Thursday night, Microsoft announced the Microsoft Band, and new health-related wearable from Redmond. The device has a very Modern design, a very Modern interface and a collection of health sensors: some fairly common, like heart rate, and others fairly unique, like UV sensor. The accompanying application platform, Microsoft Health, has compatibility with the Big 3 mobile platforms: Windows Phone, iOS and Android. The device was available Friday morning at Microsoft Store locations and online.
Almost immediately, the device was sold out online and physical Microsoft Stores had lines outside to pay for the new device. While some will say that Microsoft is keeping a limit on the supply to keep demand up, the success rate of that tactic has been less than stellar for any manufacturer in the past. The number one goal of a company with a product is to get that product into the hands of consumers, and no amount of "Out of Stock" headlines will help with that goal - it will only drive your customers to find a similar alternative. So, why is Microsoft out of the Microsoft Band already?
The reality is, this device, like the Surface, is not intended to be a stand-alone successful product. Instead, it is a marketable prototype designed to show off a different way of thinking to their partners. In the case of the Surface, it was about challenging their manufacturers, who license Windows from them, to create unique hardware concepts. Because of this, we have a thriving market of unique Windows hardware, from the
Surface and ASUS Transformer Book to the Lenovo ThinkPad Yoga line, you can get a computer that matches your needs. More importantly, though, is the increase in options based on a Microsoft-licensed platform.
The Microsoft Band is the same thing, just with a focus on encouraging its hardware partners to build Microsoft Health-based products instead of Windows. In the
announcement post, Corporate Vice President Todd Holmdahl said,
Microsoft Health is designed to benefit our partners in many ways. For new entrants and startups we have a complete offering that includes our app, and APIs as well as cloud storage for their data. Existing services can upload their data to Microsoft Health and take advantage of our advanced algorithms and the powerful machine learning from our Intelligence Engine to give their customers insights. New devices can license our 10 wrist-worn sensor modules to gather robust data including active heart rate, sleep and GPS.
So, for Microsoft, the idea was not to build a product to compete with the lines of Fitbit, but instead to show what Fitbit could do with the power of Microsoft Health at its back. This includes both the licensing of the sensor array and the use of Microsoft Health, which includes all of the incredible Azure-based machine learning technology that has made Cortana, Bing and the Xbox One so powerful. When your goal is to license the technology, also attempting to crush the competition would go a long way towards negating your primary goal.
This still doesn't exactly explain the supply shortage that Microsoft is currently experiencing, or does it? Actually, it does. As with the original Surface launch, Microsoft massively under estimated the demand for what they consider a marketable prototype. Most likely, the company expected a number of developers and Microsoft die-hards to purchase the device, along with some of their "competitors," but did not expect the lines in the stores from people who were not already Microsoft-focused consumers. Again, as with the Surface, I suspect we will see production increase and future generations of the technology produce more initial quantities.
The nice thing about having a semi-successful hardware product, with the intention of selling other hardware companies a software product is, if the Microsoft Health platform is completely ignored by the likes of Fitbit and Jawbone, Microsoft can simply start to market the Band and sell it as they have done the Surface Pro 3: successfully. Backup plans are always a good thing.
TuneCore, a widely-known distribution company, has launched a new project for artists to make money using YouTube. Musicians that have unlicensed music on YouTube can now sign up to YouTube Money and gain ad revenue from these songs.
Here's how it works. Users can pick what songs need to be searched on YouTube. TuneCore's system then jumps deep into YouTube, searching for uses of the track that aren't licensed. Upon identification of the videos, the clips are then monetized and the money made from the video is placed into the artist's account with TuneCore.
TuneCore's CEO Scott Ackerman spoke on the need for YouTube Money.
As YouTube's importance as a point of distribution increases, we want to ensure Artists are receiving the full benefits. With YouTube Money, we're confident TuneCore can help artists by collecting the YouTube revenue artists have earned while artists can focus on what's most important-making music and getting their music out to the world.
Unlicensed music on YouTube is certainly a point of contention for many artists out there, and this service certainly seems to help with that. I do like that instead of videos being muted for an infringing track, the video can simply be monetized for the artist This helps when tracks are playing in the background while a certain show is out on location and they cannot control what happens around them. On the other side, YouTube already does this natively, but I suppose it's better if the major labels aren't getting 90 percent of the revenue from those videos.
To date, TuneCore, prior to naming this program, paid out over $32 million over the past quarter, up 13.2 percent from the last year. TuneCore only charges users $25 per song you want to hunt down on YouTube via YouTube Money.
Microsoft-Nokia deal closed earlier this year, we knew it was only a matter of time until we'd see our first rebranded smart device. After announcing it earlier this year, a small Nokia blog post hinted at the debut of such hardware.
Consumers will also have noticed many of the Nokia apps on their Windows Phone slowly being renamed with the Lumia prefix. Over the next quarter, we'll be seeing a bunch of new Lumia devices hit shelves worldwide. The new Microsoft Lumia name will be taking over and it will start with a device launching "soon," according to a Nokia blog on the subject.
However, that doesn't mean Nokia is going away. The company still owns the rights to the name, and will be using it for all Here map-related things, among other projects like the NSN network equipment services and all patent licensing. Speaking of patents and licensing, the Nokia name won't be leaving the mobile market entirely either. Microsoft will still be launching Nokia-branded, entry-level phones, like the Nokia 130. Nokia will also be able to launch Nokia-branded smartphones, but not until 2016 according to the acquisition deal.
SVP of Marketing, Tuula Rytila, also wanted to mention in the blog that support of current Nokia Lumia phones won't be going away. As expected, Nokia falling into the Microsoft umbrella just means a more symbiotic relationship for the two companies, and updates and warranties will continue to be supported for all current devices, including the recently-launched Lumia 830 and 730.
We've talked at length about the Xbox One and Microsoft's
decision to be indecisive on the path of the console. The good news is that it's finally all coming together, albeit in a slightly altered path than the original. And even though its competition is copying ideas that gamers said they didn't want but somehow are now miraculously loving (and are paying for), there hasn't been a major vision shift for over six months, so I think we've hit our stride. Microsoft's Head of Xbox, Phil Spencer, has guided the ship for a while now but sat down with IGN's Podcast Unlocked to talk about some of the confusion and frustration consumers felt after the initial launch of the Xbox One.
Right off the bat, Spencer acknowledged where Microsoft missed its mark in delivering the proper message to its customers. Not properly explaining the Kinect requirement, or that the console would be forced to check-in online upset a lot of people and with social media allowing the ill-informed or unaware to voice an opinion on a subject, the backlash hit them hard.
"The year of the announce of Xbox, E3 2013, the toll it took on some of the internal team members was probably higher than I anticipated or many of us did," Spencer said. He compared it to E3 2014, where his team was "visibly emotional" in trying to bring back pride and a positive reputation to something they'd worked hard on. On his part in the decision-making and message delivery process, Spencer owned up to his role.
I see it sometimes on Twitter and other places, where people want to call me out as somebody who was at the leadership table when decisions were made for Xbox One, and that's absolutely true. I've never tried to wash my hands or distance myself from my role on the Xbox One leadership team through the announcement of the console, E3 2013 - I was there, and I'm not trying to create some kind of false history that makes me look better, to say I wasn't there, I wasn't involved. I'm going to take responsibility for those decisions, absolutely, good ones and bad ones. I have to, otherwise I don't have any credibility in what I do going forward. I wouldn't trust me if all of a sudden I tried to say 'well, I was asleep during those meetings'. It would be silly. I was there.
Spencer even went on to say that there should've been more time at E3 2013 spent with talking about the amount of games coming to the console, but insisted that the entertainment features are what makes the console a complete option for the living room. He boldly says they have the right to do that because they make an outstanding product.
I think we get permission as a platform to focus on entertainment when we're a great gaming platform. And before we've earned that permission, and we go out and try to explain to people that we're an entertainment platform, without checking for all the Xbox fans out there that this is going to be the place they want to play games - I think that's where we confused people.
Still, Spencer confidently stood behind the decisions the team has made from that point moving forward, and believes that the best companies can learn from mistakes, no matter the type. Are you sold on the Xbox One yet? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments below.
We were all curious what was going to happen when Ello ran out of money. An
ad-free social networking platform is a noble idea, but pay-for-feature websites have sprung up in the past and have failed, so many were worried about Ello's sustainability. Well, the good news is that Ello has answered both the money question and its promise to remain ad-free.
Ello's creators, in their effort to stay true to their promise, has taken $5.5 million in venture capital funding, but not without signing legally binding papers that say Ello can never sell advertising space or sell its user data. How can a for-profit company do this without upsetting stakeholders? By registering under a special company type, a public benefit corporation, or PBC. As one of only about 1,100 PBCs in the US, a company can use its money in different ways as it sees fit, instead of simply spending money to build profit at any cost. In the charter, Ello writes,
Ello's explosive growth over the last few months proves that there is a hunger to connect with friends and see beautiful things - without being manipulated by ad salesmen, boosted posts, and computer algorithms that don't always have our best interests at heart. On an ad-driven social network, the advertiser is the customer and you're the product that's bought and sold.
All of this to simply avoid selling out like other companies sure does seem like a solid commitment to the initial idea of what Ello is supposed to be. Analysts everywhere have essentially made Ello's founders to look like they don't know what they're doing by thinking they can take money without a stream of ad revenue. However this charter, followed by the $5.5 million, effectively puts a sock in all of those mouths rather quickly.
Ello's co-founder, Paul Budnitz, also made sure to add in that if Ello were to ever be acquired, it cannot be by a company who would make Ello sell ads or user data. He said in a statement that,
A PBC is obligated to consider the mission based. We really cannot be forced by our investors to break the basic principles. Ello is a business, and we're here to prove that the internet doesn't have to be one big billboard. There's a better business model, and by becoming a PBC, we're hoping that other people are inspired to follow our example.
Ello has already gone to work with the added funding, too. The 10-week schedule of updates and features has been crunched into three weeks worth of work and Ello hopes to launch worldwide before the end of the year. Some of those updates include the already-implemented privacy options and new servers to hold the heavy influx of traffic to the site. What's at the end of the road for Ello? The founders have said there is no exit strategy and that never in any financial conversation has the talk of launching an IPO or selling the business come up.
For a full breakdown of what Ello's charter actually is and how it affects the company, be sure to check out the source link below, as it goes into insane detail on the nuances of the documents.