Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'selling'.
Found 2 results
-
Movie star Anna Kendrick managed to say something in a single tweetthat instantly nails anyone who would buy a gold Apple Watch Edition: "We should be thanking Apple for launching the $10,000 'apple watch' as the new gold standard in douchebag detection." Right on. There's one complication, though. People who believe that a gold Apple Watch is an important status symbol -- or somehow the height of fashion -- aren't the real problem here. Of course, people who buy things to bring them status are some of the saddest and most deplorable humans around -- and I don't mean to let them off the hook. Status should be about what you do, how you act, and how you elevate those around you. Period. What I'm getting at is that the shallow stupidity that forms the core of people who live with thoughtless privilege isn't what disappoints me with the Apple Watch Edition. It's Apple. Apple missed an opportunity to do something truly great and instead did something far beneath its potential. Conspicuous ConsumptionMost of Apple's seemingly overpriced products are rooted in technology and profit margins. The technology that is built into each product tends to have some sort of connection to the function it provides -- a better, sharper more expensive Retina display, for example, is at least loosely connected to the price. A larger screen is at least loosely connected to the price. Better, faster processors are usually connected to the price. Gold for the sake of gold is disconnected from the presumed purpose of an Apple Watch. OK, the gold is for fashionistas, right? That's its purpose -- to look good for rich people to buy. What's wrong with that? If that's all Apple wanted to do -- make something pretty for the glitterati -- that's sad. Worse, it represents a missed opportunity, which I'll get to in a minute. First, consider this: What if Apple started making 18-karat gold iPhones? There are some people on Earth who would buy them. What if Apple started making 18-karat gold iPads and released them a few months early, only to those who could afford them? Apple has every right to do so. Heck, there have been other companies that have fastened diamonds onto iPhones. I guess there are worse things you could do with your life than make a profit off massively rich douchebags. However, that's not Apple. Or that wasn't Apple. Hard to say where Apple goes from here, but consider this: I'm unlikely to run into many people who would buy and wear a US$10,000 gold Apple Watch, but the very fact that this Edition exists -- for no good reason at all -- makes me less likely to want to wear an Apple Watch myself. Instead of raising the desire of an Apple Watch among the masses, the gold Apple Watch aligns what I wear on my wrist with what a dumbass would buy. Apple has created a product that makes sense -- the Apple Watch -- with aversion of it -- the Apple Watch Edition -- that makes no sense. There is no technical purpose to use the gold -- but it's prettier, you might say, and therefore worth it! If you're saying the gold is prettier and therefore worth it, please stop reading right now. This column is not for you. Go buy a small dog to carry around as a fashion accessory that can help fill the cold empty spot inside you when you match its collar with your belt. Meanwhile, what about the tradition of other highly expensive watches? Aren't they are least as pointless as the Apple Watch Edition? Maybe -- but I'm perfectly fine with many of them -- and I'm perfectly fine with a rich guy buying an expensive watch. However, it should have a connection to its value. The craftsmanship and style that go into the building of such a watch can be rewarded. There are guys who have devoted their lives to learning the trade and who are able to assemble tiny gears and springs to create a timepiece that keeps accurate time. That's amazing. Heirloom watches last for generations and boast timeless style. Can you imagine packing around a first-generation 18-karat gold iPhone just because it technically would still function with a new battery? It's stupid. The Apple Watch Edition is the sort of thing that eventually will get left in a drawer like an old iPod. Because the Apple Watch Edition is a smartwatch, it is a consumable device -- not an heirloom. It won't last multiple generations. When the price is so wildly disconnected from the technology, craftsmanship and purpose, its existence becomes obnoxious. As an Apple enthusiast, can I simply ignore the douchebags who will inevitably drop more than $10,000 for it? Drop $17,000 for it? Yes -- but only because Anna Kendrick so aptly pointed out that it represents the new gold standard in douchebag detection. (Thank you, Anna. I promise to watch one of your movies.) There's a Much Better WayThe real question is how could Apple have dropped the ball so spectacularly? Did the company's leaders get lost in their own navels, feeling the need to take on expensive traditional watches? Did they need to have an answer? Did they want their own gold watch? Was it just calculated free marketing dollars? As in, the more people talk about newfangled $17,000 wrist 'puters, the better? Was it the notion that a high-end and a low-end watch might direct people to buy the "sensible" watch priced in the middle? Is this just a necessary psychological ploy to sell more stainless steel watches? If any of this is true, Apple didn't do its real job and focus on a making products that have a reason for being -- that touch lives and improve them. A thousand no's for every yes, right? The Apple Watch Edition should have been a no. Yet that's not quite right, either. In the place of the current Apple Watch Edition, Apple should have created something much better -- something actually worthy of being a symbol. Why didn't Apple invent a fancy new gold coating instead of using real gold, and then sell a premium Apple Watch with the stipulation that a large portion of the proceeds would go to support some charity? Or to produce sustainable energy? Or fund scientists to efficiently desalinate seawater? Or back a mission to Mars? Why not make the new fashion bragging right about something important rather than ostentatious? Seriously. Tim Cook, Jony Ive, and Apple all wield serious power, and instead of doing something exceedingly smart, they did something exceedingly... standard. A high-priced Apple Watch -- even a gold edition that costs $50,000 --could have been a status symbol by the virtue of what it representedbeyond itself as a product: a contribution to a charitable foundation or the pursuit of science for the good of humanity. Apple could have curated several options, and then laser-etched the choice onto the back of the Apple Watch. Maybe such a watch would have a spectacular custom watchface to go with the choice -- only available on that Edition. Suddenly, instead of functioning as a douchebag detector, it would be a status symbol signifying something worthwhile. Suddenly, the status symbol could be a talking point. Suddenly, people with astounding means might take a moment to think -- maybe even involuntarily -- about their own status and what role they play in the world. Apple could have transformed the watch industry -- could have thought beyond the wrist and what it actually means to move around in our world. Instead, the reality of what Apple has produced today is disappointing. Apple seems to be caught up in the notion of fashion, and rather thanredefine fashion -- which is what Apple prides itself on doing, redefining -- it tried to make a better 18-karat gold alloy for a me-too watch. That's great, Apple. Really great. Nice dent in the universe..
-
Your phone company knows where you live, what websites you visit, what apps you download, what videos you like to watch, and even where you are. Now, some have begun selling that valuable information to the highest bidder. In mid-October, Verizon Wireless changed its privacy policy to allow the company to record customers' location data and Web browsing history, combine it with other personal information like age and gender, aggregate it with millions of other customers' data, and sell it on an anonymous basis. That kind of data could be very useful -- and lucrative -- to third-party companies. For instance, if a small business owner wanted to figure out the best place to open a new pet store, the owner could buy a marketing report from Verizon about a designated area. The report might reveal which city blocks get the most foot or car traffic from people whose Web browsing history reveals that they own pets. Verizon is the first mobile provider to publicly confirm that it is actually selling information gleaned from its customers directly to businesses. But it's hardly alone in using data about its subscribers to make extra cash. All four national carriers use aggregated customer information to help outside parties target ads to their subscribers. AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile insist that subscriber data is never actually handed over to third-party vendors; nevertheless, they all make money on it. AT&T's AdWorks program, for instance, promotes AT&T's customer base to advertisers. On its AdWorks website, AT&T touts its ability to "reach customized audience segments based on anonymous and aggregate demographics." It then shows customers carefully tailored coupons, in-app ads and Web ads. Sprint, like Verizon, tracks the kinds of websites a customer visits on their mobile devices as well as what applications they use, according to spokesman Jason Gertzen. Sprint uses that data to help third parties target ads to customers. That's a step further than Verizon goes. It too lets advertisers target customized messages to Verizon subscribers' mobile phones, but for that initiative, it does not incorporate its customers' Web surfing or location data, according to a company spokesman. Verizon relies on other personal information, including customers' demographic details and home address. T-Mobile declined to answer specific questions about what kind of information it shares or sells, instead pointing CNNMoney to T-Mobile's privacy policy. The policy's open-ended terms seem to suggest that the company does not divulge customer information, but a T-Mobile spokeswoman acknowledged that the company "collects information about the websites that customers visit and their location" and that it "may use that information in an anonymous, aggregate form to improve our services." Selling customer information is an age-old practice that is certainly not exclusive to the wireless industry. Brian Kennish, a former DoubleClick engineer who developed the advertising network's mobile ad server, noted that wireless companies have been sharing users' location data with third parties for more than a decade. Why Apple and Google need to stalk you: But the rise of smartphones has given mobile providers an accidental treasure trove of marketable data: The gadgets are hyper-personalized tracking devices that "know" more about their owners than any other product on the market. Wireless providers are taking advantage of their gold mine. "At the end of the day, we're getting to a situation where customers are the products that these wireless companies are selling," said Nasir Memon, a professor of computer science at New York University's Polytechnic Institute. "They're creating a playground to attract people and sell them to advertisers. People are their new business." There's a lot of money to be made in the largely untapped local advertising markets. A BIA/Kelsey study from March predicts that U.S. local online ad revenues will reach $42.5 billion annually in 2015. Google and Facebook are scrambling to sign local businesses to their new services like Facebook Places, Google Wallet and Google Places. But with smartphone customer data in their arsenal, wireless carriers are well positioned to swoop in as well. "Verizon revealed the industry's strategy," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. "This is more than the camel's nose under the tent. With NFC [near field communication, an emerging technology for mobile payments] and GPS, there's a new digital gold rush here, and wireless companies want to reap the tremendous financial rewards that will come with dominating a local advertising market." Chester noted that Verizon was the first to admit that it's selling customer data for local advertising and business-development purposes, but he said he believes all of the industry's players are involved in using subscriber information for that purpose. "They're all doing this," he said. "Everyone is aware that big growth in the digital economy is mobile and location-based services." For its part, Verizon has largely been applauded by privacy groups for at least being transparent about what it's doing and pointing users to an opt-out site if they don't wish to participate. But privacy advocates are concerned about the direction wireless companies are headed. "The Web pages we go to and searches we do are the closest thing to our thoughts, the most private info of all, that can be recorded," said Kennish, who now heads up Disconnect, an online privacy tool. "If Verizon succeeds, I'm sure others will follow. Despite all the talk about privacy lately, things are just getting worse." Source: CNN TL;DR? - Your Mobile/Cell Phone company are f***ing you. How to avoid it? Get an 'over the counter' prepay handset from your local supermarket
