5 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(12/01/13 9:33pm)
Can you see yourself using your current social networking apps in five years?
I can say I see myself using my Facebook in a more conservative and mature manner, using Instagram when I am able to travel more after graduating and Twitter to keep up with Kanye West.
But I can't say I can see Snapchat lasting long enough to not regret its decision to turn down both $3 billion and $4 billion cash offers from Facebook and Google, respectively.
That is the value of three Instagrams (bought for $1 billion), three Tumblrs ($1.1 billion) or half Groupon ($6 billion).
How in the world did that happen?
Do the great minds behind Snapchat see their app in a permanent spot on the home screen of your smart phone, a time-sensitive photo messaging system? It’s outrageously stupid decision, but I understand it from their perspective.
Maybe it's the "Facebook advantage" that they have where the difficulty of emulating this type of product would require constant interaction with the community of your own peers.
Look at past successful apps and you might see why the Stanford creation is holding off from an easy payday.
You can build a Snapchat alternative, but can you convince all of your friends on Snapchat to move over and juggle with two of the same product? It's better to just deal with one. Facebook, making use of its established user base, released a failed Snapchat-clone of its own, Poke, on iOS. Just imagine a brand new developer trying to claim territory.
Vine was an increasingly popular app, but its growth was stunted due to the already-popular Instagram coming out with its own video feature.
Groupon famously turned down its record $6 billion offer from Google just two years ago. But Groupon is just a coupon website. How difficult would it be for a copycat service, such as LivingSocial, to compile different offers to attract new customers?
The only obstacle for Snapchat is its own product, whether its teen-centric demographic grows up and look toward the next trending app or Snapchat’s developers alienate their users with intrusive advertisements like all good mobile apps do. The seesaw task at hand for them now is how to increase their demographic age range and interest the older generation, all while not losing its young base.
Maybe I am absolutely wrong. Maybe five years from now, everyone of all ages will be about Snapchatting "selfies" to their friends. Maybe 20 years down the road, our children’s social networking will run through only Snapchat, as I look back at what I wrote in The State Press's online archives and wonder to myself, “How did I get everything so wrong?”
Until that day, I just don't see it. And just like the app's signature feature, in time those multibillion-dollar offers won't come back.
Reach the columnist at vqnguye1@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @taequangdoh.
(11/15/13 12:29am)
Say goodbye to anonymity, as YouTube rolls out its mandate forcing users to link their accounts with the dead-on-arrival Google+ and use their full names.It’s one thing to be connected with a social network that nobody has even given a thought about using since its initial boom (and then bust), but should having a social profile be considered mandatory from now on?YouTube seems to think this was a necessary move to remove the infamous “trolling” in its comments section. For example, you can’t watch a cover of a popular song without seeing a nasty comment on the performer’s facial features or lack of talent.People love the escapism that the Internet provides at the end of their day, but on websites as popular as YouTube where they're able to freely express their creativity, the level of abuse has reached a breaking point. This change is a good one.Earlier this year, websites that depend on user interaction and interest, such as TechCrunch, brought back an anonymous comment system. They needed their idiots back.With anonymity, any argument, whether it’s about race, sexuality or another controversial topic, takes place behind a computer screen. People can log off and forget about it for the day, experiencing few, if any, repercussions. But when you start removing the usernames and replace them with an actual name, people start to get hesitant about making cruel comments and think more about what they say. As intrusive it may be to privacy, it’s the price we pay for those that ruined it for us by being rude on the Internet, and it comes at the cost of sterility and tameness for websites.I wouldn’t prefer my social profile to follow me everywhere.I like that websites such as Twitter, Tumblr and Instagram present the public profiles as an option rather than a rule, allowing users to hide their activity unless they have approved a request to follow.It’s allows a certain degree of freedom, much like an author using a pseudonym. After all, behind every Dr. Seuss, Banksy or Heisenberg, there may just be a normal person, living alone and working at a boring office job — but do we really need to know that?Facebook has seen many similar issues, including a constant struggle with cyberbullying, even though most users do in fact sign up with their real personal information.YouTube’s actions won’t completely solve the problem of mean, anonymous trolls. This is the price we pay for interacting from behind a computer screen.Reach the columnist at vqngyue1@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @taequangdoh.
(10/15/13 11:32pm)
The only reasonable excuse for ESPN commentator David Pollack's disparaging remarks regarding the selection of former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for the College Football Playoff selection committee is that someone had spiked his drink before he went on air.
(10/09/13 3:00pm)
Black is a beautiful color. If it weren’t for all the free gold ASU shirts I have accumulated over the years, I would still have a closet full of black clothes, thanks to my high school days. It’s a timeless color that works with everything, but that being said, I couldn't care less seeing it on our football team anymore.
ASU once again showed off its blackout jerseys (and brand new vomit-decal helmets) on national television during its 37-34 loss to Notre Dame.
I remembered how exciting it was to see those jerseys live for the first time against Missouri during the 2011 season, but now they are just a worn-out, overused option, and that new helmet doesn’t help matters.
I would rather see the team wear its “Maroon Monsoon” jerseys more often, as it did last week against USC. It's a much more modern look that displayed our school’s traditional colors, compared to having an all-black look with our school’s colors demoted to only outlines and stripes on the jersey.
I get it: Black jerseys are always cool to see, because they are automatically associated with being badass, but ASU should have better balance and discipline on when to justify bringing them out another time.
While wearing the black jerseys, ASU has a sad record: Losses to Notre Dame, Oregon and UA, compared to a “win” against Wisconsin this season and against Mizzou back in 2011.
I understand that the alternative jerseys are a nice attraction for recruits, but if we keep on wearing them and losing, the novelty will wear off and they will become just an ordinary jersey. Every team in the Pac-12 can have its own “black out” jersey; it doesn’t make us special.
Stanford recently wore its black attire last Saturday against Washington, and UCLA is debuting an “LA Midnight” look this year (also against Washington — I guess everyone has a problem with the Huskies).
So what does it mean for the initial appeal if everyone is capable of doing the same thing?
Do potential recruits say, “Do I want to wear black with a little bit of maroon and gold on the side or a little bit of blue and gold on the side?”
Sports teams, whether professional or collegiate, have a strong relationship and fascination with having an alternative black jersey. They may look great, but in the end, it means nothing. The only thing that matters is the result of the game.
We could do without the black jerseys and stick with better variations of our school colors. We don’t need to pay royalty checks to whoever is still alive from AC/DC and The Rolling Stones to play “Back in Black” and “Paint It Black” 10 times every quarter at Sun Devil Stadium (or even Kanye West’s “Black Skinhead,” perhaps).
So let’s back out for a while and just bring out a better-designed jersey with our school’s actual colors for everyone to enjoy on the field — ditch the black.
Also, don’t forget to burn those helmets.
Reach the columnist at vqnguye1@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter
@TaeQuangDoh
(10/02/13 12:00am)
You can get so much wrong or so much right when you have either too few or too many resources. There are not many people who, if told to paint the ceiling, would create the paintings in the Sistine Chapel. There are not many people who, if told they had 10 minutes for a silent short expository scene in the Pixar movie "Up," could convey as much emotion about love and loss through the audience than some individual full-length films.
This is a problem for our favorite television shows that break bad, shows that abuse the amount of screen time they need to flesh out their convoluted storylines but have bitten off too much to chew. These shows then fizzle out before they reach the end known as “jumping the shark."
This is why people should consider "Breaking Bad" as one of the top television shows or any form of entertainment ever: The showrunners realized it was time to end the series at its peak, before it was too late.
While everything has fallen apart for the protagonist, Walter White, nothing fell apart for the fan base in terms of interest in the series. We were left to emotionally ride out this gut-wrenching epic final season.
Compare this final season to other TV shows that have ended this year, such as "The Office" or "Dexter."How would you remember them as a whole? Most would say "The Office" ended a couple of seasons too late, while "Dexter" did its best to alienate and betray its fans. Both can still be considered great shows with great moments, but it requires selective memory so that we can forget certain things that diminish their legacies.
This final season of "Breaking Bad" provides a social commentary for shows that try too much and stay on air for too long. The tagline of the final season, “Remember My Name,” served as a preview of Walter White’s legacy. At the end of the finale, we see that nobody will really remember White's legacy as he might have hoped. He wanted to be a great father and husband to his family, and he ended up as neither. Would we all trade the extra seasons of "Dexter" or "The Office" for a much more satisfying send-off to remember it better?
Many fans may want a sixth season of "Breaking Bad," as much as fans of Harry Potter might want an eighth entry to the series.However, TV shows need to remember that more seasons doesn’t automatically make it become grand.
It’s better to accept and enjoy the feeling of when you reach the ending credits of your favorite show or movie and realizing “It’s over,” rather than the feeling of watching the deteriorating quality of a seventh or eighth season and saying to yourself, “It’s over.”Reach the columnist at vqnguey1@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @taequangdoh.Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.