Why the iPad won't save the magazine industry

Magazine industry advertising revenue declined an average of 12% the past 2 years (18% in 2009) so most magazines need to reverse revenue declines while managing costs or face the real prospect of going out of business if the bleeding continues.

Some believe the iPad will enable magazines to reverse course in the near-term, but we believe these expectations are way off the mark. In particular:

• It's going to be years for mobile ad revenue to become material.
• As a result, in the near-term magazines will need to look to subscription revenue to drive incremental profits.
• But, even if iPad sales wildly exceed expectations and users rush to purchase lots of magazine subscriptions (we don't think they will), this will not be enough to drive meaningful revenue at most magazines.

EVEN IF IPADS FLY OFF THE SHELVES MAGAZINES WILL STILL ONLY REALIZE A SMALL PERCENT OF THEIR OVERALL PRINT REVENUE

Just like the internet hasn't turned into a material business for most print magazines, neither will the iPad in the near-term.

We crunched some numbers using the following assumptions:

• iPad owners are early-adopters that consume a lot of content so let's say 50% of them subscribe to two iPad magazines each.
• Magazine subscriptions on the iPad are higher than print subscriptions (most magazines plan to charge more initially), so assume an average $15 per monthly subscription.

Even if iPad sales soar past expectations and reach, say, 16 million units over the next two years total magazine subscription revenue would equal about $2.8 billion per year under the above case scenario. That's less than 30% of annual circulation revenue for the entire magazine industry and only about 10% of overall industry revenue (circulation + advertising).

What are your thoughts on the subject? Do you think the iPad will or will not benefit the industry?

BizProf and Social Networking Ideas

Check this out! I think this paper has a Q&A section and this article has a reader asking about cost effective ways to market their business. The BizProf suggests social networking and brings up some of the stuff we have discussed in class.

Questions:
1) BizProf is giving good advice, but do you think that the overuse of this medium for market will lead to white noise that will be ignored?
2) BizProf also says that the key to the success of using social networking sites is not being too "sales-pitchy." What do you think about this in regards to the idea of interactivity is the new entertainment? Also in regards to interpersonal communication? If someone is paid to do this job, is it cost effective or at what point would it be?
3) We have also talked about the importance of knowing yourself and your company. Throw out some ideas of companies that you think would and would not benefit from social networking sites? Real life examples are awesome!!!!

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/03/31/business/doc4bb3bfaaca104082363049.txt

"American Idol owner may be sold"

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/29/news/companies/American_Idol_sale/index.htm


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- CKX Inc. confirmed Monday that it is in talks that could lead to the sale of the company that owns the popular television show "American Idol."

In a brief statement, the New York-based company stressed that no deal is pending, adding that it will make no further comments regarding a potential deal, including a sale price, unless a final agreement is reached.

While the statement didn't specify who CKX is in talks with, One Equity Partners, the private equity branch of JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), is reportedly interested in buying the company.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that One Equity could pay CKX shareholders about $6 a share under a potential deal. That would value the company at about $560 million.

One Equity Partners, which owns a stake in TV Guide, did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment.

In addition to the "American Idol" broadcast in the United States, CKX owns the rights to local adaptations of the show that air in more than 100 countries worldwide.

I think that it is interesting that they would sale a company that owns a very successful show like American Idol. Although there has been speculation that American Idol is running out of momentum especially after two of the most popular judges have left the show (Paula as we know is already gone and Simon is leaving after this season). Do you guys think the company is selling foreseeing a loss and if so what are the benefits of purchasing this company?

A Social Media Election? Not This Time Around

"Despite much chatter that the UK’s upcoming May poll could be “the first social media election”, such a thing is looking unlikely.
Analyst group Ovum says parties have only gone as far as using social web tools “aimed primarily at communication and collaboration within the established caste of politicians, journalists, and interest groups”. That’s not very inclusive…
“The parties acknowledge that social media can be used to mobilise activists, engage new audiences, or harvest a long tail of donators,” says Ovum senior analyst Vuk Trifkovic. “However, unless the parties have a surprise up their sleeve, we do not believe that social media will play an integral part of the campaign efforts in the forthcoming elections.”
“Last night’s chancellors’ debate and the upcoming leaders’ debates make it far more likely that 2010 will be remembered as the ‘TV election’ rather than the ‘social media election’.”
There’s a reason for that, in my opinion. Campaigns, in essence, are one-way communication periods - by the time a campaign comes around, policies should have already been worked out, key messages prioritised. The public’s part to play in an election campaign is to listen, judge promises and to act by voting...
The periods between campaigns, however, are the periods ripe for citizen engagement. These are the times when parties should be listening, both to their grassroots and to the electorate…
Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign is often hailed as a seminal one for online politics - but it was 2004 Democratic candidate Howard Dean who made most strides harnessing the web; not just to campaign, but to rebuild his party’s consensus through dialogue (read his campaign manager’s book on the subject). This, too, is what the Conservative party’s grassroots blogosphere has been doing since the Tories lost the last election - debating and getting its house in order in time for the upcoming election. Now is the time voters get to judge that work…
Ovum nails it: “Election campaigns have a finite lifespan.” The ambition for a one-off “social media election” belies the hope that online citizen engagement in politics could be perpetrual, not every five years. "

Questions:
- What are your thoughts on this subject? Do you agree that this years first social media is unlikely? Or do you disagree and still persist that this year will be the first social media election?

This is the full article and is written by Robert Andrews. The article is posted in PaidContent:UK (The cover the UK's digital media economy). Date of article posted is March 30, 2010

For the online article and site go to: http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-a-social-media-election-not-this-time-around/

Apple Working on Verizon iPhone

"Apple May Be Working on iPhone For Verizon:Report"  http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/03/30/technology/tech-us-apple-verizon.html 

"Report:Apple Working on Verizon iPhone" 

"The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Apple may be working on iPhone designed for Verizon Wireless."

With AT&T Inc. being the company offering iPhones in the past, family and individuals were all switching phone providers because of just that. In the past the iPhone has sold more than 42 million units. Apple and AT&T still have a great relationship, and Apple is already working on a new iPhone planned to debut this summer. In 2011 though, it IS expected that Verizon will offer a version of the iPhone with a contract with Apple.

Another interesting note:

"Verizon shares rose to $31.50 from a close of $30.45, while AT&T shares slipped to $25.97 from a close of $26.51. Apple stock rose 2.3 percent to $237.65 in extended trading from a close of $232.39.:" ----NYTimes

What do you think this will do for both AT&T and Verizon once the new iPhone is offered with Verizon? How many more companies do you think will be offering iPhones within the next few years? OR do you think the iPhone will be replaced by another idea or better phone design? 

Hulu's a Towering Success -- Just Not Financially

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Hulu is everyone's favorite provider of TV on the web, but it's facing an ideological battle over its future. On one side are its network backers, which would like Hulu to become a paid service. On the other is the advertising community, which would like to keep Hulu free as a test-bed for new targeted-ad formats that can't be skipped. It's an important issue, because any debate about Hulu is a debate about the future of purely ad-supported TV, which is increasingly becoming an endangered species. Hulu is the No. 2 video site on sheer volume of video views behind YouTube, yet no one is yet making much money from its model: not its network backers, other content partners and least of all Hulu itself, which has a hard time paying for its bandwidth bills.
"[Hulu] does have to move to a premium model," said one network exec. "If you look at the business, it's just not economically feasible to give away programming at low rates."
Hulu won't comment on its economics, but if you consider that it's selling video ads and companion banners together in the $40 CPM range, and it appears to be about 50% sold out, when 70% is paid back to networks, Hulu is netting pennies per viewer per hour, about what it costs to deliver video of that quality.

For more one this article go to: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=143011

No one wants to delay what thier watching for ads, i recognize the issue at hand I feel that once you've been giving it away, its will be very difficult to now block usage and begin to charge for it. I think this will be a difficult task for Hulu.

CW to Double Ad Content in the Online Version of Its Shows

The CW plans to double the number of commercials it runs in Web versions of its shows, bringing them to par with the number of commercials in the broadcast versions, the Wall Street Journal reports [The WSJ uses a subscription model. A non-pay version of this story is at fierceonlinevideo.com)
The network said that more of its viewers are checking out its shows online. With parity in the number of ads, regardless of where viewers see them, the network is hoping to sell combined Web/TV packages to advertisers, the WSJ reports.
The key will be to find out if the viewers of CW shows online mind the same number of commercials that the network shows on broadcast.
"What they're seeing is that their audience isn't going to necessarily be traditional linear TV viewers," said Donna Speciale, top buyer at Publicis Groupe SA's MediaVest USA. The company will start bumping its online ad buys on CW shows next month. "We're willing to test with them to see what kind of legs this has for the future."
This isn't the first Time Warner property to experiment with bumping ad loads to that of traditional broadcast levels. Its Turner Broadcasting Systems property last November said it would begin doubling ad loads to a full run of 20 30-secord spots per hour on shows like TNT'S "The Closer."more »

DirecTV to Launch ESPN's 3D Channel

DirecTV has become the fist distributor to announce that it will carry ESPN's new 3D channel.
According to the ESPN announcement, "ESPN 3D will showcase a minimum of 85 live sporting events during its first year, beginning June 11 with the first 2010 FIFA World Cup match, featuring South Africa versus Mexico. Other events to be produced in 3D include X Games 16, 2010 college football ACC Championship, 2011 BCS National Championship game, college basketball and NBA games in 2011."
This 3D service is for the new generation of TV sets that are 3D capable. Viewers must wear special polarized glasses--some active, some passive--with clear lenses, to get the 3D effect.
DirectTV will not charge extra for ESPN 3D if a subscriber already receives ESPN.
Also, according to the announcement, DirecTV has some more details about the other 3D offerings it will have: "In addition to N3D™ powered by Panasonic, which will deliver the best 3D programming from programmers such as AEG/AEG Digital Media, CBS, Fox Sports/FSN, Golden Boy Promotions, HDNet, MTV, NBC Universal and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., DIRECTV will also offer a 24/7 3D pay per view channel and a 24/7 3D DIRECTV on Demand channel, beginning this June. This June, DIRECTV HD customers will receive a free software upgrade enabling them to have access to the 3D channels on DIRECTV. DIRECTV HD customers will need a 3D television set and 3D glasses to view 3D programming on DIRECTV."

There is no need for me to go into the magnitude of this. This is going to be a monumental moment for die-hard sports fans, after all we alread seek the biggest screens, surround sounds in order to enhance the realistic effects of television now we can have the opportunity to have it in our face! Looking forward to it.

Nintendo is Protective of its Brand

According to Nintendo North America President Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo is in no hurry to let Hollywood turn it's products into movies. You may remember the movie "Super Mario Brothers" from the 1990s. The movie was not very successful and, in my opinion, degraded the entire Mario Brothers brand.

Nonetheless, movie makers are pursuing this video game giant for it's products. So, I pose a couple of questions:

1) Why would Nintendo be so unwilling to let some of it's products be portrayed on film?
2) Why are movie makers so persistent with Nintendo's products?

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/playback/playback-108/1395094

Get Ready For More Commercials On Web Videos

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- In the short history of online TV-watching, one standard has largely held fast: Shows that run online have significantly fewer ads than shows that run on the boob tube.
But that could soon change.
Starting this fall, Nielsen intends to start making available data that take into account viewing of commercials that run in a particular show, no matter whether they are seen online or on TV. The data will be made available for evaluation starting this September and are intended to become the basis for ad negotiations in February 2011.
But here's the catch: For Nielsen to be able to provide the commercial rating, shows seen online will have to have the same group of commercials that run on TV. If this system were adopted en masse -- and it's not clear that it would be -- online viewing might be crammed just as full of commercials as the more traditional TV-watching experience.Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/get-ready-for-more-commercials-on-web-videos-2010-2?utm_source=feedburner#ixzz0aSvs6yAh

I for one am not very big on watching videos from the web, however I see its perks but if many consumer have been grown used to getting online video with limited commercials increasing ads would then make the webs have very little difference from television but the two industires have to make money I suppose the question is how??

Google Fiber for Huntsville

"Google is planning to launch an experiment that we hope will make Internet access better and faster for everyone. We plan to test ultra-high speed broadband networks in one or more trial locations across the country. Our networks will deliver Internet speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today, over 1 gigabit per second, fiber-to-the-home connections. We'll offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people."

Alright, I don't think I need to tell smart people like you that this is a super opportunity, not only for the city of Huntsville, but for the entire community of North Alabama. The advancements that this type of technology could bring to Alabama in terms of bandwidth and speed is impressive. I plead with you to take a minute to check out the links bellow to support the initiative of bringing Google Fiber to Huntsville.

Nominate Huntsville

and the

Facebook Fan Page

The Digital Dictatorship

This is an excellent article that brings to light an illogical conclusion many in the US have about the internet and "democracy." I am doing a research paper on "conspiracy theories" for COM Law. I think it is interesting how the internet can perpetuate false information, specifically the effect that the mass appeal of the internet can have on people. They may think "all of these people believe that..." so the mass of opinion lends credibility to the argument. I think that a lot of people can reason well enough to know that just because a lot of people might think "Elvis was abducted by aliens" doesn't make it true unless there is evidence to support the notion. Apparently, our government does consider conspiracy theories about their activities to be dangerous enough that Cass Sunstein, one of the current administration's czars wrote a white paper in which he said,

Practically speaking, government might do well to maintain a more vigorous countermisinformation establishment than it would otherwise do, one that identifies and rebuts many more conspiracy theories would otherwise be rebutted...

...It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts. Although government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes, too close a connection will prove self-defeating if it is exposed. Link to his paper

 So, regarding theories, the government should run their own establishment and run things behind the scenes? The actions that can be taken by governments Cass talks about in his essay are eluded to in this article. Just because we may see the internet as a tool for people to disseminate information that extols the virtues of liberty does not mean that the tool can not be utilized by governments in order to achieve their goals. It does not matter if "conspiracy theories" or liberty are concerned. I think the one major thing that should be regulated is the government involvement in the internet, period.

 
The Digital Dictatorship
It's fashionable to hold up the Internet as the road to democracy and liberty in countries like Iran, but it can also be a very effective tool for quashing freedom. Evgeny Morozov on the myth of the techno-utopia.

FEBRUARY 20, 2010
By EVGENY MOROZOV

A storm of protest hit Google last week over Buzz, its new social networking service, because of user concerns about the inadvertent exposure of their data. Internet users in Iran, however, were spared such trouble. It's not because Google took extra care in protecting their identities—they didn't—but because the Iranian authorities decided to ban Gmail, Google's popular email service, and replace it with a national email system that would be run by the government.


Such paradoxes abound in the Islamic Republic's complex relationship with the Internet. As the Iranian police were cracking down on anti-government protesters by posting their photos online and soliciting tips from the public about their identities, a technology company linked to the government was launching the first online supermarket in the country. Only a few days later, Iran's state-controlled telecommunications company confirmed it had struck an important deal with its peers in Azerbaijan and Russia, boosting the country's communications capacity and lessening its dependence on Internet cables that pass through the United Arab Emirates and Turkey.

Most of these paradoxes are lost on Western observers of the Internet and its role in the politics of Iran and other authoritarian states. Since the publication of John Perry Barlow's "Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" in 1996, they have been led to believe that cyberspace is conducive to democracy and liberty, and no government would be able to crush that libertarian spirit (why, then, Mr. Barlow felt the need to write such a declaration remains unknown to this day). The belief that free and unfettered access to information, combined with new tools of mobilization afforded by blogs and social networks, leads to the opening up of authoritarian societies and their eventual democratization now forms one of the pillars of "techno-utopianism." Continue reading...

Battling Music Piracy with Free Songs

A recent MSNBC story has reported that the music industry is experimenting with new ways in which to revamp their broken business model by offering “free” music to consumers. In the industry’s battle against piracy, an issue that was frequently referred to in The Long Tail, music revenues have dropped by nearly half over the past decade, 8.5% in 2009 alone, with 2009 U.S. music &licensing revenue totaling $6.3 billion as opposed to $14.6 billion on 2009. By 2014, it is estimated that music and licensing will decrease to around $5.5 billion. In saying this, the big question proposed by the industry is “how to revive the business?” Some feel that answer is to combat piracy with free access to music.

FREEALLMUSIC.com, a site adopting the free approach, allows users to access up to 20 songs per month in exchange for watching a 15-30 second advertisement in order to gain access to the song. Advertisers on board include Coca-Cola, who are reported to have paid nearly $2 per user download with most of the revenue going back to the labels for access to the nearly 10,000 users testing the system. “Consumers win because they’re getting free music and they’re also engaging with brands that they like,” said Brian McCort, Executive Vice President of Business Development for Free All Music. “The labels win because they’re getting properly compensated for their music, and the brands are winning as well.” This is a unique approach that seems to be catching on, now with 100,000 now on FREEALLMUSIC.com’s waiting list eager to test the service.

Guvera, another platform following the same approach that directs users to download free songs from branded sites, is expected to launch in the U.S. next week. Spotify, yet another free music platform based out of the U.K., streams music from all the major labels with advertisements, sharing the ad revenue. It currently has 2 million users in the U.K. and expected to launch in the U.S. later this year.

While this model obviously has it’s high points, is it strong enough to serve as savior to a floundering industry? This question may very well be answered in part by observing the revenue collected by advertisers and the labels alike in the months to come.


Video of the story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35912322#35912322

C-Span Puts Full Archives on the Web

I am really amazed to see that their operation is only $1 million per year. I wonder what will be drug up in the coming campaign season now that producers have easier access to the information? This seems like it continues the "democratization of production" by now having an easier way to get the info (not having to have a researcher go to C-SPAN to get the video).

C-Span Puts Full Archives on the Web Sign in to Recommend


By BRIAN STELTER

Published: March 15, 2010

WASHINGTON — Researchers, political satirists and partisan mudslingers, take note: C-Span has uploaded virtually every minute of its video archives to the Internet.


The archives, at C-SpanVideo.org, cover 23 years of history and five presidential administrations and are sure to provide new fodder for pundits and politicians alike. The network will formally announce the completion of the C-Span Video Library on Wednesday.


Having free online access to the more than 160,000 hours of C-Span footage is “like being able to Google political history using the ‘I Feel Lucky’ button every time,” said Rachel Maddow, the liberal MSNBC host.

Ed Morrissey, a senior correspondent for the conservative blog Hot Air (hotair.com), said, “The geek in me wants to find an excuse to start digging.”

No other cable network is likely to give away its precious archives on the Internet. (Even “Book TV” is available.) But C-Span is one of a kind, a creation of the cable industry that records every Congressional session, every White House press briefing and other acts of official Washington.

The online archives reinforce what some would call the Web’s single best quality: its ability to recall seemingly every statement and smear. And it is even more powerful when the viewer can rewind the video.


The C-Span founder, Brian Lamb, said in an interview here last week that the archives were an extension of the network’s public service commitment.

“That’s where the history will be,” Mr. Lamb said.

C-Span has been uploading its history for several years, working its way to 1987, when its archives were established at Purdue University, Mr. Lamb’s alma mater.
The archive staff now operates from an office park in West Lafayette, Ind., where two machines that can turn 16 hours of tapes into digital files each hour have been working around the clock to move C-Span’s programs online. They are now finishing the 1987 catalog.
“This is the archive’s coming of age, in a way, because it’s now so accessible,” said Robert Browning, director of the archives.
Historically, the $1 million-a-year operation has paid for itself partly by selling videotapes and DVDs to journalists, campaign strategists and others. Continue reading

The Future of Entertainment: PROJECT NATAL

This post is in response to what AMiller posted yesterday about the Sony "Move." I am certainly not trying to steal her thunder, but her post reminded me of an amazing video that I'd watched a few months back. This video is Peter Molineaux's E3 presentation of his character Milo for Microsoft's Project NATAL.
For those of you non-geeks out there, E3 is like Mecca for video game nerds. It is a yearly conference where companies pull out all the stops and show the world all the cool stuff coming out in the future.
Well, with that, I urge you to watch this short video as a demonstration of, truly, the future not only of video games but of interactive entertainment, and surely just about everything else in life.
This video is sure to blow your mind. If you were impressed with the Ipad then get ready to shit over:

Project NATAL

Your comments....

'Tiger 11' to feature Ryder Cup

For the first time in franchise history, Tiger Woods will share the cover of his game with European phenom Rory McIlroy in order to showcase the newest mode in "Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11," the Ryder Cup. The tournament pits a team of 12 golfers from the United States against a team of 12 European golfers in series of competitions that include the following:

• Foursomes
• Four-ball
• Singles

The 2010 Ryder Cup course is in the game this year, so you'll be able to play the Ryder Cup on that course in the game. But the thing about the Ryder Cup is, you're not just playing, you're the team captain in the game, so you're even selecting your roster and the pairings.

Gatorade becomes first company to drop sponsorship of Tiger Woods, also Razor maker Gillette says they are limiting his campaigns both in December following the 'Woods Scandal'. This move to share Tiger's spot light on his self intitled game lead me to question is this a good move for EA? I also came across some speculated debate on the challenges of sponsorship and advertising involving Tiger on an ESPN segment.

I realize it will be challenging to promote Tiger after his recent media coverage, however if EA chooses to continue to produce this game I cant help but state " if it aint broke dont fix it"

Will this game be less or more of a successe as a result of the new additions? Listed below is the hyperlink for more on this article and the modifications of the, some are imporvements but the COVER is what I believe to be controversial....Thoughts?


http://sports.espn.go.com/videogames/news/story?id=4977840

Sony Unrevils Move

On Wednesday, Sony unveiled Move, its motion-sensitive controller.

A small device that looks like a microphone -- but with something on top of it that looks like a ping pong ball with an LED inside -- Move is Sony's bid to gain control over the motion controller wars that are currently led by Nintendo, with its Wii controller, and which many think will be dominated by Microsoft and its Project Natal controller system.

To Sony, releasing the Move is an obvious move for the PlayStation, given it believes it started the motion controller era with its Eye Toy. Sony held its press conference during the Game Developers Conference here.

Read the rest of the article at: http://bit.ly/90qAfQ

Bloggers: Do you think this is a good move for Sony or will Wii still over power Sony?

The first Alice In Wonderland

The first ever adaptation of Alice in Wonderland came in 1903. That's 107 years ago! I know it's kind of creepy and melancholic but it's an interesting study of how far we have come as an industry and how far and how fast we can continue to move.
Do you think that Avatar or even the new Alice in Wonderland movie will ever be seen by kids in the future with the same amount of morbid curiosity that we see this?

"Recently been restored by the BFI National Archive from severely damaged materials. Made just 37 years after Lewis Carroll wrote his novel and eight years after the birth of cinema, the adaptation was directed by Cecil Hepworth and Percy Stow, and was based on Sir John Tenniel’s original illustrations. In an act that was to echo more than 100 years later, Hepworth cast his wife as the Red Queen, and he himself appears as the Frog Footman. Even the Cheshire cat is played by a family pet. With a running time of just 12 minutes (8 of which survive), Alice in Wonderland was the longest film produced in England at that time. Film archivists have been able to restore the film’s original colours for the first time in over 100 years. Music: ‘Jill in the Box’, composed and performed by Wendy Hiscocks."


Check out the film and leave your comments...

82nd Academy Awards

If you missed the 82nd Academy Awards last night, you missed A LOT!!
First of all, Barbara Walters did her last Oscar Special right before the Oscars; this was her 29th year to do the special. She decided to stop after this year, because she said it'd be too cliche to wait one more year to make it an even 30 years. Babs interviewed Best Supporting Actress nominee, Mo'nique, who was in the film Precious, and Best Leading Actress nominee, Sandra Bullock, who starred in the film, The Blind Side.
Barbara also gave a re-cap of her past 29 years of Oscar special interviews, which was quite entertaining to see how her appearance has evolved through the decades!
This year's Oscars made a lot of firsts for a lot of people in the movie industry. "The Hurt Locker", directed by Kathryn Bigelow (ex of the director of "Avatar", James Cameron) was the first female director to win an Oscar. "The Hurt Locker" won a total of six Oscars, including Best Film!--This just proves that just because a movie (Avatar) is the biggest blockbuster and highest grossing film of all time, does not mean it is Oscar-worthy!
Sandra Bullock won her first Oscar for Best Actress, while giving the most heart-felt and humble acceptance speech of the night.
The program ran over an extra half hour to fit in all the great Oscar moments:
-Tribute to John Hughs by many of the stars from his movies, including Matthew Broderick, Jon Cryer, Molly Ringwald and more.
-Ben Stiller, appearing in full Avatar makeup to present for Best Makeup
-The hilarious duo hosts, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin
The program closed with Alec Baldwin smacking Best Director winner, Kathryn Bigelow on the backside!!

Is Apple launching a patent war?

A recent CNN tech article has reported that Apple is filing a lawsuit against HTC for allegedly infringing on its patents found in the iPhone. CNN columnist Marguerite Reardon weighed in, saying, “only one
company may have been named, but Jobs & Co. were issuing a legal warning to nearly every company that's released an iPhone-like device.” This could be a single incident or just one of many similar actions taken by Apple to solidify its footing in the Smartphone market, and while this is a substantial move on Apple’s behalf, it raises a number of questions regarding the decision.

Why HTC? According to Reardon, Apple may have chosen HTC for several reasons. “For one, HTC is a relatively small and young company when compared with some of its handset rivals, which means it has less money for a long legal battle. And it likely has fewer patents that can be used to countersue Apple,” said Reardon. The most obvious reason can be found in this excerpt of the article:

“Another likely major reason that HTC was picked: it is currently Apple's biggest threat. HTC was the first handset maker to start making Android phones. It sells five today, and it announced two more Android devices at Mobile World Congress last month: the HTC Legend and the HTC Desire.
These phones feature the latest Android software…In addition to its growing Android portfolio, HTC also manufactures about 80 percent of the phones that use the Windows Mobile software. And it will likely be the first handset maker to come out with a Smartphone using the new Windows Phone 7 operating system, which is specifically designed for touch screen phones could pose a threat to the iPhone.

Apple has good reason to be nervous about Android. Market researchers, such as IDC, are predicting that Google's Android will grow its market share faster than any other Smartphone operating system over the next five years. By 2013 IDC predicts that the software will be the second most used Smartphone operating system throughout the world.”


If Apple is successful in this case, who’s next? Motorola, Samsung, and Sony-Ericsson are speculated targets that could find themselves in a similar situation. This may be a valuable opportunity given to these companies by Apple to completely separate themselves from any questionable content on their phone’s operating systems and features so they don’t have to undergo the same chain of events. Google and Microsoft are also mentioned in the article, but being that both Microsoft and Google have strong relationships with Apple (as noted in the article), Apple may avoid this confrontation altogether.

This event may be as simple as Apple firing a warning shot to the entire industry at the expense of an overmatched and incomparable company, or again, this may be the beginning of a long and exhaustive effort to permanently separate itself from the competitors. Does Apple have a legitimate argument or are they desperately throwing their weight in hopes of stifling serious competitors?

Here's the article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/04/cnet.apple.patent/index.html?hpt=Mid

Endemol

From their website:

History

Endemol was founded in 1994 when two highly successful television producers in the Netherlands, Joop van den Ende and John de Mol, joined forces and merged their companies.

Endemol was de-listed from Amsterdam Euronext in 2007 and is now owned by a consortium consisting of Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, Mediaset Group and Cyrte Group.

The Netherlands or Nederlands (both spellings are correct.)

http://www.endemol.com/

Sports Illustrated adds anchored newscasts

According to an article from Advertising Age, Sports Illustrated plans on producing more videos as well as their magazines. Currently, Sports Illustrated only produces 3 or 4 video packages a year. Sports Illustrated now plans on producing 15 or more digital productions daily! This is a huge change for SI. The mention of the iPad is intriguing. It seems that SI will now build off like what ESPN360 has done. "We also want to do some stuff around the magazine and help the magazine come more alive," said Paul Fichtenbaum, managing editor at SI.com.

The entire article can be viewed from this link. http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=142341

Do you think this is a good idea for SI to invest videos instead of just concentrating on their magazine? Any other ideas or comments? Discuss.