The best articles, videos and links about App Ecosystem, Mobile Marketing, Mobile Commerce/Payments, Blockchain/Cryptocurrencies, Artificial Intelligence, Retail Media,..that help me in my daily work.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/agustingutierrezbazaco. Mail: agbazaco@yahoo.es
Twitter:@agbazaco
Notifications, no app required? That's what Chrome is now delivering for desktop and Android users. "Add To Homescreen" option also offered.
One of the advantages for both publishers and their readers with apps is the ability to send notifications, alerts about important stories or events. But not every publisher has an app. Now Google has launched a way to send notifications, no-app required.
“Chrome Notifications” allows publishers to send notifications to those who use Chrome, Google’s own web browser. There’s no need for visitors to download an app. Instead, when visitors arrive at a publisher’s web site, they’ll get asked if they want to receive notifications from that site.
Here’s an example from Google’s blog post today showing how this works, where visiting a site brings up a message asking if someone wants notifications:
When a notification is subscribed to, here’s an example as how it might appear for a user when pushed to their Android phone:
Right now, the notification system only works for Chrome on desktop (PC, Mac & Chromebook) and within Android. So Chrome users within iOS apparently wouldn’t get notifications. Sites that Google says are early adopters of the new system include eBay, Facebook, Pinterest and Vice, among others. However, there seems no reason that any site couldn’t now implement these, as long as they follow the HTML 5 Open Web guidelines on push notifications.
Chrome For Android is also now supporting “Add To Homescreen” icons for sites that are mobile-optimized, the post said, pointing here for more information on that.
Much is being written in breathless tones about the Internet
of Things and the effects it will have on me, you, us, and the planet. Some
cheer “Cures for cancer!” and “Commutes without traffic jams!” Others bemoan
“Total loss of privacy!” and “All knowing companies that will outsmart me and
charge me more money!”
Despite uncertainty, one thing is clear; the Internet of
Things will be no small thing. Witness, for example, IBM’s recent announcement
that they alone will invest $3 billion in establishing markets and services for
the Internet of Things expansion. How big? Well, at least four different
markets big and we should analyze and consider them independently.
Perhaps because it is so new the “Internet of Things” defies
easy explanation. Those involved in the birthing process struggle to describe
it, instead falling back on a mixture of allusion and allegory, hyperbole and
hope. Simply described, the emerging Internet of Things is a catchall phrase
for the introduction of sensors – connected to the Internet – that will
broadcast information from the world’s devices.
This phenomenon will amaze because it should facilitate wide
collection, distribution and analysis of data that likely never was shared by
the computers by which it was collected. Most likely that data rested
comfortably deep within the computers, phones or banks of servers, sort of like
insulation in your house or that box of stuff you never unpacked from your last
house. It was doing something but only computer coders acknowledged its collection.
Even fewer knew what to do with that data, until recently.
If the Internet of Things flourishes, we can learn many
things. We could, perhaps, know when factory equipment is breaking down before
its failing causes a plant-wide work stoppage. We might know when appliances
are inefficiently operating in our homes and learn how they might be optimized.
We might learn how to efficiently board an airplane or get travelers through
screening checkpoints. Our clothing might monitor our body temperature and send
the signal to the AC unit to turn on or off.
The broad Internet of Things concept, however, needs to be
discussed in precise terms. Doing so would benefit businesses, regulators and
consumers. Broken down into its component parts the Internet of Things is four
separate Internets. It is comprised of an: Internet of Me; Internet of Us;
Internet of It; and, an Internet of Those. The first two categories are the
sensors that will collect information about one specific person or groups of
people. The latter two categories are the new sensors coming on line that won’t
collect information about people at all. The Internet of It will collect
information about one device and the Internet of Those about many devices.
The Internets of It and Those two pose virtually no privacy
risk at all. The case for unlimited data collection and use to spawn innovation
here is unquestionable since individuals’ information will not be gathered.
Device sensors not focused on a person or people could produce a new golden era
of science and engineering advancements. Although new types of abuses might
arise, even when a multitude of devices are strung together through connected
sensors an Internet of Those poses virtually no privacy risk. Unless there are
intentional efforts to misuse the big data sets produced by it, the Internet of
Those also is unlikely to create new consumer protection or societal risks.
That is because the data gathered is not about people.
Should regulators take preemptive action in response to the
dawning Internet of Me and Internet of Us simply because the sensors being
brought on line might collect more information about me and us than ever
before? Two differences will emerge from current corporate collection of
consumer data. First, companies will collect far more data about each person
and groups of people. Second, companies might collect new data that is either
sensitive data about a person, or that may be risky because when it is combined
with other data sets it may unlock sensitive data about a person or groups of
people. Existing, flexible privacy regulatory structures seem well suited to
protect against additional data volume and new sensitive data set threats.
Companies’ growing awareness that they must safeguard data makes it unlikely
that simply having more or new kinds of data pose a noteworthy privacy threat.
Personalized clothing that responds to your body’s signals or data about
everyone’s commutes will be personally and societally valuable, to cite just
two likely applications of collection from an Internet of Me and an Internet of
Us.
Still remote but more likely is that some unethical business
misuses extra data or new data sets for a new scam or to perpetrate some act of
consumer discrimination. The history of technological change shows that scams
and abuses appear in new markets following new technologies’ introduction.
Therefore, the beneficiaries of the four Internets of Things will need to
police their industries to limit data misuses. The Federal Trade Commission and
the state Attorneys General also are there to respond if data misuses occur. In
the meantime, the individual and collective benefits from this technological
revolution are likely to more than outweigh any potential future harm. IBM
certainly thinks so, at least.
The key to having our metaphorical cake of advanced knowledge
and eating it too is for businesses and policy makers globally to make an early
and important distinction between where sensors are and what they collect.
Other important distinctions will certainly also become obvious over time.
Describing precisely the Internet of At Least Four Things can help businesses
and consumers maximize the benefits and limit the downside of this emerging
sensor revolution.
Tomorrow the Apple Watch pre-orders start arriving. And almost immediately those early adopters will be downloading specialized watch apps onto their wrist computers.
Just as Apple has a dedicated section for iPad-specific apps the App Store features an area now dedicated to Watch apps. The Wall Street Journal reports (via Ars Technica) that there are “more than 3,000 Watch apps” already available. However my check of the App Store through iTunes and the Apple Watch app, reflects just over a 100 apps that are currently visible and being showcased.
Some of those featured and “first out of the gate” include the New York Times, Twitter, Uber, SPG (hotels), MLB.com, Evernote, the WSJ, CNN, Target, Expedia, Flipboard, Citi, among others, as well as those above.
While it’s uncertain how many Watch pre-orders there were — some financial analysts estimated between one and two million — developers want to be ready in the event the Watch proves to be a big hit. There’s an advantage to being early.
There will be considerable learning from these early watch apps. What content should be displayed? How many notifications are too many? Should the Watch app be an extension of the iPhone app or a stand-alone, unique experience?
These things are all up for grabs and will need to be determined over time and with user feedback.
Even though these developers are eager to stake and early claim on users’ wrists it remains to be seen whether the Apple Watch and smartwatches in general gain mainstream adoption.
theguardian.com Experts have given the green light to a traffic light revolution – but we’re still some distance from a queuing-free future ‘Once computers are in full control of our cars, do we even need traffic lights at intersections?’ Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images
Traffic is getting worse. It doesn’t just feel that way, the stats prove it: commuters in 2014 spent an average 66 more hours stuck in traffic than they did in 2013, according to navigation tech firm TomTom. So when internet of things technology is disrupting every part of our lives, when will traffic lights be rethought and rebuilt?
Well, the traffic light revolution is already underway. It is all part of the promise of connected and self-driving cars, which allow data about individual journeys, routes and vehicles to be centrally monitored, controlled and systematised.
Autonomous intersection management
Once computers are in full control of our cars, do we even need traffic lights at intersections? That’s the idea behind AIM – autonomous intersection management – at the artificial intelligence laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin. Rather than stop at red lights, self-driving cars would schedule a slot through an intersection in real-time, speeding up or slowing down to ensure they’re in the right place at the right time – and not smashing into another car.
In black and white text, that seems eminently sensible. But it won’t be for the fainthearted – at least not until passengers have learnt to entirely trust their automated pilots:
For the idea to work, it would require roads to be mostly full of autonomous cars, says project leader Professor Peter Stone – and then it wouldn’t seem so terrifying.
“When I show people that video, I tell people to not envision themselves with their foot hovering over the brake or with their white knuckles on the steering wheel, but rather they’re in the back seat with the windows dark, doing a crossword puzzle or reading the newspaper, talking to family or whatever,” he says. “Once the driving is not a human task and people grow to trust the software controllers, people will also get used to the idea of cars going through the intersections.”
That said, he stressed that driving is now and will likely always remain a risk and reward equation, but he predicted that with AIM, “the efficiency gains will be so high that they’ll offset the perceived risk”.
How much faster will careening through intersections be compared to carefully stopping? The researchers compared AIM to heavy traffic on a major road, saying it would reduce delay by as much as 100 times – though that’s only at intersections, not total driving time.
It not only promises to remove time waiting at lights, but will cut fuel usage and emissions as well. “A lot of emissions and fuel usage are caused by acceleration, and our system will allow the cars to make a much more constant speed,” he says, adding that the savings could be “quite significant”.
But even with a complicated system such as AIM, intersections will still be safer than they are today, Prof Stone says, pointing out that a third of all fatal accidents happen at intersections.
“Intersections are already quite dangerous. When a computer’s doing the driving, even with all the cars going through without stopping, it’s going to be a lot safer than it is today.”
‘Are we there yet?’
Computers aren’t driving our cars yet and won’t be for some time, but there are some connected car projects that already claim to be easing the flow of traffic.
TomTom collects swaths of traffic data from its satnav devices but also used anonymised data from third party navigation apps, including smartphone maps. “We have agreements with a number of smartphone manufacturers, so they provide us with real time GPS feeds wherever their smartphones are,” says Nick Cohn, senior traffic expert at TomTom.
It also gathers data from telematics units installed in fleet vehicles as well as in-dash systems, giving TomTom a comprehensive overview of traffic flows. The resulting information on near real-time congestion is shared with customers, which includes road authorities who use it to plan traffic management as well as consumers.
“Most have camera data that doesn’t cover the whole network, so they use our data to supplement that and for deciding whether they need to switch to a different traffic signal scheme,” Cohn says.
When a driver hits a patch of congestion – a red zone of a smartphone or satnav map – it may be because of data that was collected, aggregated and distributed from connected cars in weeks or months past. Before ubiquitous connectivity, Cohn said the travel times seen by TomTom were very different than that given by road authorities such as the AA. As data improves, the numbers are merging, suggesting travel advice has become more accurate.
As cars become more connected – whether it’s through satnav or simply the smartphones in our pockets – better data in means we get better data out on the road.
Andy Stanford-Clark, distinguished engineer in IBM’s global internet of things team, pointed out that we can now pull in all sorts of data: not only GPS from cars and timings from traffic lights, but also air quality sensor data and images from cameras.
“On its own, [each] is of low value, but when merged together in the internet of things’ cloud processing platform, [we] can make sense of them and make actionable insights,” he says. “It might be to turn some traffic lights green quicker or send a text message to a car, or alert satnavs in the car to quietly change the routing so they’re now going somewhere else.”
It may seem like a small change, but consider the shift that’s happened in digital signs. Highways England used to simply warn there were “queues ahead”, but now tells drivers it will be 17 minutes to their junction, points out Giles Perkins, business development director for intelligent transport at Mouchel, which runs the National Traffic Information Service . “More data in and more data out can only be a good thing.”
Unintended consequences
Though traffic data makes it possible to see the movement of traffic in real time, and traffic lights themselves are operated algorithmically, it is still not possible to engineer a way of turning the lights green as you pull up.
“It’s easy to change the traffic lights,” ssays IBM’s Standford-Clark. “But ... you get this terrible interconnection of unintended consequences.” Your main route into a city may be clear, but every road feeding into it would be gridlocked. “It’s not a trivial thing to do.”
That’s why most light sequences are set via a longer term algorithm, taking into account other parts of the road network.
As we shift to more autonomous cars, that may have to change. One way self-driving vehicles may be introduced is “platooning”, with a lead car in control of a train or group of followers, handy for giving lorry drivers a break.
Signals couldn’t be allowed to change midway through a platoon, or it would leave stragglers behind. “Platoons would need to transmit their status to the intersection and the signal change would need to be advanced or delayed to treat the platoon as a single long vehicle,” said Alan Stevens, chief scientist and research director at transport firm TRL.
“Either the platoon could signal that it’s cleared the intersection or there would need to be infrastructure sensors to check the whole platoon is through.”
This is already happening in in a limited sense, noted Stevens. “At a local signal level, we can implement priority measures for ambulances, buses, etc - that’s a standard feature in some software and has been for years,” says Stevens. “However, giving priority to one vehicle makes things slightly worse for all others. So, there’s little point in giving one or two connected private passenger vehicles special priority.”
There are reasons to give some cars priority, and that’s being trialled by Newcastle. There, traffic lights are “talking” to motorists, sending messages to a device in car about obstacles or delays ahead, as well as helping them adjust their speeds to hit lights when they’re green.
“The system might advise a driver that if they travel at 24 miles an hour they will hit the next four sets of traffic lights on green,” says Newcastle University professor of intelligent transport systems Phil Blyte, announcing the project. “In more congested areas or particularly busy times of the day, then vehicles on key roads might be given priority in order to keep the traffic flowing.”
The system also gives priority to non-emergency vehicles, such as those transporting people between hospitals, cutting NHS fuel costs and improving patient care. So far, 20 traffic lights are using the system in Newcastle city centre.
Zombies ahead – and cyclists
As with any tech innovation, one of the biggest challenges is security. The best example so far is surely hacked construction signs in the US, with attackers warning of zombies ahead, but it’s easy to imagine how taking out traffic networks could shut down a city or otherwise wreak havoc.
“As more technology and software migrates to the cloud and is configurable over-the-air then the number of ‘attack surfaces’ (to use the jargon) increase,” saysStevens. “Simple hacking to clone a bus asking for priority is one level of threat – relatively easy but the implications are not too serious. Affecting whole intersection or networked intersections would be a much more major threat, but the designers are aware of this and try to take steps to avoid such problems.”
There’s another challenge: roads aren’t only used by cars. What about the bicycles, scooters and pedestrians hoping to cross the street? They have smartphones, so there’s “potential to do something with that,” said TomTom’s Cohn.
“I think it’d be great as a pedestrian and a cyclist if I didn’t have to push a button to cross and I didn’t have to wait, that I could also be optimised in my walking and my cycling,” he said. “Except that I tend to not navigate, so I’m not really telling anybody what’s my trajectory or route when I’m walking or cycling.”
That raises a question: what’s the goal of IoT-connected traffic lights? “I don’t think the main reason is going to be racing people through intersections, it’s going to be safety applications,” said Cohn. “Though it’ll also have a secondary effect of optimising for time, it’ll be really safety focused.”
There’s more than just those two options, of course: are we trying to cut traffic delays, reduce emissions, boost public transport or improve safety, or is there some other goal we haven’t thought of yet? “There’s a whole bunch of optimisation goals which may not be the ones you first thing of,” says IBM’s Stanford-Clark.
The best way to achieve it may not be via smart, reactive traffic lights, but by sending messages to drivers in cars, giving them useful information to react to and nudging them into better routes.
“It’s probably easier to change driver behaviour than it is to change the traffic lights.” Until computers take over driving, at least.
When we think of eradicating extreme poverty, most of us associate this idea with the provision of basic needs. Food. Water. Shelter. Some argue to include clean air, security, even access to basic healthcare and primary education. But what about access to the internet? Where does the internet fit into development?
This is one of the overarching questions put to the authors of the upcoming2016 World Development Report: Internet for Development. It was also the topic of a recent roundtable discussion entitled Digital Trade: Benefits and Impediments here at the World Bank Group, where economists and development professionals, including representatives from the public and private sectors, sat down to discuss some of these issues in detail.
The conversation hinged on what the internet meant for trade, especially for online entrepreneurs in developing countries. The internet, in many ways, signifies innovation. How then can we ensure that individuals seeking to introduce their ideas to the world and tap into the global marketplace can best do so? Is this a question of infrastructure? Is it a question of regulation?
Here’s what the numbers tell us.
The World Development Report (WDR) uses the term “internet” as shorthand for digital technologies. And this much we know, the pace of diffusion of digital technologies has been unprecedented by historical standards (figure 1). There are an estimated 3 billion people online today, with 40 percent participating in online commerce.
Perhaps at the most basic level, the internet has helped reduce communication and information costs between firms and customers. Firms have a better understanding of what consumers want, and consumers have a better idea of what firms offer, at what price, and where they can buy it. The internet offers new ways to buy goods, through online payment systems.
Beyond that, the internet has also allowed firms to increase efficiency and productivity through better supply chain management and improved logistics. Companies can communicate in real-time to ensure intermediate inputs and final products are always delivered just-in-time.
And then, of course, you have online marketplaces and entirely digital products and services. These, too, can help reduce information asymmetry problems and increase trust between buyers and sellers.
Recent research has shown that higher internet use in a country is correlated with higher bilateral exports. In fact, for exporters, there may be a very powerful effect. A 10 percent increase in the use of the internet within a country can lead to a 1.9 percent increase in trade.
Other research shows that small firms, or sellers, make up a larger proportion of online trade than traditional offline trade. These sellers also often offer a wider range of products and reach destinations that traditionally they may not have. While only initial research with limited data, these findings suggest potentially major implications (and potential benefits) for both entrepreneurship and small- and medium-sized firms in developing economies.
The question, then, becomes: what can be done to seize the opportunities of digital trade?
In many instances, there are systemic barriers to trade. There can be a lack of physical telecommunications infrastructure and reliable transport and delivery networks. Developing or accessing reliable and trusted online payment systems is another common challenge. Human capital—programs to foster talented entrepreneurs and the skilled staff to manage and operate online programs—is another area that requires attention.
Legal and regulatory systems and regulations can play a pivotal role in facilitating or constraining digital trade. This is especially true when it comes to setting up e-payment systems, which are not only critical to many online marketplaces, but are also lacking in key developing regions around the world.
And finally, cultural barriers also impact and shape the potential of the internet. This can be as simple as language barriers, or more complex issues of awareness of and trust in online retail.
Mobile technologies are changing the way customers interact with brands. Customers’ experience between a brand’s online and physical presence varies widely. The future of retail lies in bridging this digital and physical divide. Customer Facing Devices create relevant and contextual Digital Interactions to elevate customer experience at physical locations.
Come with us as we outline the need, popular use cases and value of Customer Facing Devices.
Two new releases into the mobile space are adding more focus to consumer connection and brands' ability to analyze activity. Details in today's mobile roundup.
First, AppsFlyer has launched a television attribution tool; the tool can be used by brands to track new user installs in a specific area after an ad has run in that place. Using AppsFlyer for TV Ads, brands can track TV campaigns, analyze performance and optimize according to those results.
"Brands, e-commerce and travel companies find television to be the new frontier of mobile app advertising," said Oren Kaniel, AppsFlyer CEO and co-founder. "The exposure and reach of television ads is practically unparalleled, but until now app marketers have been unable to measure the effectiveness of their TV campaigns. With AppsFlyer for TV Ads, we can track not only the number of new installs a specific TV ad brought in, but also the quality of those installs and the overall ROI for every media source within the campaign. These previously unquantifiable results can then be used as planning tools for the next round of TV advertising buying."
Meanwhile Applause has announced an $80 million funding round, led by Goldman Sacs; the platform 'crawls' more than 30 million apps across iOS and Android platforms in eight countries.
Finally, The Fuel Rewards program has launched a new app which allows program members to link their loyalty, credit/debit and prepaid cards to their smartphones. The company says this will make it simple for people to earn rewards on everyday purchases.
"We wanted a stronger mobile focus in response to our member data showing that 60% of all email communications are being opened on a smartphone, and more than 50% of our program website views are taking place on a mobile device," said Scott Schaper, EVP of Marketing and Program Operations for the Fuel Rewards program. "We designed our program and universal rewards currency to impact our members' everyday lives positively, and our mobile app was built with that same focus ̶ to add more value, utility, and ways for our members to earn and save."
