At this rate, Apple will be releasing a new product every few weeks! I love how they always say "the next version will be thinner and lighter with more features!" Of course it will! Everything moves in that direction with electronics. Tell me something else
And gesture control sounds retarded for a TV. Why would I want to wave my hands to change channels? Or talk to my screen? "Channel up!" x 30. Unless they can make it like Star Trek "Siri, turn to channel 25". But you still need a remote as some (prob most) wouldn't use voice (including me)
What could be the resolution of this 4.8" iPhone 6 ? While you know apple is eager to respect a certain proportionality between its devices 2 048 × 1 536px (which would make a 533dpi screen and would explain the term Retina+ )with a widened screen and a modified aspect ratio ?
With all that said, I think Apple will change the formula and offer more than one update to its products a year. The reality is that Google and Amazon take advantage of Apple's upgrade schedule and both have become better at software and hardware. Currently, Apple's hardware gets long in the tooth for about six months as competitors match and exceed Apple's products (at least in terms of specifications). If Apple wants to keep its lead, it has to be more aggressive. Apple used to update its Macs more frequently. I for one also would like to see Apple have three sizes for its Phones. I doubt that will happen soon, but I expect Apple to release another iPhone before summer. Another reason for that expectation, is Apple is aware that it needs something special every quarter to meet earnings expectations. Now that it updated most of its products at the end of the year, it will need some updates in the interim.
Competitors have lived in the air Apple gave them. They do need to be more aggressive. The 'new' iMac sat on Ivy bridge for ages. (And then people run desktop sales low stories. Sure, it's a trend. But that skews it beyond absurdity. Same with the Pro. A. It's ridiculously priced. B. It's not had a real update in years...and it still comes with a crap GPU for £2k. And Apple now doesn't have a single iMac under 1k despite them dropping the DVD player which they charge me £65 for... Customers pay the bills, Apple...)
In my view, there is the whiff of 'hubris' around Apple since about 2008 when they jacked up desktop prices on the Macs. They've sat and watched Samsung and Android grow. They have 'in time' done the right things but I don't think they did them soon enough. They should have had the tik-tok numerics every 6 months. 5 then 5s in each year. They're handing sales to Android and Samsung as the iPhone tapers to the end of the it's annual schedule...
That's why I smiled when Apple released the iPad '4'. Much more aggressive. Remember when they used to release new PowerMacs twice a year? Those were they days. I remember them! When they released iMacs twice a year. 1st half/2nd half releases. I think they need to go back to those days at least for the iOS products. If they want to win this war? They must. MUST. They're sitting on 120 billion. GET IN THERE AND OBLITERATE ANDROID AND SAMESUNG. F*ck the hubris. Give them the squeeze. You're sitting talent, the best retail stores in the world, the best App store bar none, the best products etc. Why let a product go stale on the excitement of that initial launch and end up with specs that lag for 6 months. Apple should be using their supply chain magic to 'bump' the products on the end cycle before a new design. Android and Co seem to be figuring out how to exploit this to blunt 'some' of Apple's growth. Apple have superb, industry leading hand. But they can't count on having the best press and being the fashion in vogue darling forever. They need to press their hand while almost all the planets are in alignment for them.
They put the 'boot' into the B*ll*cks of Android and Samesung tablets with the '4' and the 8 inch Mini. That's more like it. Apple had almost become too predictable. This was a surprise buck of the schedule and to me, they'll have to keep that up on the iPad (Apple's strongest card right now...) to reach a critical mass in Education and Business. It's worth betting the company on to maintain the tik tok on the iPad and iPhone to win this unholy war against Android. (Steve Jobs said, 'Android is a stolen product.')
To me, Thermonuclear isn't rhetoric. They could have put a cheap phone out there, in the iPod Touch, they could have had a nano iPhone and a + sized phone. That's only 3 different phones. But each one very different. JUST like the iPod is 'the same' but a very different product for different prize brackets and needs. Shuffle. Nano. Touch. Classic. Very different. But the same. And just because they haven't done this with the iPhone...doesn't mean...they can't!!
Whereas...
The 4, 4S and 5 aren't that different. And reading the comments from some iPhone defectors to Android etc. I can see a glimmer in some of what they're saying. Or why else would Android be doing 'well.'
Sure. iPhone is still growing and it's Apple's 'cash cow' and they'll cream it for all it's worth. I'm paying £900 for two years worth of smartphone. But there are millions who can't afford that. ...and I think they could be playing their hand even better. Maybe they will when they're forced to innovate/compete again.
The iPhone isn't a one size fits all. (Much as the Apple zealot in me wants to think it does. I think it's the best phone out there. It's a jewel. But not everyone thinks like me...)
What could be the resolution of this 4.8" iPhone 6 ?
While you know apple is eager to respect a certain proportionality between its devices
2 048 × 1 536px (which would make a 533dpi screen and would explain the term Retina+ )with a widened screen and a modified aspect ratio ?
...and on that very subject...
Quote:
There are clearly people who favor large screens, so it would be ridiculous for Apple not to develop prototypes for that. I mean, gloves come in small, medium and large. Why shouldn't smartphones?
A lovely quote that sums it up. I have medium hands. (Hey, girls, they're big enough to do the job... :P ) But for people with larger Gulliver Travel hands?
A great quote that. And there's a market for a larger screen. Apple. Get with it. Start leading again.
I suppose he could be basing it off static numbers and accounting for future market growth. Even then that would be a weird way to make the graph, especially without an explanation. It's dumb overall. He's projecting quite far and assuming minimal resistance from any other platform along with complete pricing alignment. To hit that kind of growth in terms of market percentage, Apple would need to appeal to areas where they're currently weak, such as prepaid plans. A $200 iphone would do it, but I don't believe that will happen. Even the iphone 4 doesn't currently come close. They'd likely have to build to a price point on that one while accepting significantly lower margins. This prediction is pretty far out there.
I see a device which is basically a super cheap iPad guts without a screen or gps integrated with a large 30 , 40, 50+ inch screens, I will buy 3, one for office one for bedroom one for living room. In fact this will replace my desktop computer!
Here's why
The TV will connect via wifi/ bluetooth to basically everything router, iSpeakers, iTouchpad, wifi, iKeyboard, iEtc
Basic channel changing would be of course intuitive swiping through content and channels.. A completely new former AppleTV interface combined with Siri voice commands like for example' Turn on the football game at 1pm" or "When does <such and such> a show start" Siri will respond as appropriate if I want to record it or switch to etc. No more drilling down thru unintuitive menus using a remote squinting at the remote in the dark to see the correct menu button etc and having to look away from screen arghhhhhhh, no more fiddling with cables and limited choices as to where the TV is mounted only one power cable.
Since TV has iOS, all current Apps I have on my iPad/iPhone will be available, and of course all content is synced over iCloud. I can watch Netflix just by starting that App, same with Crackle, hulu. I can even use garage band, iWork, google maps, Front facing camera to phone people using skype, ( oh look I don't need a home phone anymore), iBooks, the list goes on and on. Basically it will do everything I can do on my computer which I used to connect with an HDMI cable sans that cable!
A computer in the living room. I won't need to even lift a finger or use my iPad/iphone at home they are just for going out. If I have a TV in each room of my house, i won't actually need to use an iMac or laptop any more
Imagine being able to just walk into my house after taking a few photos on iPhone and simply tell the TV to show them or email them to my friends. Voice activated texting from the couch.
Finally a computer that is like the Enterprise , Beam me up Scottie
I expect when this debues in October 2103 there will be a complete capitulation from the other TV manufacturers and Samsung will start their photocopiers.
Investment firm Jefferies predicted that Apple will launch its next iPhone and iPad as early as June, followed by a television set in the fall of 2013.
Fewer details were provided on a potential Apple television set, but Misek said he believes the mythical device will launch in September or October of 2013.
"iTV prototypes are also floating around," Misek wrote. "Gesture and voice control along with new user interface are the main innovations."
Jefferies: 'We predict Apple will make a TV in mid 2012, no wait Fall 2013, no wait July 2014, no wait Q1 2015'
The sad thing is, if it finally does manifest itself, they'll all say 'told ya so'.
I'd like to see a service model that works across all devices like Netflix. I think pre-programmed content has to go and be replaced by a popular shows page. Then it becomes like Youtube but with a minimum quality bar for content. If they need to play ads, so be it but I'd prefer the popup kind than the ones that break the viewing up and however they do it, I don't want to have to buy to watch like iTunes.
Personal recommendations in a family setting would be good and they can do this with thumbprint recognition on the remote as well as simple parental controls. Siri would be helpful but the mic should be on the remote so you don't have to shout across the room. All those features can be done on a box.
The only feature that really requires a TV is Facetime but I wouldn't call it a compelling feature and you have to get a new TV for a better camera.
Apple could probably make a better quality optically laminated panel and better designed but it can't just have the ?TV UI. The box acts as a good way of experimenting with this market.
If they need to play ads, so be it but I'd prefer the popup kind than the ones that break the viewing up and however they do it, I don't want to have to buy to watch like iTunes.
I think advertisers aren't sure where to place their dollars these days. I've never intentionally clicked through on one of those, which probably means I'm not their target market. I wonder how effective they really are.
I think advertisers aren't sure where to place their dollars these days. I've never intentionally clicked through on one of those, which probably means I'm not their target market. I wonder how effective they really are.
You can't click-through a TV ad but companies spend billions on them. Just making you aware of a service or product is enough reason to run them. Click through rates will generally be fairly low, around 1-5%, with actual purchases/conversions being a fraction of that. Someone on the following site said they got 4% putting an attractive girl in their video:
If they put the girls in the ads, I'd probably click them because once there's an attractive girl involved, I'm no longer in control of what happens next.
The ad breaks in Youtube - Truview ads:
are the most annoying ones but they are obviously good for video game and movie trailers. On the rare occasion, I actually like watching some ads if they are well enough made. I think the following one is pretty decent:
[VIDEO]
Their ad slogan was 'The refined, redefined'. Some of them have songs you might like:
[VIDEO]
If they can mark portions of shows that are uninteresting and slide them in at a bottom corner, say 30% height, partially transparent at a fraction of the volume of the main content (like picture-in-picture) with a simple mechanism to watch/dismiss, I'd be more inclined to watch them. I don't like UI elements that make it clear advertising is being forced like markers that say when obtrusive ads are coming because the UI elements are distracting, it can just be non-intrusive advertising:
Some ads are so well made that they are worth having a reference to so they can be shared or rewatched but there's no option to do that on TV or Youtube ads. If they do the ad break thing, I just open another tab or do something else until it's finished.
It would be nice to be able to easily tell it what ads I'm interested in too. If I already own a product, they are wasting time trying to sell me something I already own.
You can't click-through a TV ad but companies spend billions on them. Just making you aware of a service or product is enough reason to run them. Click through rates will generally be fairly low, around 1-5%, with actual purchases/conversions being a fraction of that. Someone on the following site said they got 4% putting an attractive girl in their video:
If they put the girls in the ads, I'd probably click them because once there's an attractive girl involved, I'm no longer in control of what happens next.
The ad breaks in Youtube - Truview ads:
are the most annoying ones but they are obviously good for video game and movie trailers. On the rare occasion, I actually like watching some ads if they are well enough made. I think the following one is pretty decent:
Well without click through options, the goal is to make you think about their product. I'm not sure what is with all of the flip book ads lately. I saw this one the other day. Some of the comments are funny.
Quote:
Their ad slogan was 'The refined, redefined'. Some of them have songs you might like:
I'm not sure what you've discerned about my taste in music. The first ad had a Marilyn Manson song. I never found him very interesting going all the way back to when he started. I'm not sure about the second. It sounds a little like the Killers. I don't really like generic stuff. If you're trying to discern what I'd like based on a fairly conservative approach to electronics, it won't work. I view electronics from a utilitarian standpoint, even if I can acknowledge the ways that others use them. With music I like things that are atypical. Too much of it sounds contrived and referenced to me even when examined rather than used as background noise.
Quote:
Some ads are so well made that they are worth having a reference to so they can be shared or rewatched but there's no option to do that on TV or Youtube ads. If they do the ad break thing, I just open another tab or do something else until it's finished.
It would be nice to be able to easily tell it what ads I'm interested in too. If I already own a product, they are wasting time trying to sell me something I already own.
A major appeal to online advertising is the ability to directly track and measure a portion of the results. You don't have that ability in television or print media, so I could see them wanting to expand upon that. Google allows you some amount of ability to correct your profile with them. This supposedly results in more relevant advertising.
Comments
I love how they always say "the next version will be thinner and lighter with more features!" Of course it will! Everything moves in that direction with electronics. Tell me something else
Screen 4.8 "/ A7 / a new form factor / no home button[/COLOR]
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1505289
While you know apple is eager to respect a certain proportionality between its devices
2 048 × 1 536px (which would make a 533dpi screen and would explain the term Retina+ )with a widened screen and a modified aspect ratio ?
Quote:
With all that said, I think Apple will change the formula and offer more than one update to its products a year. The reality is that Google and Amazon take advantage of Apple's upgrade schedule and both have become better at software and hardware. Currently, Apple's hardware gets long in the tooth for about six months as competitors match and exceed Apple's products (at least in terms of specifications). If Apple wants to keep its lead, it has to be more aggressive. Apple used to update its Macs more frequently. I for one also would like to see Apple have three sizes for its Phones. I doubt that will happen soon, but I expect Apple to release another iPhone before summer. Another reason for that expectation, is Apple is aware that it needs something special every quarter to meet earnings expectations. Now that it updated most of its products at the end of the year, it will need some updates in the interim.
Competitors have lived in the air Apple gave them. They do need to be more aggressive. The 'new' iMac sat on Ivy bridge for ages. (And then people run desktop sales low stories. Sure, it's a trend. But that skews it beyond absurdity. Same with the Pro. A. It's ridiculously priced. B. It's not had a real update in years...and it still comes with a crap GPU for £2k. And Apple now doesn't have a single iMac under 1k despite them dropping the DVD player which they charge me £65 for... Customers pay the bills, Apple...)
In my view, there is the whiff of 'hubris' around Apple since about 2008 when they jacked up desktop prices on the Macs. They've sat and watched Samsung and Android grow. They have 'in time' done the right things but I don't think they did them soon enough. They should have had the tik-tok numerics every 6 months. 5 then 5s in each year. They're handing sales to Android and Samsung as the iPhone tapers to the end of the it's annual schedule...
That's why I smiled when Apple released the iPad '4'. Much more aggressive. Remember when they used to release new PowerMacs twice a year? Those were they days. I remember them! When they released iMacs twice a year. 1st half/2nd half releases. I think they need to go back to those days at least for the iOS products. If they want to win this war? They must. MUST. They're sitting on 120 billion. GET IN THERE AND OBLITERATE ANDROID AND SAMESUNG. F*ck the hubris. Give them the squeeze. You're sitting talent, the best retail stores in the world, the best App store bar none, the best products etc. Why let a product go stale on the excitement of that initial launch and end up with specs that lag for 6 months. Apple should be using their supply chain magic to 'bump' the products on the end cycle before a new design. Android and Co seem to be figuring out how to exploit this to blunt 'some' of Apple's growth. Apple have superb, industry leading hand. But they can't count on having the best press and being the fashion in vogue darling forever. They need to press their hand while almost all the planets are in alignment for them.
They put the 'boot' into the B*ll*cks of Android and Samesung tablets with the '4' and the 8 inch Mini. That's more like it. Apple had almost become too predictable. This was a surprise buck of the schedule and to me, they'll have to keep that up on the iPad (Apple's strongest card right now...) to reach a critical mass in Education and Business. It's worth betting the company on to maintain the tik tok on the iPad and iPhone to win this unholy war against Android. (Steve Jobs said, 'Android is a stolen product.')
To me, Thermonuclear isn't rhetoric. They could have put a cheap phone out there, in the iPod Touch, they could have had a nano iPhone and a + sized phone. That's only 3 different phones. But each one very different. JUST like the iPod is 'the same' but a very different product for different prize brackets and needs. Shuffle. Nano. Touch. Classic. Very different. But the same. And just because they haven't done this with the iPhone...doesn't mean...they can't!!
Whereas...
The 4, 4S and 5 aren't that different. And reading the comments from some iPhone defectors to Android etc. I can see a glimmer in some of what they're saying. Or why else would Android be doing 'well.'
Sure. iPhone is still growing and it's Apple's 'cash cow' and they'll cream it for all it's worth. I'm paying £900 for two years worth of smartphone. But there are millions who can't afford that. ...and I think they could be playing their hand even better. Maybe they will when they're forced to innovate/compete again.
The iPhone isn't a one size fits all. (Much as the Apple zealot in me wants to think it does. I think it's the best phone out there. It's a jewel. But not everyone thinks like me...)
Lemon Bon Bon.
In short, they need to 'follow through.'
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prima Kingu
What could be the resolution of this 4.8" iPhone 6 ?
While you know apple is eager to respect a certain proportionality between its devices
2 048 × 1 536px (which would make a 533dpi screen and would explain the term Retina+ )with a widened screen and a modified aspect ratio ?
...and on that very subject...
Quote:
There are clearly people who favor large screens, so it would be ridiculous for Apple not to develop prototypes for that. I mean, gloves come in small, medium and large. Why shouldn't smartphones?
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-6-with-a-big-screen-being-prototyped-says-jefferies-2012-12#ixzz2EkrcJDrD
A lovely quote that sums it up. I have medium hands. (Hey, girls, they're big enough to do the job... :P ) But for people with larger Gulliver Travel hands?
A great quote that. And there's a market for a larger screen. Apple. Get with it. Start leading again.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Originally Posted by Buckeyestar
I'm so glad we have an official source from Apple to give us the lowdown on this.
I gave my reasons. You've given none of your own in rebuttal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
How can the chart go to 120%?
No.
I suppose he could be basing it off static numbers and accounting for future market growth. Even then that would be a weird way to make the graph, especially without an explanation. It's dumb overall. He's projecting quite far and assuming minimal resistance from any other platform along with complete pricing alignment. To hit that kind of growth in terms of market percentage, Apple would need to appeal to areas where they're currently weak, such as prepaid plans. A $200 iphone would do it, but I don't believe that will happen. Even the iphone 4 doesn't currently come close. They'd likely have to build to a price point on that one while accepting significantly lower margins. This prediction is pretty far out there.
I see a device which is basically a super cheap iPad guts without a screen or gps integrated with a large 30 , 40, 50+ inch screens, I will buy 3, one for office one for bedroom one for living room. In fact this will replace my desktop computer!
Here's why
The TV will connect via wifi/ bluetooth to basically everything router, iSpeakers, iTouchpad, wifi, iKeyboard, iEtc
Basic channel changing would be of course intuitive swiping through content and channels.. A completely new former AppleTV interface combined with Siri voice commands like for example' Turn on the football game at 1pm" or "When does <such and such> a show start" Siri will respond as appropriate if I want to record it or switch to etc. No more drilling down thru unintuitive menus using a remote squinting at the remote in the dark to see the correct menu button etc and having to look away from screen arghhhhhhh, no more fiddling with cables and limited choices as to where the TV is mounted only one power cable.
Since TV has iOS, all current Apps I have on my iPad/iPhone will be available, and of course all content is synced over iCloud. I can watch Netflix just by starting that App, same with Crackle, hulu. I can even use garage band, iWork, google maps, Front facing camera to phone people using skype, ( oh look I don't need a home phone anymore), iBooks, the list goes on and on. Basically it will do everything I can do on my computer which I used to connect with an HDMI cable sans that cable!
A computer in the living room. I won't need to even lift a finger or use my iPad/iphone at home they are just for going out. If I have a TV in each room of my house, i won't actually need to use an iMac or laptop any more
Imagine being able to just walk into my house after taking a few photos on iPhone and simply tell the TV to show them or email them to my friends. Voice activated texting from the couch.
Finally a computer that is like the Enterprise , Beam me up Scottie
I expect when this debues in October 2103 there will be a complete capitulation from the other TV manufacturers and Samsung will start their photocopiers.
I'm getting a feeling of Deja Vu:
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-tv-2011-11
Jefferies: 'We predict Apple will make a TV in mid 2012, no wait Fall 2013, no wait July 2014, no wait Q1 2015'
The sad thing is, if it finally does manifest itself, they'll all say 'told ya so'.
I'd like to see a service model that works across all devices like Netflix. I think pre-programmed content has to go and be replaced by a popular shows page. Then it becomes like Youtube but with a minimum quality bar for content. If they need to play ads, so be it but I'd prefer the popup kind than the ones that break the viewing up and however they do it, I don't want to have to buy to watch like iTunes.
Personal recommendations in a family setting would be good and they can do this with thumbprint recognition on the remote as well as simple parental controls. Siri would be helpful but the mic should be on the remote so you don't have to shout across the room. All those features can be done on a box.
The only feature that really requires a TV is Facetime but I wouldn't call it a compelling feature and you have to get a new TV for a better camera.
Apple could probably make a better quality optically laminated panel and better designed but it can't just have the ?TV UI. The box acts as a good way of experimenting with this market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If they need to play ads, so be it but I'd prefer the popup kind than the ones that break the viewing up and however they do it, I don't want to have to buy to watch like iTunes.
I think advertisers aren't sure where to place their dollars these days. I've never intentionally clicked through on one of those, which probably means I'm not their target market. I wonder how effective they really are.
You can't click-through a TV ad but companies spend billions on them. Just making you aware of a service or product is enough reason to run them. Click through rates will generally be fairly low, around 1-5%, with actual purchases/conversions being a fraction of that. Someone on the following site said they got 4% putting an attractive girl in their video:
http://www.warriorforum.com/main-internet-marketing-discussion-forum/326988-youtube-average-click-through-rate-affiliate-links-video-description.html
If they put the girls in the ads, I'd probably click them because once there's an attractive girl involved, I'm no longer in control of what happens next.
The ad breaks in Youtube - Truview ads:
are the most annoying ones but they are obviously good for video game and movie trailers. On the rare occasion, I actually like watching some ads if they are well enough made. I think the following one is pretty decent:
[VIDEO]
Their ad slogan was 'The refined, redefined'. Some of them have songs you might like:
[VIDEO]
If they can mark portions of shows that are uninteresting and slide them in at a bottom corner, say 30% height, partially transparent at a fraction of the volume of the main content (like picture-in-picture) with a simple mechanism to watch/dismiss, I'd be more inclined to watch them. I don't like UI elements that make it clear advertising is being forced like markers that say when obtrusive ads are coming because the UI elements are distracting, it can just be non-intrusive advertising:
Some ads are so well made that they are worth having a reference to so they can be shared or rewatched but there's no option to do that on TV or Youtube ads. If they do the ad break thing, I just open another tab or do something else until it's finished.
It would be nice to be able to easily tell it what ads I'm interested in too. If I already own a product, they are wasting time trying to sell me something I already own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You can't click-through a TV ad but companies spend billions on them. Just making you aware of a service or product is enough reason to run them. Click through rates will generally be fairly low, around 1-5%, with actual purchases/conversions being a fraction of that. Someone on the following site said they got 4% putting an attractive girl in their video:
http://www.warriorforum.com/main-internet-marketing-discussion-forum/326988-youtube-average-click-through-rate-affiliate-links-video-description.html
If they put the girls in the ads, I'd probably click them because once there's an attractive girl involved, I'm no longer in control of what happens next.
The ad breaks in Youtube - Truview ads:
are the most annoying ones but they are obviously good for video game and movie trailers. On the rare occasion, I actually like watching some ads if they are well enough made. I think the following one is pretty decent:
Well without click through options, the goal is to make you think about their product. I'm not sure what is with all of the flip book ads lately. I saw this one the other day. Some of the comments are funny.
Quote:
Their ad slogan was 'The refined, redefined'. Some of them have songs you might like:
I'm not sure what you've discerned about my taste in music. The first ad had a Marilyn Manson song. I never found him very interesting going all the way back to when he started. I'm not sure about the second. It sounds a little like the Killers. I don't really like generic stuff. If you're trying to discern what I'd like based on a fairly conservative approach to electronics, it won't work. I view electronics from a utilitarian standpoint, even if I can acknowledge the ways that others use them. With music I like things that are atypical. Too much of it sounds contrived and referenced to me even when examined rather than used as background noise.
Quote:
Some ads are so well made that they are worth having a reference to so they can be shared or rewatched but there's no option to do that on TV or Youtube ads. If they do the ad break thing, I just open another tab or do something else until it's finished.
It would be nice to be able to easily tell it what ads I'm interested in too. If I already own a product, they are wasting time trying to sell me something I already own.
A major appeal to online advertising is the ability to directly track and measure a portion of the results. You don't have that ability in television or print media, so I could see them wanting to expand upon that. Google allows you some amount of ability to correct your profile with them. This supposedly results in more relevant advertising.