The part of the news cycle I found most interesting was the response from Foursquare CEO Dennis Crowley.

The core of Foursquare is check-ins — getting people off the couch and into the world to try new things and share with friends – while with Facebook check-ins are just another feature.

Huh? That nonsense lead me to post something. But then, Dennis posted a comment providing more clarity to Foursquare’s position.

…actually the core of foursquare is everything that happens *after* the checkin. We’ve long thought that checkins were going to be a commoditized – the magic exists in the reasons and incentives you give people for checking in.

We find our game mechanics/ badges encourage people to seek out new experiences. We find that Tips and To-Do Lists encourage people to explore their neighborhoods in new ways. The check-in is the “atomic unit” of location-based social services and we use it as the foundation on which we build tools that change the way people experience the world around them.

The “make cities / the world easier to use” thing we often talk about is the DNA of our company. And our focus on this specific use case – bridging the gap between online experiences and offline experiences – is what will continue to set us apart from other players.

Okay, that’s a little more digestible. Still, Foursqaure feels like a feature. The Foursquare team will continue to pioneer the “check-in” space, and when they get to good enough competitors with larger audiences will successfully copy.

Bottom Line: Embrace what you are. And Foursquare? You’re feature. Sell to Yahoo! or whoever else wants you while you have a chance.

Still, the blogosphere loves to highlight how one product or brand is inferior to another. It’s great for the blog owners because the polarization drives page views. The chatter is endless. Most of that is driven by individuals defending decisions they’ve already made. This person is the Defender. For example, let’s say I can only afford one game console. I decide (or plan) to buy a Playstation 3. When news of something great comes out for Xbox 360 I rush to Engadget to defend my position. Natal sux! PS3 FTW! It’s really quite ridiculous. Then there is the Contrarian. This guy (gender neutral) probably hasn’t even touched half of the products he comments about. He just wants to say the opposite of what’s popular. Because clearly, anything that is popular must be bad . Next there is the Fact Checker. This guy is penny wise and pound foolish. He rattles off stats and loves to talk about specs. Problem is, rambling takes up so much of his time he doesn’t get much done. Side Note: I don’t have real data, but I’d bet there’s a positive correlation between fanboy dedication and how much they make. The gadget-loving rich kids I know just buy it all. Anyway, all this boils up to a lot of hate in blog-land with the Defender, Contrarian, and Fact Checker leading the way.

Maybe we need these haters to keep the world balanced. I’m not sure. Regardless, the reality is that the people who actually buy things don’t seem to care much about this rowdy group. Still, the haters keep making a stink hoping one day the rest of the world will see life through their eyes. And when met with thoughtful opposition the haters label their foes as gullible sheep that don’t “get it”. One of the fundamental flaws plaguing the hater is that he is ruled by price sensitivity. The $1 app is too expensive. And R&D and marketing cost don’t justify a $300 price tag for gadget that only cost $100 to make.

My position is that products (not just gadgets) should be judged by the value they deliver. Not how much it cost the seller to make it. How much is too much for a laptop? Well, let’s say you’ll want to upgrade in 24 months. Divide the price of the potential laptop by 24 to get the monthly cost of ownership (less the lost productivity if you buy a dud). If you get that much value out of the laptop each month then buy it! This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look for the best deal, but that should not be your driving force. Don’t have enough cash to get the value you need? Well that’s another blog post and a case for investing more in your education (or at least embracing delayed gratification). The formula may be transferable, but the variables are different for each of us. Don’t assume your friends or family have the same set of values influencing the purchase of their next gadget.

This all makes for a fascinating discussion on how tech marketing will continue to evolve. We should be selling value, not the specs. This whole thing is further compounded by the fact that people have allowed themselves to be defined by visible consumption. The anti-marketing consumer needs to show his position by embracing the niche. As a result, the very people who think they are fighting “the man” may be getting manipulated the most. Ironically, it is them that may be the most gullible.

Bottom Line: Sell value (real or perceived) and the people with money to spend will give it to you (and be glad they did).

Software platforms are a dime a dozen these days. Still, there are only a handful that matter. For companies that can deliver a winning platform, the economic model is possibly the greatest that capitalism has ever seen. The reasons are many. First, network effects create a competitive advantage that reinforces itself. Secondly, developers help reduce product development risk by identifying the right audiences and which problems to solve. Platform partners (ISVs, OEMs, SIs, VARs) also help reduce the cost of sales. Further, the labor costs (e.g. software engineers) for software platforms are largely fixed. For client platforms (e.g. Windows 7, iPhone) this makes for fantastic margins. For cloud platforms – where CAPEX is biggest cost driver – the lack of variable labor cost remains compelling. It’s akin to building a factory that doesn’t need people. Sorry unions, but I love it. There are more reasons, but you get the point. Software platforms done right make for a great business.

Successful platforms provide software developers with three critical things: audience, extensibility, and monetization. The audience component is obvious. Next there’s extensibility. This is where the software developer delivers their value. Successful platforms require a tricky balance between making things easy for developers while leaving enough economic opportunity for the developer. That leads us to monetization. There is plenty of great software that is developed and distributed for free. Those developers may not charge money, but they want something (e.g. recognition, education, social interaction). For other developers – they ultimately want cash. This may come in form of a job, generating freelance revenue or owning a startup. Regardless, at some point the professional software developer (and the organization they own/work for) wants to get paid. There are four basic ways to make money from software: licensing, subscription, advertising, and as a loss leader.

• Licensing/Transactional – Sell client or server apps that are usually installed on the customer’s own hardware. Many times the license is granted for perpetual use on a specific device or installation (e.g. Windows, iPhone App).
• Subscription/On-Demand – Users pay to access a software service based on time and/or consumption basis (Salesforce.com, Amazon AWS).
• Advertising – Users pay for the software/media with their time/attention. Third-parties looking to engage with that user pick up the tab (e.g. Google, Facebook).
• Loss Leader – Give the software away and sell professional services (e.g. RedHat, SugarCRM).

Platforms that deliver a large audience, great extensibility story, and multiple monetization options tend to do well.

Software developers invest time building the skills necessary to add value on different platforms. Their ideas combined with these skills are their competitive advantage. Some platforms take years to master. Not surprisingly, developers want to reuse their skills as much as possible – across different platforms. However, that desire doesn’t mesh well with the intentional idiosyncrasies platform providers introduce to make their assets unique. And therein lies the disconnect.

There’s a common theme bubbling in the comments section of recent media coverage on platform hygiene (Flash, iPhone/iPad, Twitter). Many developers seem to think they deserve consumer-level protection from the big-bad platform providers. There are obviously legal limits, but developers seem confused on their rights.

Let’s imagine a company that develops a shopping mall. Not just any shopping mall, but the most popular shopping mall in the city. That company institutes a policy that all store fixtures must be purchased in a relatively obscure format. Some of the retailers get worked up because they have stores in other malls and want to use the same store fixtures everywhere. The retailers have the right to complain, and they should try to get their way. However, their only real recourse is to break their lease and leave. If enough retailers leave the customers will eventually follow suit – and the mall developer will change their ways (or go out of business). However, this is rare since there are other retailers waiting in the wing to fill the mall’s vacant space. Knowing this, the complaining retailers reluctantly stick around. If that decision tears their company apart they probably picked the wrong business. Welcome to capitalism.

That brings me to the point of all of this. Betting an entire business or an individual’s career on a single technology is asking for trouble. Is that common sense? Sure. Worth repeating? Definitely. Why? Well, because developers keep doing it. They get comfortable with a technology and stop reinvesting in themselves. And so the developers out there: You should absolutely voice your opinion when your business partner isn’t doing the right thing. Yes, you’re valuable. And yes, you’re part of the reason the platform provider is successful. But stop being divas if you’re not truly willing to walk away. It’s a business relationship and you shouldn’t be surprised when platform providers try to protect their assets (at your expense). Instead of getting worked up you should focus on building apps that people will pay for rather than apps that are easy to build. Easy money is almost always a mirage. Continuously invest in your skills and relentlessly execute on your ideas. That’s the secret to success in the software industry. Actually, that’s the secret to career development for almost any discipline. Carry on smartly.

The Bottom Line: Software developers should focus on delivering sustainable value even if that comes at the expense of their own productivity.

Anyway, wired remotes are no longer the norm. As such, we don’t need to explicity call out wireless remote controls. We assume it’s wireless. On with the story. Mobile phones, cellular phones – whatever you want to call them – have only been around for a few decades. That’s an eternity in tech years, but an eyeblink in history. Since the first mobile phone call in 1973 a lot has changed. Namely, mobile phones are all over the place. Billions of them. In fact, there are more mobile phones than any other type of phone. So the point? Mobile is a category that will grow to include a number of form factors (e.g. tablets, laptops). You wouldn’t say mobile tablet. Likewise, we can stop using the term mobile phone.

The mobile phone is dead. Long live the phone!

• Evan: Im really happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but the HP slate is one of the best tablets of all time.
• Ray Brown: all of those who think that having to pay for EE is a bad thing: you will one day realize that it’s okay to pay for things.
• Karate Tortoise: Google beats China, China beats Apple, Apple beats Google. Its rock paper scissors!
• Lay: I swear sometimes I think we need another World War to weed out morons that actually feel the most pressing cause in their lives is their choice of search engines.
• EI8HT: instead of launching 20 to 30 mediocre phones (depending on one’s point of view) i don’t know why moto doesn’t instead concentrate on making 3 or 4 really good ones

Ars Technica, a popular tech blog, recently blocked access to their website for people using adblockers. Their audience called foul. It may have been a vocal minority that complained, but the fact that this is even an issue is telling. The disconnect here is that Ars Technica and some of their customers don’t value the content the same – and that’s a problem. One of the comments (from Jerry Leichter) in this article nicely recaps the situation.

What Ars was saying was pretty straightforward. They have two sources of income: Ads and subscriptions. If you are a subscriber, you don’t see any ads. Ars only gets paid for ads that are actually downloaded, which ad blockers stop. So someone who neither subscribes nor allows ads to download doesn’t help pay for the site. It’s amazing how many people think their *readership* is so valuable that Ars should be happy just to have them there. Sorry. Ars makes no bones about being a commercial site that pays its writers.

There are three take aways here. First, pick your customers wisely. Some people are never satisfied and you shouldn’t try to appease them simply because they pay attention to you. Second, serve relevant ads. If you can’t find enough targeted ad inventory then you need to start exploring new ad formats and/or beefing up your internal sales team. Otherwise there is a risk that your audience will leave. Or worse, they’ll stay without generating revenue. Finally, make sure ads are the right model for your business. If advertising is the only way to monetize your content you should begin to question it’s value.

Bottom Line: Ad-supported websites can be a thankless business. Enter at your own risk.

So there it is. The Apple iPad is out and we can start speculating about something else. As a marketer, the most fascinating thing I found around the iPad hype cycle was the user comments on tech blogs. From the initial press it does look like the general consensus is that the iPad is underwhelming. However, I’m not sure what could have lived up to that hype train. More interesting is that most of these people ranting on the tech blogs weren’t going to buy this thing anyway – whatever it turned out to be. Period. A common conversation has gone something like this.

• knucklehead: First!
• gadgetboy: The apple ipad rockzzzz!
• gpl1989: Too bad it doesn’t have 3G.
• gadgetboy: it does have 3g
• gpl1989: Yeah, but too bad it only works on AT&T’s crappy network. Massive FAIL!
• gadgetboy: it comes unlocked
• gpl1989: Too bad it doesn’t have dual cameras, thinner bezel, regular SIM card, run Flash, multi-task, have a removable battery, faster processor, do HDMI out, run OSX/Ubuntu/Win7, fly to Mars and cost $99.
• gadgetboy: huh? how could they make $$$ doing that?
• gpl1989: They could if those corporate suits weren’t so greedy!
• knucklehead: At least it won’t RROD like the Xbox.
• gadgetboy: well, i’m still going to get one
• gpl1989: Go ahead and buy one if you can live with that on your conscience.
• gadgetboy: huh?
• gpl1989: Yeah, I heard they hate puppies!

What? Exactly. That guy was never a potential customer. He’s full of excuses and just came to talk. He’s not even the “just looking” person in a retail store. This guy convinced himself that he doesn’t need your product and his ego isn’t going to let you change that. That’s fine. We just need to a better job at ignoring him in the first place. This is one of the skills that digital marketers are going to need. Who should they ignore? Who should they double down on? The answer is a moving target, but critical for those on a quest to increase profitability and keep the right customers happy. And oh, I personally don’t hate puppies. Cats on the other hand…

The Bottom Line: Many times people look for a reason not to buy your product. Ignore them if they’re not worth the trouble.

Still, I remain excited about these small innovations. The Zune AV Kit was one of those yawner products. But it was still impressive. People have questioned why you want 720p HD video on a portable media player. The screen isn’t big enough. Right? This is true until you think about connecting your portable media player to your friend’s 61″ flat screen, hotel room television, or mini-van. But while this is interesting to me – it’s really just an edge case. However, this all changes when you add a powerful smart phone to the mix. And not just HD video out, but also keyboard and mouse input.

This is called AV Tethering. The concept is simple. You take your phone and connect it to a bigger screen and keyboard. KVM 2.0? Maybe. A number of small players like Celio have been commercializing products based on this concept over the past few years. The biggest flaws I’ve seen with these new products are that they’re 1) too expensive, 2) have a broken UX, and/or 3) work on a phone you don’t want.

That’s why the NexusOne dock looks interesting. If their product team gets it right it is going to force OEMs take this type of accessory seriously. The scenario? You connect your phone to a dock and it’s powering your 24″ monitor and working with a full size keyboard and mouse. All while charging the phone itself. You pop open the browser and use the phone’s 3G connection to get on the Internet. This could also work for a tablet. This wouldn’t be the end of the PC. I think they’ll coexist (e.g. oven + microwave) and we’ll be more mobile than ever before.

Bottom Line: AV tethering is going to catch on. And when it does it’s going to transform personal computing.

Update: The Nexus One Desktop Dock doesn’t do AV Tethering. Boo. Oh well. Someone else will have to start the trend.

In the article there is a list of product categories on the y-axis and Apple, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo on the x-axis. Then a dot was placed for each place where any of the companies had an offering. To make that eye chart useful it should show revenue (historical + trending would be nice) per dot. Then it should call out the (high/medium/low) strategic products that need to exist without a stand alone P&L. Additionally there should be a row that shows the remaining revenue for each company that the chart doesn’t cover (e.g. enterprise software revenue). Profitability per dot would be the cherry on top. That would be fascinating to read (especially with the trend data). All of that would take real work. I’m guessing even professional writers don’t have enough time to do that kind of analysis. I get that, but still feel gypped by this article. Now I want the info. Have you run across a more in-depth comprehensive analysis of these four companies from the product/revenue/profitability perspective. I’d love to give it a read. I’d even pay you for it if it’s accurate. How much? Not sure. My reservation price is probably around the cost of a text book – say $150. That brings up another topic. Is there a business opportunity for low-cost analyst reports for the masses? Something between a good feature magazine/newspaper article and a $5K analyst report? Something short and concise, but with powerful visuals that help me quickly understand the situation? You tell me.

Bottom Line: We have plenty of data in our life (too much in fact). Lists are abundant. Smart analysis is where the value lies – and where there’s value there is money to be made.

Amazon is launching an app store too. Their new Kindle Development Kit (KDK) got me to thinking. Surely Bezos had to squeak this out the door before Apple’s news next week. But they raise a broader question. Are consumer apps just a new form of content? And if so, are they more like music, film or television? They feel most similar to music. You buy them for cheap and use the same bits over and over. Video games feel more like movies. And web content (e.g. popular blogs) feel like television. This isn’t a perfect fit, but it’s interesting how it all lines up. If apps are similar to selling record music that begs a new question? How long will consumers treat them as something valuable? Something they’re willing to pay for with cash?

I don’t have an answer, but anyone betting on an app store should be looking for one.