Flash is cool, right? And that lovely welcome screen and information-rich homepage your client wanted are just perfect. Or are they? We talked to six top designers and creative directors about their Web design pet peeves. What makes these pros cringe might surprise you.
1. Putting your brilliant design first.
"Whether or not the site is designed elegantly, what really matters to me is whether the navigation is intuitive, and whether the information is organized well. Design, for as much time as we spend on it, if it's all about the visual elements, that can quickly get someone out of that site. I always try to focus on making sure the information makes sense before putting mouse on screen. Plan ahead. Get the answers before laying anything down. Get together with your project manager and design team, and get all the info from the client before start designing. It's also important to get the navigation in front of people to make sure everyone can get that information quickly. Be constantly testing. Only then should you build the beautiful elements, the design of the site, around that. If that's not there the site can be considered a failure. "
— Andres Orrego, associate creative director of Chowder Inc. in New York
2. Going overboard with Flash.
"Flash is certainly a pet peeve. It has its place, for sure, but since the dot.com bust we've come a long way. Today our customers want to be found – they expect to be found – but what does that mean for us? We need to set the stage for search engine optimization, so we need to stay away from Flash. When I see a site overly done, you ask yourself, does it really make sense for you to do that in Flash? No."
— Antonio Navarrete, president and creative director of SilentBlast in Toronto
3. The unwelcoming welcome screen.
"I hate everything about welcome screens. By clicking a link, I've already said that I want to go to visit your site, so there is no need to show me a 'welcome' screen with a quote. In fact, it is almost insulting to call it a 'welcome screen' – I'd almost respect it more if it was called a here-is-an-ad-so-we-can-make-money screen. As it is, this intermediate screen just delays users from accessing your content and gives them an opportunity to leave before they ever arrive."
- Andrew Cafourek, co-founder and digital lead of A022 Digital in New York
4. The boggling homepage.
"People who are using your site, buying from your site, are not going to stay there or buy from you due to your awesome design. Most homepages are completely overwhelming. There is so much there – people try to communicate everything to everyone, and the real content gets lost. That's a design disaster. It should tell people in three to five seconds who you are and what you do. That's it. We have a design philosophy that we take from architecture: form follows function. When you are building a building, you want right angles and perfectly usable space. If you go to our homepage, you will see cleanliness and simplicity. I say this left and right, and my designers say it left and right: Websites have to breathe."
- Marvin Russell, creative director of The Ocean Agency in Chicago
5. Worshipping the fold.
"There's been this maintained notion that everything has to be above a certain pixel dimension, and that everything below that gets lost. I don't think that's where we're at anymore. People do scroll. They like portals. So especially with making BarackObama.com, that was something we stayed away from: We knew people would scroll, and we really wanted to keep more information on the homepage, make it a portal, and allow for more content to be available on the portal page. I think the key to making it work is making sure you present something and design with the pixel dimension in mind. On another site I did, there's type interacting with an image makes you aware that there's more going on below. Especially when you're on blogs, they become very blah-y, and there's no contrast in post styles. They don't keep a variation that keeps readers interested. Variation in consistency lets you forget the fold."
- Scott Thomas, a.k.a. @SimpleScott
6. Not addressing the user's real need.
"Many companies organize the site around their own internal categories, which is different from what the audience is actually looking for. In other words, they'll build a site around products, because they’re thinking they have to sell the product and the product needs to be front and center. But when you think about it, you have to reverse it and first ask what need are you solving, and then present the product. I think there's internal anxiety to make sure things get covered as a checklist, versus really stepping back and understanding what the users need. You have to have the perspective of an audience that may not know your brand, and there's very often a complete absence of making people aware of your brand is, and why it’s relevant."
- Sean Ketchem, strategy director of communication of MetaDesign in San Francisco
7. Hiding who you are.
"Transparency on the Web is the hottest and the biggest thing as far as getting people to purchase or relate to your services. Our portfolio page was always No. 1 for the seven years we've been in business. But then we created videos of each one of our employees talking about what they do and why they love it. That page is now No. 1. By far, the people behind the process, behind the product, are extremely important. We've had clients say 'we went with you because we got to kind of meet everybody before we even walked in the door.' The buying process starts with a relationship. That process can start with a video and tell you personally what I do rather than just a photo and a title. Really show them rather than tell them."
- Marvin Russell, creative director of The Ocean Agency in Chicago
Google made a stunning revelation this morning: the existence of a secret self-driving car project. Even more amazing: it has been in testing for months, on actual roads across California, and things seem to be running smoothly. Fans of Total Recall, Minority Report, and Knight Rider are hyperventilating at the prospects. And while the technology is likely still a long way from being widely implemented (The New York Times piece on it suggests eight years), there is one big question: why?
Google’s answer seems to be a “betterment of society” one. “We’ve always been optimistic about technology’s ability to advance society, which is why we have pushed so hard to improve the capabilities of self-driving cars beyond where they are today,” Google engineer Sebastian Thrun, who spearheaded the project (and also runs Stanford’s AI Labs, and co-invented Street View), writes today.
That’s great. But Google is still a public company in the business of making money for its shareholders. So one can’t help but wonder what, if any, money-making prospects there are here?
“The Google researchers said the company did not yet have a clear plan to create a business from the experiments,” according to the NYT. Further, they quote Thrun as saying that this project is an example of Google’s “willingness to gamble on technology that may not pay off for years.”
We know Google has a history of idealism — co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, in particular — but this project cannot come cheap. And the fact is that Google remains basically a one-trick-pony when it comes to making money. They are so reliant on search advertising revenues, that if something suddenly happened to the market, they’d be totally screwed. Android may prove to be their second trick, but it’s not there yet.
But there may be more to these automated cars than just an awesomely cool concept. At our TechCrunch Disrupt event a couple weeks ago, Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave a speech about “an augmented version of humanity.” He noted that the future is about getting computers to do the things we’re not good at. One of those things is driving cars, Schmidt slyly said at the time. “Your car should drive itself. It just makes sense,” he noted. “It’s a bug that cars were invented before computers.”
If your car can drive itself, a lot of commuters would be freed up to do other things in the car — such as surf the web. One of Google’s stated goals for this project is to “free up people’s time”. That matched with Schmidt’s vision of mobile devices being with us all the time every day, likely will translate into more usage of Google.
That may sound silly and not worth all the R&D an undertaking as huge as this will require, but don’t underestimate Google. This is a company who cares deeply about shaving fractions of a second off of each search query so that you can do more of them in your waking hours. Imagine if you suddenly had an hour or more a day in your car to do whatever you wanted because you no longer had to focus on driving? Yeah. Cha-ching.
Or imagine if your on-board maps where showing you Google ads. Or you were watching Google TV in your car since you didn’t have to drive. Or you were listening to Google Music with Google ads. It’s all the same. This automated driving technology would free you up to use more Google products — which in turn make them more money. Make no mistake, Google will enter your car in a big way. And automated driving would up their return in a big way.
And, of course, none of this speaks to what, if anything, Google would actually charge for such technology implementation. You would have to believe that if and when it’s available, this automated driving tech would be built-in to cars. Would car manufacturers pay Google for it and pass off some of the costs to customers? Or would this all be subsidized by the above ideas?
It’s way too early to get into that, I’m sure. And in 8 years, there will be things out there that we can’t even imagine right now. But it’s interesting to think about. The Google Car.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I have little doubt Google is being sincere in their broader hopes for such a technology. Here’s their key blurb on that:
According to the World Health Organization, more than 1.2 million lives are lost every year in road traffic accidents. We believe our technology has the potential to cut that number, perhaps by as much as half. We’re also confident that self-driving cars will transform car sharing, significantly reducing car usage, as well as help create the new “highway trains of tomorrow.” These highway trains should cut energy consumption while also increasing the number of people that can be transported on our major roads. In terms of time efficiency, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that people spend on average 52 minutes each working day commuting. Imagine being able to spend that time more productively.
That first part is awesome. If we could halve the number of traffic deaths each year, it would be world-changing. And if energy consumption could be cut, it could re-shape economies and save our future. But again, don’t gloss over the last part. Freeing up those 52 minutes a day to be productive — that’s a lot of potential money for Google.
And that’s great too. If Google can spend the time and money working on such amazing technology they should be rewarded for it. There’s no rule that says you shouldn’t be able to make money by changing the world. And Google can’t be praised enough for trying.
More:
- Google Has A Secret Fleet Of Automated Toyota Priuses; 140,000 Miles Logged So Far.
- Google’s Self-Driving Car Spotted On The Highway Almost A Year Ago
[images: Dreamworks and TriStar Entertainment]
bench craft company
Britain Orders Inquiry Into <b>News</b> Corp.'s BSkyB Bid - NYTimes.com
Vince Cable, the British business secretary, ordered the communications regulator Ofcom to conduct an inquiry into News Corp.'s bid to take over the satellite television company BSkyB.
Fox <b>News</b> Dominates Election Ratings – Deadline.com
UPDATED WITH FINAL NUMBERS: Fox News towered over the competition -- cable and broadcast -- with its midterm election coverage last night. According to Nielsen, Fox News averaged 7 million viewers in primetime, up 128% from the ...
Even FOX <b>News</b> Not Hiring Christine O'Donnell
FOX News not doing something is always a banner news item. They also didn't burn down the Empire State building today or march naked through Times Square. Don't miss writing news copy about that! ...
bench craft company
Flash is cool, right? And that lovely welcome screen and information-rich homepage your client wanted are just perfect. Or are they? We talked to six top designers and creative directors about their Web design pet peeves. What makes these pros cringe might surprise you.
1. Putting your brilliant design first.
"Whether or not the site is designed elegantly, what really matters to me is whether the navigation is intuitive, and whether the information is organized well. Design, for as much time as we spend on it, if it's all about the visual elements, that can quickly get someone out of that site. I always try to focus on making sure the information makes sense before putting mouse on screen. Plan ahead. Get the answers before laying anything down. Get together with your project manager and design team, and get all the info from the client before start designing. It's also important to get the navigation in front of people to make sure everyone can get that information quickly. Be constantly testing. Only then should you build the beautiful elements, the design of the site, around that. If that's not there the site can be considered a failure. "
— Andres Orrego, associate creative director of Chowder Inc. in New York
2. Going overboard with Flash.
"Flash is certainly a pet peeve. It has its place, for sure, but since the dot.com bust we've come a long way. Today our customers want to be found – they expect to be found – but what does that mean for us? We need to set the stage for search engine optimization, so we need to stay away from Flash. When I see a site overly done, you ask yourself, does it really make sense for you to do that in Flash? No."
— Antonio Navarrete, president and creative director of SilentBlast in Toronto
3. The unwelcoming welcome screen.
"I hate everything about welcome screens. By clicking a link, I've already said that I want to go to visit your site, so there is no need to show me a 'welcome' screen with a quote. In fact, it is almost insulting to call it a 'welcome screen' – I'd almost respect it more if it was called a here-is-an-ad-so-we-can-make-money screen. As it is, this intermediate screen just delays users from accessing your content and gives them an opportunity to leave before they ever arrive."
- Andrew Cafourek, co-founder and digital lead of A022 Digital in New York
4. The boggling homepage.
"People who are using your site, buying from your site, are not going to stay there or buy from you due to your awesome design. Most homepages are completely overwhelming. There is so much there – people try to communicate everything to everyone, and the real content gets lost. That's a design disaster. It should tell people in three to five seconds who you are and what you do. That's it. We have a design philosophy that we take from architecture: form follows function. When you are building a building, you want right angles and perfectly usable space. If you go to our homepage, you will see cleanliness and simplicity. I say this left and right, and my designers say it left and right: Websites have to breathe."
- Marvin Russell, creative director of The Ocean Agency in Chicago
5. Worshipping the fold.
"There's been this maintained notion that everything has to be above a certain pixel dimension, and that everything below that gets lost. I don't think that's where we're at anymore. People do scroll. They like portals. So especially with making BarackObama.com, that was something we stayed away from: We knew people would scroll, and we really wanted to keep more information on the homepage, make it a portal, and allow for more content to be available on the portal page. I think the key to making it work is making sure you present something and design with the pixel dimension in mind. On another site I did, there's type interacting with an image makes you aware that there's more going on below. Especially when you're on blogs, they become very blah-y, and there's no contrast in post styles. They don't keep a variation that keeps readers interested. Variation in consistency lets you forget the fold."
- Scott Thomas, a.k.a. @SimpleScott
6. Not addressing the user's real need.
"Many companies organize the site around their own internal categories, which is different from what the audience is actually looking for. In other words, they'll build a site around products, because they’re thinking they have to sell the product and the product needs to be front and center. But when you think about it, you have to reverse it and first ask what need are you solving, and then present the product. I think there's internal anxiety to make sure things get covered as a checklist, versus really stepping back and understanding what the users need. You have to have the perspective of an audience that may not know your brand, and there's very often a complete absence of making people aware of your brand is, and why it’s relevant."
- Sean Ketchem, strategy director of communication of MetaDesign in San Francisco
7. Hiding who you are.
"Transparency on the Web is the hottest and the biggest thing as far as getting people to purchase or relate to your services. Our portfolio page was always No. 1 for the seven years we've been in business. But then we created videos of each one of our employees talking about what they do and why they love it. That page is now No. 1. By far, the people behind the process, behind the product, are extremely important. We've had clients say 'we went with you because we got to kind of meet everybody before we even walked in the door.' The buying process starts with a relationship. That process can start with a video and tell you personally what I do rather than just a photo and a title. Really show them rather than tell them."
- Marvin Russell, creative director of The Ocean Agency in Chicago
Google made a stunning revelation this morning: the existence of a secret self-driving car project. Even more amazing: it has been in testing for months, on actual roads across California, and things seem to be running smoothly. Fans of Total Recall, Minority Report, and Knight Rider are hyperventilating at the prospects. And while the technology is likely still a long way from being widely implemented (The New York Times piece on it suggests eight years), there is one big question: why?
Google’s answer seems to be a “betterment of society” one. “We’ve always been optimistic about technology’s ability to advance society, which is why we have pushed so hard to improve the capabilities of self-driving cars beyond where they are today,” Google engineer Sebastian Thrun, who spearheaded the project (and also runs Stanford’s AI Labs, and co-invented Street View), writes today.
That’s great. But Google is still a public company in the business of making money for its shareholders. So one can’t help but wonder what, if any, money-making prospects there are here?
“The Google researchers said the company did not yet have a clear plan to create a business from the experiments,” according to the NYT. Further, they quote Thrun as saying that this project is an example of Google’s “willingness to gamble on technology that may not pay off for years.”
We know Google has a history of idealism — co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, in particular — but this project cannot come cheap. And the fact is that Google remains basically a one-trick-pony when it comes to making money. They are so reliant on search advertising revenues, that if something suddenly happened to the market, they’d be totally screwed. Android may prove to be their second trick, but it’s not there yet.
But there may be more to these automated cars than just an awesomely cool concept. At our TechCrunch Disrupt event a couple weeks ago, Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave a speech about “an augmented version of humanity.” He noted that the future is about getting computers to do the things we’re not good at. One of those things is driving cars, Schmidt slyly said at the time. “Your car should drive itself. It just makes sense,” he noted. “It’s a bug that cars were invented before computers.”
If your car can drive itself, a lot of commuters would be freed up to do other things in the car — such as surf the web. One of Google’s stated goals for this project is to “free up people’s time”. That matched with Schmidt’s vision of mobile devices being with us all the time every day, likely will translate into more usage of Google.
That may sound silly and not worth all the R&D an undertaking as huge as this will require, but don’t underestimate Google. This is a company who cares deeply about shaving fractions of a second off of each search query so that you can do more of them in your waking hours. Imagine if you suddenly had an hour or more a day in your car to do whatever you wanted because you no longer had to focus on driving? Yeah. Cha-ching.
Or imagine if your on-board maps where showing you Google ads. Or you were watching Google TV in your car since you didn’t have to drive. Or you were listening to Google Music with Google ads. It’s all the same. This automated driving technology would free you up to use more Google products — which in turn make them more money. Make no mistake, Google will enter your car in a big way. And automated driving would up their return in a big way.
And, of course, none of this speaks to what, if anything, Google would actually charge for such technology implementation. You would have to believe that if and when it’s available, this automated driving tech would be built-in to cars. Would car manufacturers pay Google for it and pass off some of the costs to customers? Or would this all be subsidized by the above ideas?
It’s way too early to get into that, I’m sure. And in 8 years, there will be things out there that we can’t even imagine right now. But it’s interesting to think about. The Google Car.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I have little doubt Google is being sincere in their broader hopes for such a technology. Here’s their key blurb on that:
According to the World Health Organization, more than 1.2 million lives are lost every year in road traffic accidents. We believe our technology has the potential to cut that number, perhaps by as much as half. We’re also confident that self-driving cars will transform car sharing, significantly reducing car usage, as well as help create the new “highway trains of tomorrow.” These highway trains should cut energy consumption while also increasing the number of people that can be transported on our major roads. In terms of time efficiency, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that people spend on average 52 minutes each working day commuting. Imagine being able to spend that time more productively.
That first part is awesome. If we could halve the number of traffic deaths each year, it would be world-changing. And if energy consumption could be cut, it could re-shape economies and save our future. But again, don’t gloss over the last part. Freeing up those 52 minutes a day to be productive — that’s a lot of potential money for Google.
And that’s great too. If Google can spend the time and money working on such amazing technology they should be rewarded for it. There’s no rule that says you shouldn’t be able to make money by changing the world. And Google can’t be praised enough for trying.
More:
- Google Has A Secret Fleet Of Automated Toyota Priuses; 140,000 Miles Logged So Far.
- Google’s Self-Driving Car Spotted On The Highway Almost A Year Ago
[images: Dreamworks and TriStar Entertainment]
bench craft company
Britain Orders Inquiry Into <b>News</b> Corp.'s BSkyB Bid - NYTimes.com
Vince Cable, the British business secretary, ordered the communications regulator Ofcom to conduct an inquiry into News Corp.'s bid to take over the satellite television company BSkyB.
Fox <b>News</b> Dominates Election Ratings – Deadline.com
UPDATED WITH FINAL NUMBERS: Fox News towered over the competition -- cable and broadcast -- with its midterm election coverage last night. According to Nielsen, Fox News averaged 7 million viewers in primetime, up 128% from the ...
Even FOX <b>News</b> Not Hiring Christine O'Donnell
FOX News not doing something is always a banner news item. They also didn't burn down the Empire State building today or march naked through Times Square. Don't miss writing news copy about that! ...
bench craft company
bench craft company
bench craft company
Britain Orders Inquiry Into <b>News</b> Corp.'s BSkyB Bid - NYTimes.com
Vince Cable, the British business secretary, ordered the communications regulator Ofcom to conduct an inquiry into News Corp.'s bid to take over the satellite television company BSkyB.
Fox <b>News</b> Dominates Election Ratings – Deadline.com
UPDATED WITH FINAL NUMBERS: Fox News towered over the competition -- cable and broadcast -- with its midterm election coverage last night. According to Nielsen, Fox News averaged 7 million viewers in primetime, up 128% from the ...
Even FOX <b>News</b> Not Hiring Christine O'Donnell
FOX News not doing something is always a banner news item. They also didn't burn down the Empire State building today or march naked through Times Square. Don't miss writing news copy about that! ...
bench craft company
Flash is cool, right? And that lovely welcome screen and information-rich homepage your client wanted are just perfect. Or are they? We talked to six top designers and creative directors about their Web design pet peeves. What makes these pros cringe might surprise you.
1. Putting your brilliant design first.
"Whether or not the site is designed elegantly, what really matters to me is whether the navigation is intuitive, and whether the information is organized well. Design, for as much time as we spend on it, if it's all about the visual elements, that can quickly get someone out of that site. I always try to focus on making sure the information makes sense before putting mouse on screen. Plan ahead. Get the answers before laying anything down. Get together with your project manager and design team, and get all the info from the client before start designing. It's also important to get the navigation in front of people to make sure everyone can get that information quickly. Be constantly testing. Only then should you build the beautiful elements, the design of the site, around that. If that's not there the site can be considered a failure. "
— Andres Orrego, associate creative director of Chowder Inc. in New York
2. Going overboard with Flash.
"Flash is certainly a pet peeve. It has its place, for sure, but since the dot.com bust we've come a long way. Today our customers want to be found – they expect to be found – but what does that mean for us? We need to set the stage for search engine optimization, so we need to stay away from Flash. When I see a site overly done, you ask yourself, does it really make sense for you to do that in Flash? No."
— Antonio Navarrete, president and creative director of SilentBlast in Toronto
3. The unwelcoming welcome screen.
"I hate everything about welcome screens. By clicking a link, I've already said that I want to go to visit your site, so there is no need to show me a 'welcome' screen with a quote. In fact, it is almost insulting to call it a 'welcome screen' – I'd almost respect it more if it was called a here-is-an-ad-so-we-can-make-money screen. As it is, this intermediate screen just delays users from accessing your content and gives them an opportunity to leave before they ever arrive."
- Andrew Cafourek, co-founder and digital lead of A022 Digital in New York
4. The boggling homepage.
"People who are using your site, buying from your site, are not going to stay there or buy from you due to your awesome design. Most homepages are completely overwhelming. There is so much there – people try to communicate everything to everyone, and the real content gets lost. That's a design disaster. It should tell people in three to five seconds who you are and what you do. That's it. We have a design philosophy that we take from architecture: form follows function. When you are building a building, you want right angles and perfectly usable space. If you go to our homepage, you will see cleanliness and simplicity. I say this left and right, and my designers say it left and right: Websites have to breathe."
- Marvin Russell, creative director of The Ocean Agency in Chicago
5. Worshipping the fold.
"There's been this maintained notion that everything has to be above a certain pixel dimension, and that everything below that gets lost. I don't think that's where we're at anymore. People do scroll. They like portals. So especially with making BarackObama.com, that was something we stayed away from: We knew people would scroll, and we really wanted to keep more information on the homepage, make it a portal, and allow for more content to be available on the portal page. I think the key to making it work is making sure you present something and design with the pixel dimension in mind. On another site I did, there's type interacting with an image makes you aware that there's more going on below. Especially when you're on blogs, they become very blah-y, and there's no contrast in post styles. They don't keep a variation that keeps readers interested. Variation in consistency lets you forget the fold."
- Scott Thomas, a.k.a. @SimpleScott
6. Not addressing the user's real need.
"Many companies organize the site around their own internal categories, which is different from what the audience is actually looking for. In other words, they'll build a site around products, because they’re thinking they have to sell the product and the product needs to be front and center. But when you think about it, you have to reverse it and first ask what need are you solving, and then present the product. I think there's internal anxiety to make sure things get covered as a checklist, versus really stepping back and understanding what the users need. You have to have the perspective of an audience that may not know your brand, and there's very often a complete absence of making people aware of your brand is, and why it’s relevant."
- Sean Ketchem, strategy director of communication of MetaDesign in San Francisco
7. Hiding who you are.
"Transparency on the Web is the hottest and the biggest thing as far as getting people to purchase or relate to your services. Our portfolio page was always No. 1 for the seven years we've been in business. But then we created videos of each one of our employees talking about what they do and why they love it. That page is now No. 1. By far, the people behind the process, behind the product, are extremely important. We've had clients say 'we went with you because we got to kind of meet everybody before we even walked in the door.' The buying process starts with a relationship. That process can start with a video and tell you personally what I do rather than just a photo and a title. Really show them rather than tell them."
- Marvin Russell, creative director of The Ocean Agency in Chicago
Google made a stunning revelation this morning: the existence of a secret self-driving car project. Even more amazing: it has been in testing for months, on actual roads across California, and things seem to be running smoothly. Fans of Total Recall, Minority Report, and Knight Rider are hyperventilating at the prospects. And while the technology is likely still a long way from being widely implemented (The New York Times piece on it suggests eight years), there is one big question: why?
Google’s answer seems to be a “betterment of society” one. “We’ve always been optimistic about technology’s ability to advance society, which is why we have pushed so hard to improve the capabilities of self-driving cars beyond where they are today,” Google engineer Sebastian Thrun, who spearheaded the project (and also runs Stanford’s AI Labs, and co-invented Street View), writes today.
That’s great. But Google is still a public company in the business of making money for its shareholders. So one can’t help but wonder what, if any, money-making prospects there are here?
“The Google researchers said the company did not yet have a clear plan to create a business from the experiments,” according to the NYT. Further, they quote Thrun as saying that this project is an example of Google’s “willingness to gamble on technology that may not pay off for years.”
We know Google has a history of idealism — co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, in particular — but this project cannot come cheap. And the fact is that Google remains basically a one-trick-pony when it comes to making money. They are so reliant on search advertising revenues, that if something suddenly happened to the market, they’d be totally screwed. Android may prove to be their second trick, but it’s not there yet.
But there may be more to these automated cars than just an awesomely cool concept. At our TechCrunch Disrupt event a couple weeks ago, Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave a speech about “an augmented version of humanity.” He noted that the future is about getting computers to do the things we’re not good at. One of those things is driving cars, Schmidt slyly said at the time. “Your car should drive itself. It just makes sense,” he noted. “It’s a bug that cars were invented before computers.”
If your car can drive itself, a lot of commuters would be freed up to do other things in the car — such as surf the web. One of Google’s stated goals for this project is to “free up people’s time”. That matched with Schmidt’s vision of mobile devices being with us all the time every day, likely will translate into more usage of Google.
That may sound silly and not worth all the R&D an undertaking as huge as this will require, but don’t underestimate Google. This is a company who cares deeply about shaving fractions of a second off of each search query so that you can do more of them in your waking hours. Imagine if you suddenly had an hour or more a day in your car to do whatever you wanted because you no longer had to focus on driving? Yeah. Cha-ching.
Or imagine if your on-board maps where showing you Google ads. Or you were watching Google TV in your car since you didn’t have to drive. Or you were listening to Google Music with Google ads. It’s all the same. This automated driving technology would free you up to use more Google products — which in turn make them more money. Make no mistake, Google will enter your car in a big way. And automated driving would up their return in a big way.
And, of course, none of this speaks to what, if anything, Google would actually charge for such technology implementation. You would have to believe that if and when it’s available, this automated driving tech would be built-in to cars. Would car manufacturers pay Google for it and pass off some of the costs to customers? Or would this all be subsidized by the above ideas?
It’s way too early to get into that, I’m sure. And in 8 years, there will be things out there that we can’t even imagine right now. But it’s interesting to think about. The Google Car.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I have little doubt Google is being sincere in their broader hopes for such a technology. Here’s their key blurb on that:
According to the World Health Organization, more than 1.2 million lives are lost every year in road traffic accidents. We believe our technology has the potential to cut that number, perhaps by as much as half. We’re also confident that self-driving cars will transform car sharing, significantly reducing car usage, as well as help create the new “highway trains of tomorrow.” These highway trains should cut energy consumption while also increasing the number of people that can be transported on our major roads. In terms of time efficiency, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that people spend on average 52 minutes each working day commuting. Imagine being able to spend that time more productively.
That first part is awesome. If we could halve the number of traffic deaths each year, it would be world-changing. And if energy consumption could be cut, it could re-shape economies and save our future. But again, don’t gloss over the last part. Freeing up those 52 minutes a day to be productive — that’s a lot of potential money for Google.
And that’s great too. If Google can spend the time and money working on such amazing technology they should be rewarded for it. There’s no rule that says you shouldn’t be able to make money by changing the world. And Google can’t be praised enough for trying.
More:
- Google Has A Secret Fleet Of Automated Toyota Priuses; 140,000 Miles Logged So Far.
- Google’s Self-Driving Car Spotted On The Highway Almost A Year Ago
[images: Dreamworks and TriStar Entertainment]
bench craft company
bench craft company
Britain Orders Inquiry Into <b>News</b> Corp.'s BSkyB Bid - NYTimes.com
Vince Cable, the British business secretary, ordered the communications regulator Ofcom to conduct an inquiry into News Corp.'s bid to take over the satellite television company BSkyB.
Fox <b>News</b> Dominates Election Ratings – Deadline.com
UPDATED WITH FINAL NUMBERS: Fox News towered over the competition -- cable and broadcast -- with its midterm election coverage last night. According to Nielsen, Fox News averaged 7 million viewers in primetime, up 128% from the ...
Even FOX <b>News</b> Not Hiring Christine O'Donnell
FOX News not doing something is always a banner news item. They also didn't burn down the Empire State building today or march naked through Times Square. Don't miss writing news copy about that! ...
bench craft company
bench craft company
Britain Orders Inquiry Into <b>News</b> Corp.'s BSkyB Bid - NYTimes.com
Vince Cable, the British business secretary, ordered the communications regulator Ofcom to conduct an inquiry into News Corp.'s bid to take over the satellite television company BSkyB.
Fox <b>News</b> Dominates Election Ratings – Deadline.com
UPDATED WITH FINAL NUMBERS: Fox News towered over the competition -- cable and broadcast -- with its midterm election coverage last night. According to Nielsen, Fox News averaged 7 million viewers in primetime, up 128% from the ...
Even FOX <b>News</b> Not Hiring Christine O'Donnell
FOX News not doing something is always a banner news item. They also didn't burn down the Empire State building today or march naked through Times Square. Don't miss writing news copy about that! ...
bench craft company
Britain Orders Inquiry Into <b>News</b> Corp.'s BSkyB Bid - NYTimes.com
Vince Cable, the British business secretary, ordered the communications regulator Ofcom to conduct an inquiry into News Corp.'s bid to take over the satellite television company BSkyB.
Fox <b>News</b> Dominates Election Ratings – Deadline.com
UPDATED WITH FINAL NUMBERS: Fox News towered over the competition -- cable and broadcast -- with its midterm election coverage last night. According to Nielsen, Fox News averaged 7 million viewers in primetime, up 128% from the ...
Even FOX <b>News</b> Not Hiring Christine O'Donnell
FOX News not doing something is always a banner news item. They also didn't burn down the Empire State building today or march naked through Times Square. Don't miss writing news copy about that! ...
bench craft company
Britain Orders Inquiry Into <b>News</b> Corp.'s BSkyB Bid - NYTimes.com
Vince Cable, the British business secretary, ordered the communications regulator Ofcom to conduct an inquiry into News Corp.'s bid to take over the satellite television company BSkyB.
Fox <b>News</b> Dominates Election Ratings – Deadline.com
UPDATED WITH FINAL NUMBERS: Fox News towered over the competition -- cable and broadcast -- with its midterm election coverage last night. According to Nielsen, Fox News averaged 7 million viewers in primetime, up 128% from the ...
Even FOX <b>News</b> Not Hiring Christine O'Donnell
FOX News not doing something is always a banner news item. They also didn't burn down the Empire State building today or march naked through Times Square. Don't miss writing news copy about that! ...
bench craft company bench craft company
bench craft company
bench craft company
bench craft company
Britain Orders Inquiry Into <b>News</b> Corp.'s BSkyB Bid - NYTimes.com
Vince Cable, the British business secretary, ordered the communications regulator Ofcom to conduct an inquiry into News Corp.'s bid to take over the satellite television company BSkyB.
Fox <b>News</b> Dominates Election Ratings – Deadline.com
UPDATED WITH FINAL NUMBERS: Fox News towered over the competition -- cable and broadcast -- with its midterm election coverage last night. According to Nielsen, Fox News averaged 7 million viewers in primetime, up 128% from the ...
Even FOX <b>News</b> Not Hiring Christine O'Donnell
FOX News not doing something is always a banner news item. They also didn't burn down the Empire State building today or march naked through Times Square. Don't miss writing news copy about that! ...
benchcraft company portland or
So you want to make money online? You’re tired of your 9 to 5 job. You like the idea of setting your own hours. You may have heard that you can make a ton of money without a whole lot of effort. Whatever the reason, you know this is what you want to do.
Although the things you may have heard make it sound like the best thing you can ever do, many things are just myths. When deciding to find a way to make money online, you need to know the fact from fiction.
Don’t Quit Your Day Job
I’m sure you’ve heard that many times before, but it’s true. If you already have a job and you’re bringing in a steady income don’t quit, whatever you do, don’t do it. No matter what you’re promised. The money you bring in at your job will support you while you work to make money online. It can even be used as start up capital for certain business endeavors.
It Takes Money to Make Money
Yes, you’ve heard that one to. This is true and false at the same time.
If you’re completely new to making money online, you may want to invest in training material. You can learn practically everything you need to know for free using the web, but this is the case of time is money. It may take you a lot longer going the free route.
This is the reason people can sell countless numbers of how to guides to making money online, or charge for access to a database of sites that pay you for a particular service. They know some people don’t have the time to spend researching ways to make money and testing out those ways once they find them. So for a fee you can get access to year’s worth of knowledge and be on your way in less time than it took them.
So is there a way to make money without spending it? Sure there is. Writing articles is a perfect example. Plenty of sites will pay you for quality original content. Most of which have no upfront cost. Those that do may let you pay out of your earnings, so no money comes out of your pocket.
Some will pay more than others and some will have stricter guidelines on what you can submit. It all depends on the website. MPAM and Associated Content are two popular sites for submitting articles for pay.
You can also become an affiliate. An affiliate is someone who advertises someone else's products for a commission. Most affiliate programs are free to sign up with. You can then advertise that program in message boards or make a review in your blog.
Owning Your Own Website
If you want to be seen as a professional you must own your own website. Whether you own your own business or you’re marketing someone else’s you need a website. No one would take you seriously if they see you made your site using some free program.
Even if they did, usually free websites have pop up ads and banners. You definitely don’t want a bunch of advertising for other sites taking away your business.
Many features come with owning your own website as well. Bandwidth is a huge concern. If your site gets popular you don’t want your site getting shut down because you exceeded your limit. Free sites don’t give you nearly enough space. With your own domain you get you own personal email account. Besides looking more professional you don’t have to worry about spam filters. If a prospect is sending you an email you want to be sure you get it.
It’s not that expensive to have a website anyway. You can buy a domain for under $10 a year and hosting for under $5 a month. If you’re serious about making money, you can’t be cheap and you can’t be lazy.
Making Money Online is Hard Work
There are no ifs ands or buts about it. If you want to be successful in making money online you need to work hard. Ignore all the sites that promise you riches overnight, or that it takes no effort at all to produce huge sums of money.
If you write articles, you have to know how to write. Seems obvious doesn’t it? But many people believe that you can write a ton of articles in know time at all. While it’s possible to get to the point where you can write 20 to 30 articles in a day. I can guarantee it took some effort to get to that point. Nobody is born knowing how to write.
If you decide to sell your own products, you have to know exactly what it is you want to sell and how you’re going to do it. Simply finding a product is hard enough but once you do; getting it setup to sell, advertising the product, maintaining your site and dealing with customer support all takes a lot of work, especially if you do it yourself.
If you sell no product of your own and simply market other peoples products, expect to find a lot of competition. Nowadays everybody and their cousin are trying to make money online.
Expect to spend time advertising. Nobodies going to buy anything from you if they don’t know about it, and they won’t know about it if you don’t tell them. Spend time in message boards, submit to search engines and traffic generators. Publish articles to popular sites.
The Bottom Line
Whatever you do you have to work at it, and you won’t see success over night. One thing you need to realize is that no one is going to do the work for you. There are plenty of people that can help you. Some will even give you step-by-step instructions on what to do, but if you don’t actually do them you won’t get anywhere. If you’re going to succeed in making money online you have to commit to doing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment