped $200 billion off the stock market, but most tweets don’t move markets one way or another. In fact, there appears to be little rhyme or reason for Twitter’s effect on individual stocks.
Take Google. While its stock has been on a six-month tear, growing 19% in that period, its “social stock” has been anything but over the same timeframe:
Or what about Cisco? Stock is up 19% over the last six months too, while Twitter reflects 82% bearish sentiment. Apple? Stock is down 33% in the last six months, while Twitter sentiment remains neutral.
Granted, some stocks like Microsoft accurately reflect their Twitter sentiment: Microsoft is up 23% in the last six months, with 71% of tweets cheering the company on. And while Red Hat jumped in the last six months, it has settled into roughly the same position it held in November 2012. Social sentiment? Neutral.
In other words, while it may be wise to consult a financial advisor when investing in stocks, consulting your 500 million Twitter friends? Not so much.
Not everyone, or every hedge fund, agrees. Derwent Capital has spent two years analyzing a subset of tweets to gauge sentiment around a stock. That lasted all of a month, but allegedly because it was so impressive (returning 1.86% in that month) that the Derwent team in 2012 decided to build a trading platform around the idea. It’s unclear how well that went since its website… no longer exists. Hardly a sign of blistering success.
Which is not to suggest that Twitter isn’t a good way to get a finger on the pulse of social sentiment. It is. I use it daily in my work, and find it a great predictor of sentiment around various brands I follow. But it’s unclear, at best, that such sentiment translates into winning stock picks. Now if there were a way to segment out of the general Twitter noise the tweets of those that matter most to discerning a company’s chances?
That just might work.
Image courtesy of Shutterstock.
View full post on ReadWrite