iRant

I do understand that the ‘check in, get points to beat your friends, get badges’ mechanic taps into what we call ‘game theory’ which dictates that if you give people things to do and rewards (even ones without any real value) they will have a natural compulsion to complete the tasks and collect the rewards. That’s great for Foursquare, the mechanic is getting people using their service in droves. But to what actual end? What use is any of this to its users? When I’m on my deathbed am I going to think to myself “what was this life all about? What did I do for the world? Oh, I got the ‘Douchebag’ badge and ten others on Foursquare! I wonder if I can check in at heaven’s gates…

Finally, someone besides me and Tomi Ahonen says what needs to be said.

Location BS. That's what I believe "LBS" stands for.

The future may be bright, but it surely isn't bright for apps that just let you "chek in" to somewhere. Location may get huge, but as a feature, not as an app/product/service in itself.

This has all been said before, but what I mean is that location will (probably) be integrated into more and more services and products, as GPS sensors are included into more and more gear, and locating people/devices is increasingly possible in different manners (WiFi, cell tower, and so on).

But having an app or a service that just lets you announce the world where you are? And then build a database of all the places you've been "for you"?

Not a chance.

It's time these services actually do something with the location data they collect, something other than give stalkers a field day everyday. I'm looking forward to that.

And you know what's funny? This all started thanks to the Nokia N95.

 In his final post, Dan explains that the key reason for closing the site is because, “Nokia have stopped being as creative as they once were.”

Dan goes on to cite bug-filled £500 devices and the Nokia N97 in particular.  The main issue for Dan though was content:

“All the [Nokia] phones ended up feeling pretty much the same due to the tired Symbian OS.”

Dan then points out how Android came from nowhere to version 2.2 in just two years, with the chaps behind it iterating fast in response to user and developer feedback.

Dan finishes his explanation with this statement:

“Other players have moved with the times and Nokia is still dragging it’s heels, you only need to see the large quantity of Nokia fans who have parted ways with the company and moved onto a different platform such as Android or iPhone.”

Dan’s not alone in pointing this out. Micky over at NokiaDNA raised the same issue a week or so ago too.

Give me a break.

First off, this somehow reminds me of Jason Calacanis giving up on blogging. Only to start an email newsletter the contents of which are published as blog posts on his blog.

Or should I mention MIR's own Ewan who closed the site at one point, only to resurrect it as (you guessed it!) an email newsletter, that now gets published on the site, along with other posts?

Why am I bringing up these examples? Because this is a good publicity stunt.
Congratulations, Dan Carter, you have successfully managed to put CoolSmartPhone on the map. Because he conveniently isn't giving up blogging altogether, he's just giving up on Nokia - and the "farewell" post (wait, I have to wipe some tears... done) contains a link to where he'll continue blogging about all things mobile (I guess).

Yeah.
Ok.

I gave up on reading Mashable a few months ago. Maybe I should have written a saddening blog post about it. Who knows, maybe Scoble would've linked to me and made me instantly famous (you know, as good as instant coffee)?

As for the bug-filled N97, this is all a bit disingenuous. Was it bug-filled when it came out? Sure, but then Dan knew this probably not by buying the bug-filled thing, but by trialling it - a feat he was able to accomplish thanks to his blogging activity. And the thing is, even before getting a loaner in, he (and I, and everyone on the Internet) already knew it was buggy. So why would anyone buy a product knowing that it's going to be buggy? Especially a 500-pound product?! Beats me.

As for the "but let's all collectively cry for the average Joe who doesn't know what the internet is" argument, yes, let's do that. But let's not act like five-year olds.

Hey, I know. Now I have a reasonable (?) excuse for why I've been blogging less and less frequently. So, in case you were wondering, it's thanks to Nokia's lack of innovation.

As for the "tired" Symbian OS... let's just say it's really good that there's no second amendment here. Otherwise...

Not to be misunderstood - the point here isn't that you should love Symbian^1 or Nokia or anything. The point is that if you feel something better exists for your needs and your use-case, go grab it. Just don't cry because one company didn't manufacture the exact product you never knew you wanted and hell couldn't even describe if were asked to at exactly the time you felt you needed said indescribable product.

As for Android... funny. Yes, it has moved from nowhere to 2.2 in two years. But that's because it was nowhere to begin with. Get it? You have to root/hack/jailbreak/whatever you want to call it your precious 2.2 Android phone to take a screenshot. Not kidding. So yes, it has come a long way (as has Symbian over the past decade, but hey, the Symbian Foundation is not Google or Apple, right?), but there's still a very, very, very long way to go.

Biggest mistake Nokia made in their Symbian strategy? Not headquartering the Foundation in Silicon Valley. I'm serious.

Has the hype won?

I guess it all depends on how ignorant the subject is. The more ignorant you are, the more chances there are that the hype has indeed won, and the main use-case for your phone is making it make 690 different fart sounds.

And often times I feel that the only thing some mobile bloggers are after is showing off how much they can lick their new device to their friends. Forget trends, understanding the market, helping people make informed (and educated) buying decisions, providing context to news and generally making people think more about these amazing tiny smart devices.

It's all akin to mass hysteria.
And it's not funny. Never was.

So please, Nokia fans, stop acting like you being fans is a religion and God has disappointed you because you prayed for a new toy last night and this morning when you woke up it wasn't there and now you're mad at God and tonight you'll try Allah.

The problem in this narrative isn't Nokia, or God, or Allah. It's your childish expectations. Once you understand this, I'm happy to welcome you to the real world.

Note: The religion comparison also applies to other breeds of fanboys, without a doubt. Yet some seem more satisfied with their God than others.

Last note: It would also be cool, from time to time, to remember that the objects of your fanaticism are for-profit corporations who are driven (by the nature of capitalism) in business decisions by their investors'/stock holders' expectations and not their consumers' (this is fundamental, not necessarily apparent at all times). If you don't like this, perhaps a conversation about our current form of capitalism is needed, but please, stop whining and (hopefully) start understanding. And remember, "understanding" something need not be equal to "agreeing" with said thing.

Unfortunately, an early prototype made its way to someone that wasn’t supposed to have it, and his early first impressions of the device and its software spread like wildfire. Buried deep down in the blogger’s salacious headlines about the software not being ready, was the most important point. This is a very early, pre-production prototype with dated software that is not yet ready. So the site’s comments that the software ‘felt premature’ is probably one of the more blindingly obvious things you will read this year.

Also interesting is this comment from Hary on the post linked above:

"This time, Eldar’s review has done more damage to Nokia.

Reason: People have had high expectations from Symbian^3 hoping it will be a turn around for Nokia.

Eldar’s review that Symbian^3 is disappointing, has spread like fire, especially US blogs like engadget, intomobile, gizmodo all having big negative headlines and leaving no stone unturned in their negative publicity directly or indirectly.

Infact, Reuters(a renowned site) is siting Eldar’s blog post as the 1st review of the device and mentions that it failed to impress. Not only Reuters, but other analysts too. (Here is the link to Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNLDE63Q14J20100427?rpc=44)

That is the reason why Nokia’s stock has taken a downfall in last 2 hrs on NYSE.

That is unacceptable. Nokia must enforce strict measures against the said blogger, you can’t let this happen with your every device. N900 was also leaked by same person and several other models too.

Also I believe that that preview of N8 was purposely distorted by the blogger. Reason: His review of X6(Which was also a prototype) was much different than N8. He kept on saying in his review on X6 that this is a prototype version, so he will pass his judgment after having the real release.

Nokia has to step up measures, OPENNESS cannot have unlimited freedom so that anyone can come and screw you and you say that we are OPEN, we don’t mind it."

So.
That whole N8 preview over on Mobile-Review (still Russian only) thing.

Eldar was usually neutral toward Nokia, though his love of all things Samsung has always been quite obvious.

This, however, wasn't a review. It wasn't a preview. It wasn't even a collection of personal thoughts. It was unfair.

And I suspect he shorted NOK right before hitting "Publish". Or he should have. I know that's what I would've done had I written such a wonderful piece, and had I had his 'reach'.

As for the Gizmodos and Engadgets of the world... No one should care anymore. I think their biases are more than obvious by now. It's their right to lick their iPhones at night. Get over it, and just unsubscribe. It's healthier that way. Believe me.

As for the heart of the matter. Yes, Nokia have an amazingly bad track record at "firmware stablity upon launch" for their high-end stuff. And this hasn't first happened with the N97. In fact, I think the N97's shipping software was way more stable than the N95's. But let's not forget that this is the same company that had a senior executive admit those mistakes and say they won't happen again.

So, while I understand the anger of those who purchased an N97 the day it came out, I think we need to all collectively chill.

And see.

I think they deserve that.

After all, they've just announced the world's first phone that has a camera sensor bigger than a standalone camera (bigger is better, trust me).

As for Symbian^3, if you expected it to be Android, you're an idiot. If you expected it to be the iPhone OS, you're an idiot. Don't like the UI? Fine. Go buy something else. Just stop saying incredibly stupid things about the world's most mature smartphone OS. Because that makes you look stupid. Maybe not to the rest of your ignorant peers, but to sane people.

The mobile world is a competition, ok? If every OS was the same as the next, what the hell would the point for having more than one OS be?!

Symbian doesn't fit you? Cool. Try something else. I'm not saying Android is shit every second blog post. And that's the difference.

Let's stop kidding ourselves. The battle for control over conversations and the silo of discussions is done. Any blogger who believes that they can control the conversations and prevent discussions in far-flung social networks is deluding themselves. And yet, every few months, a new innovation, be it comments in Google Reader, or something like this, freaks the old guard out.

Jeff and Steven's comments are mirrored by Josh Schnell, who in a guest post for Tamar Weinberg on Techipedia cries out that Content Aggregators are Killing Content Creators.

Here's the reality: Conversations have moved to where the reader wa nts them to be - and the best content creators shouldn't care if they get to have conversations on their content in any of these networks. The best content creators and the best Web brands shouldn't care about what people may say on their SideWiki, any more than they should panic over reviews that happen on Amazon's Marketplace or in the iTunes store. People are entitled to their opinions and their commentary, and any further efforts to try and force people to have these conversations in a single place should be extinguished.

Strike one there for Louis Gray. Thing is, I read both Jeff Jarvis' blog and follow all the different online presences of Steven Hodson, and I appreciate both of their opinions and insights, usually. But this...

This reminds me of "old/big media" and their desperation caused by the online (r)evolution of their business.

Stop it. Just stop.

The era of "look at me, I have more comments per post than you do" (hence, *cough* more AdSense and/or referral money, right?) has turned into "look, I have more Twitter followers than you". And we all know how, when (puberty) and with what particular comparison this all started. So go brag about Twitter followers, and stop saying that comments are of any real use to anyone other than the blog's owner. Because they're not. I'm sorry that people may start building you statues anywhere else on the internet, but you'll just have to live with it. And I bet Mike Arrington will be happy to know he (or his team) won't have to delete all idiotic comments aimed at him anymore.

So just grow up.

Or perhaps, Jeff and Steven, you'd rather I invite you by when I'm discussing your thoughts with my friends, offline? Or should we just record the whole thing and post that as a comment on your blogs? Would that do? Is that "fair use"? Does it tingle your egos enough? Or will you call that copyright infringement, like some other individual would want you to?

The big buzzword for the past few years in the blogging kingdom has always been "conversation". See, this is not really a blog post, it's a conversation starter. Heck, let me even end it by making the entire final paragraph into a question! Because I care so much about you, the reader. So come, come to my blog and comment, since I value your insight so much... No, it's not about the pageview... Or the ads you may click on while you're there... No, no, my dear reader, it's all about you. It's not about me making a living out of this because, well, it's easy, oh no... One day, when you grow up, you'll be a blogger too. You can be just like me. It's all about you, see? Never about me.

I don't mind people making money. Hell, even with Google! What I do mind is hypocrisy. So stop it. And you'll still be here in 5 years. Otherwise... Goodbye... I'm sure you'll be laughed at in the future. So, in a way, you'll still be with us. I guess you can count that as a Win.

It's usually funny to see how people react to the world changing. In some cases, though, you just have to quote Bill Maher and say "but... you're smart! you're actually smart! why, then, why oh why??!".

I think the biggest part is nobody has a unique story and everyone is trying to be a “news” site. BORING.

I don’t sit and think about a blog post for hours.  When catch myself doing it I stop and I start writing or record myself on my iPhone using Voxie (dictation translation service).

If I have an opinion about a topic I write about it.

If I think someone is an asshole I write about it.

If I think some company sucks balls I write about it.

Other then Firefox’s spellchecker I don’t spell check my posts.

One of the biggest things is you have to be willing to stick your pecker out.  Quit being so scared.  Quit trying to be what you think people want you to be and be yourself.

Are people going to disagree with you?  Absolutely!

Are people going to make blog posts about how you don’t know what your talking about?  For sure!

But if you are willing to be yourself and show the world your a regular dumb ass like them, before you know it people will start to connect with you and subscribe to your blog.

I really could not agree more. In fact, I'm trying (sometimes it can be quite hard, believe me) to do all those things. I even wrote about this a while ago.

Being unique is what gets you noticed. Or so I think right now. Check back in a few months, and you might see a post over here saying how wrong I was to think this.

It's a great achievement if you can write in (a) neutral tone, a la old media (at least that's what they preach, ask David Pogue how much they apply that please), Mashable or (most of the time) TechCrunch. It's great that you can master this style. If you work for any of these publications.

If not, think about this for a minute. Why would I visit your blog if I see the same story, written in the same way, as on 'big' publications that I'm already subscribing to? And even if I somehow stumble across it, why would I subscribe? You're bringing nothing new to the party (greetings, Paul Carr, I love your sick joke of a blog title, because it's anything but true).

So be yourself. Other than that...

You're not going to be the next anything. Especially without proper funding. And even with funding, you might fail in becoming a better copy of a model than its inventor(s). There's a nice life lesson to be learned there.

You won't make money online blogging. You will only do this if your content is unique enough to be instantly differentiated in your readers' minds from anything else on the web. And even then, they might have heard of ad blockers. At which point, you can start whining on Twitter and FriendFeed about how these people steal your brain's valuable output. No, wait, you have to already be a web celeb to do that. My bad.

Anyway, even if you do start making money from ads, for a long while it will be a very tiny amount. You'd make a lot more if you worked for any of the 'big guys' in blogging. Or media, whatever.

So what's left? You either come up with something new enough, or you desperately hope you'll be hired at Engadget.

Or, people may start noticing you, as Jeremy Schoemaker described in his post linked above.

But you have to be very patient. Even this may never happen.

Reality sucks, I guess.

And all I can think is, how did these guys manage to set up a system where people pay to drive traffic from one place on Facebook to another place on Facebook? Even Google hasn’t managed to figure that one out yet. I’ve known they (and MySpace) have done this since launching their ad platforms, but it never really hit home until today how brilliant this all is.

All I can think is, people used to (I hope it isn't still happening) pay for "land" on the Moon (or was it Mars?). People will pay for anything, if said anything is properly marketed.

"Brilliant" as this may be for Facebook, I can't help but wonder how brilliant it is for those actually forking the cash for this.

I love the internet too (that's how the linked post ends).
And BananaBucks.

But as I've begun to (re-)dabble in punditry, I think it's telling that private conversations (and the occasional ranting blogger) direct so much vitriol at the people who lead much of the conversation in the world of technology. it would seem the more effective form of criticism is obvious, effective and relatively easy: Just do better yourself.

English isn't my first language, but I'm really not sure of the use of the word "pundits" here, in this case meaning the 'web celebs' we all know and love (?).

Leaving that aside, it's an interesting read, so to speak. And the excerpt above is his conclusion.

So. Here's my conclusion.

"Just do better yourself" is what caught my attention.
Do better at what? Report "news" better than Arrington, for instance? How? How many ways to re-write a press release can there possibly be? How many linkbaiting titles can one possibly come up with? And, in this example, isn't Mashable already doing, well... the same thing?

The general news bits on such blogs - there are thousands of people who can write at the same quality level. At least thousands.

As for the scoops - no one outside the rather limited Silicon Valley tech circle will ever get access to these before they do.

So, wrapping up this example, on one hand, there is no 'better' (for news), on the other hand no one else can be 'better'.

Now. If by "better" Anil meant content of higher quality, which in my view is based on more context... well then, fine.

I'll do it. I'll do better myself.

And you, Anil, shall give me the pageviews. Deal?