Recently everybody started talking about f-Commerce as a new land to drive promotion and sell products, but tell us what does it mean for the brands to change the location where their products are being sold?
Can we say that they move from the brands’ websites to the ‘Contextual Community’?

“Shifting the consumers’ buying platform from an e-commerce environment to f-commerce isn’t simply about changing the location focus of the sale. Retailers who replicate current e-commerce capabilities within the walls of Facebook (e.g., Express apparel and JC Penney in the US, ASOS in the UK) are driven largely by providing their consumers with a convenient destination for all their social and shopping needs. I don’t see e-commerce sites going away completely in the near term. Immersive brand experiences, particularly for luxury products are more difficult to deliver within the confines of Facebook pages.

I believe that what retailers are getting excited about in f-commerce lie in the “off-Facebook” realm  (i.e., retailers using Facebook’s open graph capability to allow consumers to sign in to their Facebook accounts in order to pull information from Facebook). That’s where I see the most potential for brands to engage with their consumers with greater relevance than today – using a consumer’s network as a form of curation, a source of trusted opinions, and an “information filter” to overtly or tacitly personalize a shopping experience based on the consumer’s tastes and preferences (or those of the network).

For example, shopping on an apparel site through the lens of a stylist or a fashionista friend in a consumer’s network makes for a more delightful experience and one that has the potential to increase conversions for the retailer.

Other applications of relevance can come in the form of gift recommendations if two parties are fans of a retailer and one of them has expressed a preference for certain products by “liking” them on the retailer’s site.

Communities provide relevance and context by their very nature, be it through commonalities in tastes, geography/location, or past behaviors.
The “off-Facebook” f-commerce model allows for these advantages to be harnessed and integrated in an established online shopping destination (the retailer’s e-commerce website). Relevant data surfaced in the consumer’s shopping experience helps to enrich it and reap returns for the retailer.”

The latest success of companies like GroupOn and LivingSocial demonstrate how the Crowd Participation of the customer is becoming strategic.

Can we consider that key success factors for the future of digital commerce will be Crowd Control, Group Buying and Crowd-sourced Innovation?

“Yes, companies like Groupon and LivingSocial are groundbreaking because they created a new selling paradigm. If by “crowd control” you mean limiting the number of deals and offers, or creating a heightened sense of scarcity of the deal, then I think not.

The specifics of the deal offered by Groupon reflect agreements and business decisions reached by retail owners that deliver on the retailers’ marketing objectives. Social amplification of the deal is really what the retail owners are after – as well as the opportunity to form relationships with new customers.

“Crowd control” will likely hurt the success of group buying. In fact, I think group buying has the potential to become mainstream among regular retailers.

“Crowed-sourced innovation” is an interesting concept. Retailers involving their customers in designing new products and having others vote on them  – what better way to cultivate brand love and consumer engagement?

Throwing in a competitive element to crowd-sourced innovation will certainly up the stakes. Retailers should think of robust ways to incentivize consumers for their participation and time to drive loyalty.”

The digital side of commerce has started to move outside of computer screens as a result of the innovation in mobile industry. This changes everything because the virtual flow needs to be integrated with the retail in-store flow and opens a series of amazing opportunities. Some of the most exciting technology trends are:
- Indoor Navigation
- Mobile Scanning for Insights
- Mobile & Social Fashion Feedback
- In-Store Interaction
- Distribute Social Shopping.

Which trend do you find to be most interesting?

“Mobile devices, specifically smart phones, have really helped extend the e-commerce user experience across channels so consumers are able to move fluidly across them. But where the experience can really be useful in the funnel is in finding points at which consideration moves more quickly into conversion by identifying purchase barriers where the multiple channels can work in tandem to alleviate them.

Purchase considerations that sit in digital carts can now be referenced in-store so products can be seen “in person.” To take that idea even further, why can’t product recommendations that are similar to those being considered be presented as additional “we think you might also like” curated selections once the consumer steps into the store and “checks in”?  RFID technology can easily be implemented to then provide in-store wayfinding help to the garment racks in the store.

To that end, I think Mobile & Social Fashion Feedback holds a lot of promise as an area to watch. How many times have we waited in the dressing room area in stores to see shoppers soliciting feedback from companions about what they are considering purchasing?
I’ve been called upon a few times to provide my thoughts in dressing rooms, and more than once I’ve felt compelled to offer my opinion, unsolicited, to someone whom I think is looking great in an item. Real-time, community-solicited feedback is the next frontier of social interactions.
Particularly those that would influence immediate purchase decisions.”

Thank you Lynn for your time and for sharing your thoughts with us at the Frontiers of Interaction 2011 in Florence.

Frontiers of Interaction 2011, established in 2005, will gather leading international names such as Andrei Herasimchuk (Twitter, Lead Designer), Luke Williams (author of’Disrupt’), Lynn Teo (Creative Director, Head of User Experience at AKQA), just to name a few.

Some confirmed Speakers:

• Adam Somlai Fischer
  Founder, Prezi
• Andrei Herasimchuk
  Lead Designer, Twitter
• Phil Libin
  CEO at Evernote
• Mark Coleran
  Visual designer. Screen interface designer
• Luke Williams
  Author of “Disrupt”. Fellow at Frog Design
• Amber Case
  Cyborg Anthropologist. UX Designer
• Arna Ionescu
  Director of User Experience at Proteus Biomedical
• Christopher Cunningham
  Author of “Gamification in Action”
• Robert Hoekman jr
  Author of “Designing the Moment”
• Steve Portigal
  Principal at Portigal Consulting
• Whitney Hess
  User experience designer, writer, consultant
• Dave Malouf
  Professor of Interaction Design at SCAD
• Fabio Sergio
  Executive creative director at frog design Milano
• Lynn Teo
  Creative Director, Head of User Experience at AKQA
• Roberto Ascione
  President at Publicis Healthware International
• Massimo Scognamiglio
  Creative Director at DNSEE and Shareholder at D-Helix Inc.
• Thomas Sutton
  Creative Director at Frog Design
• Paolo Guglielmoni
  Creative director. Executive advisor ADCI – Art Directors Club Italiano

It’s an event of great value you should not miss for anything in the world if you were in Italy or in Europe. We decided to support this event with iMagazine and give you ample space in the following weeks to learn more information about the Speakers and anticipate what will happen during the event.
If you haven’t read the post dedicated to Mark Coleran a few weeks ago, my advise is to check it out and get an idea of what FOI11 will offer at the two-day event in the beautiful city of Florence.

Do not miss this opportunity for a real comparison of Interaction Design!
For ticket information visit FOI11

Personally I can just appreciate the work of Coleran, with a little of jealousy, especially because of the type of commitment (what could be better than designing futuristic graphic user interfaces, without creative limits?).

We are waiting for his upcoming speech at the Frontiers of Interaction 2011 (that we’ll follow in collaboration with the event’s organization), which will be hosted in Florence on 20 and 21 of June. Below you can find a show reel of Mark’s work:

How was the project DensityDesign born within the University?

The project DensityDesign was founded in 2004 as a learning experience, as a final synthesis laboratory on the second (and final) year of the course in Communication Design, within the Faculty of Design at the Politecnico of Milano.

Then (and still today, because we continue to teach in the laboratory), the goal was to train students to use the skills of communication design in the decision-making process, in particular the ability to visually represent sets (complexes) of data, information and knowledge related to phenomena of social nature. The teaching activities, thanks to their outcome, have been in time complemented by research activities, both basic and applied research, for the development of which last year, in the department of design, the research laboratory DensityDesign was formed.

Therefore, today the full name is DensityDesign Research Lab.

As for your argument before the question, I would say that it makes sense because DensityDesign tries to do something that goes beyond the display of data and indices in the Anglo-Saxon way.
I think that there may indeed be an Italian way or at least a different way from the visualization, which retrieves the dimension of the meaning of the data and even before the phenomenon that those data represent, and a way that is trying to communicate.

I always say that our job is not to display data and information: we always start from a phenomenon, and we aim to represent and communicate visually the phenomenon to two main targets, citizens and decision/policy makers, so that we can understand it better (understanding), in all its complexity, trying to give sense (sense-making) to data and information.

The genesis of everything in reality is in the sciences of complexity: we are fully aware that every phenomenon we observe, especially the natural and social, is complex, and we always try to preserve this complexity, richness, and to reduce as little as possible the nature of the phenomenon, because the decisions are taken in greater awareness as possible.

Data and information, as well as their visualization, are the means, not the end.

This is why we don’t dismiss the aesthetics of data visualization, the emotional side, the Norman of recent times, or that which is called embellishment in the computer science : given a certain context, a certain target, a certain common objective, these levels may be fundamental in giving meaning to data and information, in transferring and making a phenomenon visible.

I stop, there is much to say about it …

Iconography and diagramming in communication are key to the success of any idea, but in Italy more often the term InfoGraphic seems to be quite unknown for those who work in advertising, while in the international arena there is a lot more talk about the seduction of data in advertising.

Why do you think we live this Italian paradox ?

I do not know much about the world of advertising, and I find it a little hard to separate it geographically; it seems to me that in general the world of communication at all levels, including the advertising, is opening a lot to the visualization of data and information, even to the information graphics (which for me is a subcategory of data and information visualization ), and in some cases is playing an important role in the process of  “market education”: its use is more widespread in the media, in a more or less “advertising” form of these modes of visualization, which is driving  this sector a lot and is encouraging a wider adoption of this new language.

It ‘s true that in Italy it is still hard, the Italian media are not always at the same level as foreign countries in terms of data and information visualization, but there are important signs of change.

The interactive tools of today, especially the Social Network, become a bit like the “honey for the bees” for those like you who love to decode data streams to make understandable the relationships and trends. I’m talking about tools like Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare, who become more and more a part of our daily lives and produce millions of data per day.

What fascinates you from all this and how do you think it may affect your work?

These new opportunities not only fascinate us but we have also experimented with them very intensely: we have developed tools that use the network as a large pool of data and information generated by users for structuring and developing a (visual) useful pattern for examining social phenomena such as disputes.

One issue on which we are working with the Medialab at the University SciencePo in Paris, is what they call Mapping of Disputes, and this year we have experimented with it in teaching:

We are also working on Wikipedia, to analyze visually the progress of discussions during the collaborative creation of a definition: the evolution of the debate (usually invisible) can tell us a lot about the value of the knowledge contained in the page definition.

System Diagram

Anyone who wants to become a designer, a visual art director, or wants to become part of advertising, has to attend the course of InfoGraphic that teaches the method of deconstructing and analyzing the relationships of numbers.

How is the situation today in Italy concerning this matter? Is InfoGraphic considered in the education system?

We bring this subject within the Faculty of Design, at the course in Communication Design, and want to continue to do so, I have no reports of specific courses in other Italian training centres, but I could be wrong!

iMagazine tries to maintain a category dedicated to InfoGraphic which contains a lot of  interactive projects/video;

Can you share with us some interesting interactive projects or is there a project that maybe some day it will be realized?

Will you contribute in the future to iMagazine, with DensityDesign?

Gladly!

Thanks Paul! I take this opportunity to remember our section Infographic

It seems you have found America in America.
What did you lose by leaving Italy?
I lost the respect for a country that was (and still is) not able to fully take advantage of the skilled artists and technical people that are forced to migrate elsewhere.

Do you think traditional 2D animation has been definitively overwhelmed by CG animation?

CG is definitively the trendy look nowadays. Traditional animation will always have a role and will be able to explore new directions. Most of our animators are trained in traditional 2D animation and this is part of how they approach a shot. CG has definitely allowed directors to explore and push some boundaries in storytelling but traditional animation can still touch our hearts with powerful simple drawings.

If you had to invent two new burgers or sandwiches and name them ‘Dreamworks SKG’ and ‘Pixar’, which ingredients and sausages would you fill them with?
The DreamWorks burger is the Chef Special. You never know what is inside until you eat it. Sometimes you are delighted with amazing exotic ingredients, sometimes is the classic meatloaf. The Chef spends a lot of money in the dish presentation.
The Pixar burger is the House Special. Consistently good, always satisfying. Made with classic well combined ingredients.

Today few Italian companies are producing CG animation and maybe none of them have any hope to reach Dreamworks SKG quality level. Do you agree with that? If yes, what would you suggest them to do or to change in order to direct their efforts to a more useful and effective direction?
From far away my personal impression is that (apart from few recent examples) the Italian companies never tried to compete with the international markets. They always produced for the tiny Italian market and with one feature film in mind. We, on the other hand, work on 4-9 movies at the same time and release 2-3 movies a year and the international market is a big part of the final revenues. There are few examples of successful results from productions made in France (Despicable Me) and Spain (Planet 51) and London.
There may be a market for a company that offer services (FX, animation, lighting or rendering) to big American productions. We have such relation with our partner in India.

Which is the most embarassing question someone could ask you? And how would you answer to it?
The classic question about coming back to Italy. I said many times that I’m not a business person. I’m not coming back to start a company. If I come back is to do the technical job I know well in a company that offers an environment, a management and an understanding of the market similar to the one I’m currently working for.

Plans for the future?
I love what Steve Jobs said in the Stanford commencement speech in 2005: “Stay hungry, stay foolish”.
I stay hungry by constantly looking around me for inspirations often in strange places. I love photography, multimedia, storytelling and lately writing iPhone apps for my child (and hopefully other children).
I keep being foolish pretending that every person around me can teach me something and receive a little from me.
As long as I feel hungry and foolish, nothing will stop me from dreaming about my future.

About Luca Prasso (LinkedIn Profile)

Future TVs will be “connected” and, of course, “social-relations-powered”. All the major manufacturers (Sony, LG, Panasonic, etc.) are developing their own smartTV platforms or closing deals to enhance the viewer’s experience. What do you think about the fragmentation of those smartTV platforms? Could it be better to start with something like a standard?

Helge Tennø: I’m sure connecting TV’s to the Internet is theoretically a smart move, and an inevitable one. But I’m not sure it’s going to fix the problem it is trying to solve.

There are two issues with TV today. The first one is the obvious one and the one most of these platforms set out to solve, the problem with programming: As I understand Google TV’s pitch will make certain that there is always something good on TV. No more wasting time in front of the television waiting or searching for good content.

But is it going to work?

First of all: Choice doesn’t necessarily solve any problem. Barry Schwartz writes about this in his book Paradox of Choice. In his book he says that not only are people happier when they have fewer available options, but they also tend to buy more. If Schwartz is right then connecting your TV to the Internet with a searchable TV and film database will only accelerate the rate to which people are turning away from their TVs.

Secondly there is also the issue of search fatigue, how many evenings in a row will you have fresh ideas for content that you know exists and you want to see? And after that, how much of your relaxing evening in front of the TV will be spent searching the void, frustrated and hoping that luck and serendipity will bring you something you want to see?

Thirdly we shouldn’t ignore the fact that maneuvering an interface 12ft away from us is quite different from maneuvering something at arms length away (if they let you navigate the TV from your computer or mobile – that would be awesome).

The second issue with TV, the one I’m not seeing these new concepts solving; is fragmentation – or the art of reconnecting the audience. As each viewer can individually control their own TV evening, TV is going to loose one of its most important qualities: the event.

No other media has the ability to connect millions of people to the same experience at the same time. TV is “the stuff people talk about tomorrow” (the slogan of one Norwegian TV channel). Of course these technologies will let you see what your friends are watching, maybe even simultaneously show your Facebook feed and follow your friends comments in regards to a show, but they are not using the power of the audience to bring back the TV experience.

Because, as Peter Hirshberg, CEO of RE:imagine Group, argues:

a Twitter stream doesn’t really feel like media. It needs to be connected and weaved in with the content in order to become a part of the show’s story-line and offering.

And the stuff happening on TV doesn’t have to be limited to the TV, you don’t have to force them to use a clunky TV interaction interface. The computer or mobile is already there. Let them interact through platforms designed for the type of interaction you’re after, and let the audience multitasking abilities become an advantage to the TV concept – not the enemy.

Where all these new TVs and solutions are just connecting us to the Internet and more stuff, more choice and more fragmentation, they are doing little or nothing to change the way content for TV is designed and produced. And that is their weakness, and why they won’t give us the future but more of the problems of the past.

Automotive market is the next big challenge in connecting devices. Very big device (the car). What do you think about it? And will Ford, GM, Volvo and others have their own “app market” or we will use smartphone as “bridge” with applications and the Internet?

H.T.: I haven’t spent much time on this issue in regards to the automotive industry. But from what I can imagine the car would gain increased value from a sensor based self-diagnosis system. As soon as this data is collected, feeding it back to the owner or driver should only be a question of designing it right.

If this communication will be through the car’s own internal system or your smartphone I’m guessing is all about the context. You don’t need 24/7 updates on the wear on your brakes, but checking out the amount of petrol left in the tank and maybe starting a self-heating system on cold days as you get out of bed would increase the comfort.

The important thing is that we need to think of this technology as making life simpler, cheaper and making us smarter, not filling our lives with more information we don’t need just because we can.

If technology can help us remove stuff – not add stuff, that would be the ultimate goal.

Do you think that design is the “engine” of innovation for Companies? What’s the meaning of “innovation” for you? Innovation is directly connected with profits or this is a myth?

H.T.: Donald Norman suggested last year in an article that technology creates needs, not the other way around.

At the same time technology in itself is unusable, it has to be designed in order to fit into people’s lives, to motivate use and learning.

To me design is inevitable in the process of transforming technology into something people will use. But I don’t think designers have the magic receipts for finding these innovations in the first place, just articulating complex answers into simple usable systems.

Norman again suggested that design thinking is a myth, that designers need to understand that their role is coming from the outside, forcing companies to look at their problems from a new angle. And if they take advantage of this ability, then design will reach its maximum value.

Ask yourself the “perfect” question and answer it.

H.T.: How do we move on from Appiness?
In the mobile world Appiness is a term used both by Apple and app-producers. The term has had a great ring to it in 2010. But everybody knows that in order for mobile to move on; from being a novelty to finding a seat in every organization’s marketing communications and business strategy, something will have to happen. But what?

The solution is simple – the Internet used to be about communicating information. Marketing was the distribution of content. But now, with mobile spearheading the initiative, the services revolution is coming. Companies are seeing that including a service package around the product far outweighs the benefits and incentives for sticking with the brand, compared to the traditional banner advertisement and brochures.

Even social media will take a back seat, as companies will see it as an exclusive tool with huge implications to scaling. And even if it is a gold mine for some organizations, many will still fail to take advantage of it. The services revolution will in this case be the solution for these companies, as they will get a new opportunity to not feel “behind”, and will see a closer connection between the stuff the services revolution is offering and what they are already doing. At the same time the advantages are huge, scalable and for some companies life changing.

Where I would argue Appiness is all about the novelty and “the million downloads”, the services revolution will be about integrating your mobile services into your customer relationship. Measuring downloads as a success metrics will be a thing of the past, one would rather measure the percentage of total customers taking advantage of the program. And the services won’t be games or freebies. It will be perfectly integrated smartness into the context that you are already in, extending the value already offered by your product.

From an article I wrote the other day:

The mobile future is not about the global success stories from the Cokes, Nikes and Apples of the world, it’s about the every day SMALL things that make the stuff WE do, simpler, smaller or smarter. Which means the stuff businesses do in order to create new customers, build stronger brands or even explore and develop new business models.

The mobile future is simply about two things: Capitalizing on relationships and redefining business.

So when you think of mobile, it is most likely not a solution to a need that is already voiced, it is not a smaller version of something you are already selling. Mobile is you offering your customers something completely new.

That is mobile – something completely new.

Helge Tennø contacts: Personal weblog – SlideShare – twitter

Bruno Uzzan, CEO of Total Immersion (www.t-immersion.com), a worldwide leading software solutions provider with a proprietary technology that has been developed since 1999.

Interview

1. The Augmented Reality seems like Pandora’s Box, where people do not understand well its likely end use, because the innovation lies not in the used technology, but in the way it is used. What do you think?
   Agreed.  AR has been in the consumer mainstream for only about a year now and has grown at an exponential rate.  During this period  we’ve all seen brilliant creative executions as well as some not so brilliant.  We’ve also seen AR proliferate onto multiple screens, with many applications calling themselves AR, while not truly fitting the definition of what AR actually is.  This platform is a vast creative canvas, and to your point, it really is up to the limits of the creative minds on how they will choose to utilize it.
   
   
2. Sony, LG, Panasonic and many others are ready to introduce in the market the first 3D TV home entertainment. The next step is to get the AR in our homes?
   3D brings a very interesting component to home entertainment – this year at CES it proved to be the dominant theme.  The hardware will certainly lead this evolution of AR into the homes, as we are seeing video capture becoming a standard feature with set top boxes and gaming consoles.
   
   
3. T-Immersion has helped many industries with AR, in particular the car companies, which seem well suited to this technology. What are your other major markets?
   Total Immersion has been working in AR since 1999.  Many of our earlier clients were automotive.  This is partially attributed to how AR directly benefits the simulation, training and design, and later it shows concept or new cars in a fully dimensionalized perspective.  TI today works with a pretty broad spectrum of clients and industry segments – from entertainment, consumer packaged goods, toys, publishing, retail, events and amusement parks.  The breadth of markets has grown tremendously over the past 1-2 years, and will continue to broaden with the further evolution of AR applications.
4. Probably the greatest impediment to widespread use of AR is the capability of AR Devices. What is your vision?
   It was just a few years ago that having a camera on a mobile phone was unique.  Today it is the rule. Similarly, we are seeing a trend in hardware including video capture as a standard feature today.  This next generation, “human interface”, that now captures gestural, multi-touch, tactile, z axis, etc., provides a highly reactive “bridge” to the digital side.  This is key to achieving the art of blending the virtual and physical worlds in real time – and creating hyper-real experiences. 

    

Few videos as example. For more videos visite T-Immersion Gallery.

About Total Immersion

Global Leader in Augmented Reality
Total Immersion is the global leader in Augmented Reality and a pioneer in commercializing the technology. Founded in 1999, Total Immersion is today a global company with presence in Los Angeles, Paris, London and Hong Kong serving global market leaders like Mattel, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble with some very visible programs like associated with the 20th Century Fox produced Avatar movie from James Cameron. With more than 70 partners worldwide, Total Immersion is able to serve and support its customers wherever they operate. More than 270 projects were performed in 2009 in different markets like Digital Marketing, Consumer Products, Event, Retail, Amusement Parks or Museums.

Most Scalable and Reliable Augmented Reality Platform
Total Immersion has been focusing on developing the most scalable and reliable Augmented Reality platform and industrialised it for massive rollouts in the Tier 1 consumer market. Our patented software technology, D’Fusion®, has been benchmarked and approved by numerous industry leaders and global brands which we are partnering with and building strategic alliances.

Best Augmented Reality Software Solution
The D’Fusion® platform offers an open architecture and is designed for ease of use by creative people and designers. The platform also allows digital services, communication agencies and integrators to autonomously build Augmented Reality applications and sell the packaged solutions in their market. Any partner or customer that joins our network is benefiting from the industry’s widest database of literally hundreds of AR concepts and the best of breed expertise in supporting and implementing AR solutions in the market.

Probably the big companies realized what will happen in the next years, how will the consumer digital markets become 1 or 2 big digital markets and not only that. Everybody wants to be the first to enter this “door”, but probably they don’t understand yet which companies have the best position for going inside and how and when the markets will change.

Latest weekend gossip & rumors from various Blogs:

Apple, Steve Jobs
Inside company message: “Google… We did not enter the search business. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them…” – “Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash. No one will be using Flash. The world is moving to HTML5…” [ Engadget ]

Nokia, Mark Squires
As a Head of Social Media, he was mainly confused by Apple’s statement that it’s the biggest mobile device manufacturer, surpassing Nokia in combined revenue on media players, phones and laptops. Mark argues that the accepted definition for “mobile devices” excludes laptops, and goes on to mention the undisputed fact that Nokia’s still number one when it comes to number of devices sold. [ Engadget ]

Netflix, CEO Reed Hastings
He says that mobile devices aren’t a priority for his company yet. They’re fighting the good fight of the large screen, and once they feel comfortable in their various efforts there, then they’ll move on to small screens. Netflix hasn’t done or submitted an iPhone application, but Hastings did mention that he was optimistic that if Netflix did get into the game, the app would be approved for the App Store, and that it would run on both the iPhone and iPad. [ Engadget ]

Nintendo, CEO Satura Iwata
He took a much more directly critical approach to the device, calling it a “bigger iPod Touch”, and that Apple delivered “no surprises”. In the same interview he expressed skepticism as to the value of bringing a high definition Wii on the market, as well as expressing doubts about 3D glasses-based gaming. Iwata is clearly a tough man to please. [ Engadget ]

E-Ink, CEO Russ Wilcox
He says dedicated e-readers will outsell iPads due to “simple economics”, and that the iPad is “great entertainment device”, but it’s “not the world’s best reading device”. His criticisms, mostly in juxtaposition to Kindle-style devices, abound, including price, weight, backlight and so on. He’s right on the money about the shortfalls of a straightforward comparison, but we wonder if consumers will feel the same?

Other discussion on the web

Steve Jobs @ Al Things Digitals interview:
“Publishers are actually withholding their books from Amazon because they’re not happy.” [ All things Digitals ]

Amazon CEO:
“Millions of people now own Kindles! They sold 3 million devices. And Kindle owners read, a lot. When we have both editions, we sell 6 Kindle books for every 10 physical books. This is year-to-date and includes only paid books — free Kindle books would make the number even higher. It’s been an exciting 27 months.“ [ Business Insider ]

By the way…..

Big Brother? No big Apple!
I was surprised when this weekend I checked the Google Analytics of my modest and simple blog magazine and discovered that my article “The iPad is not the innovation but….” attracted a good % of new users, especially APPLE! It confirmed how their PR Office has a great organization to check the web Apple-discussions in the net and probably… guide them.