Newspapers have been in trouble for some time.  The surge in free online news sources put a strain on all print media, especially newspapers.  Jokes have been made on sites like The Onion where they “reported” that The Boston Globe had tailored its print edition to its three remaining subscribers.  Due to the vicious cycle of low subscriber bases and lower ad rates, newspapers across the country—and even the world—have been laboring to stay afloat.

While many solutions have been posited including forcing very frequent readers of online news to pay a fee or integrating online and print advertisements, no one has found the solution to arguably the newspaper industry’s largest threat ever. Earlier this month,  The Times decided to place a “paywall” on their site after having had enough with providing premium content to readers free of charge. The Times’ paywall works very simply.  When one logs onto the site, it appears as it did in the past.  The top stories of the day grace the opening screen along with categories to go into the “paper” and an average amount of advertising.  As soon as any story, category, picture, video etc is clicked on, an interstitial pops up informing the reader that this site is now available only by subscription.

This type of window is usually dismissed as simple nuisance of online advertising, but in this case, it is no joke.  If the window is closed, the user is returned to the homepage with no hope of finishing that story about the Sri Lankan cricket player or the Prime Minister David Cameron’s latest policy.

By being the first major newspaper in the world to enact such a system, they may have given the rest of the online newspaper community an example of one way not to solve their monetization problem.  After only three weeks, metrics taken by Experian Hitwise show that readership has dropped by an astonishing 90% since February.  (This was all reported in an article in The Guardian, which did not cost a pent to view).  Media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who owns The Times, believes that if the new business model takes off, it could prove to be much more lucrative than the advertising model that most online news sites currently run on.

While it remains to be seen what the newspaper industry will do to keep itself alive, it looks, at this early stage at least, like a paywall for any and all information on a newspaper website is a better way to keep people away than attract them.

“Hey you – yeah, you. How would you like to have hot coffee spilled all over your fingers and toes? Why don’t you try catching your breath after being thrown at the bottom of a bag and have junk piled high –right, smack on top of you?  Sounds pretty terrible, eh? You wouldn’t do it to yourself, but you do it daily to your technology. Feel pretty guilty? Well you should.  Luckily, it isn’t too late to make amends! Office Depot is providing you with an easy remedy to show your digital devices that you DO care after all, and will vow to protect us from here on out.”

Pretty funny huh?  These are the first words you read when you check out Office Depot’s new microsite, technologyapology.com, dedicated to teaching consumers how to treat there technology devices with care and concern.  Office Depot recently launched a CARAVAN® survey conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for Office Depot (NYSE:ODP), which found that “one in three working Americans is often required to carry tech items while traveling or on the go. However, forty-five percent of Americans have damaged or totally broken a number of their technology items including mobile phones (29%), ear buds or headsets (22%), PDAs or Smartphones (10%) and laptops (10%).”

In response to this recklessness in technological device care, Home Depot has launched the “Technology Apology Contest,” where professionals can formally apologize to the technology that they have mistreated in the past and vow to protect it going forward with a 100-300 word apology. 

This microsite is peppered with humorous videos, and a fact sheet about how to protect your technological advices. What’s interesting is that none of these suggestions are really that innovative—they tell you things like keep your hot coffee away from the computer and don’t let pets get near these devices. And if you look a little closer, you will see that the prize for the contest is a messenger bag for your laptop designed to protect all your technological devices. So really, this is all a marketing tactic to get you to buy their bags—and it kind of works.

This microsite is essentially a page out of the PR 101 handbook and it’s not a shabby effort!  All of a sudden Home Depot is positioning itself as a thought leader in the technology protection industry—breaking out from the walls of the home building industry to provide specific products to protect our prized laptops, cell phones and iPads.   They’ve even gone so far as to launch a survey proving technological device neglect, identifying a crisis they are helping to solve further, solidifying their role as an emerging voice in the technology protection conversation. Great job Home Depot—your microsite is funny and interesting! And in the increasingly wired world we’re living in (as I look at the cracked cell phone sitting on my desk), you’re now a place I may look to for more than just a can of house paint.

It’s finally happened. Apple has pumped out enough iPods, iPhones, and iPads to become the most valuable technology company in the world, surpassing software giant Microsoft in the market cap. Ten years ago, Apple was basically left for dead, but with a little innovation from cofounder and chief exec Steve Jobs and a lot of great new products, the software company is now valued at $222.12 billion, trailing only to Exxon Mobil as the highest valued American company. And while Jobs has yet to beat the giant, he has certainly taken the golden harp.

So how did this happen? The answer is in your hand; it’s your iPod, your iPhone, and now, it’s your iPad. Simply put, Jobs and Apple have profoundly changed the user experience – and they’ve done it through products that are sleek, fashionable, and highly functional. The iPod revolutionized the way we listened to our music, just as the iPhone made Smartphones more accessible and appealing to a much broader audience. And now the iPad, no matter how strange as it may seem, aims to change the way we think about our portable computers and how we use them.

This key is innovation. Jobs recognized the need for adaptable, mobile technology, even before anyone else did. Today, consumers demand technology innovations that are nimble, accessible, and practical. Touch screens seem much more sensible than an attached keyboard, just as a phone that acts as a computer is more efficient than two separate products. For too long, Microsoft has pushed the norm, and now has to play catch up while Apple continues to push the industry frontier.

As Mr. Jobs himself said, “Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” We couldn’t agree more.

The days of traditional cell phone plans may soon be over.

Toktumi’s new $1 iPhone app, Line2, provides users with a second phone number, with both its own voice mail and contacts list. The app allows you to conduct calls via AT&T airwaves or over the internet through AT&T’s 3G data network or Wi-Fi. It works both on the iPhone and iPod touch.

The big news? Neither option uses AT&T minutes – so no more worrying about exceeding monthly talk time limits. The Line2 service cost more than pocket change – $15 per month – but in the long run it could be a money-saver. Also, there are some perks that could benefit small businesses, in particular, such as call screening and voice mail forwarding to email.

It’s going to be interesting to see what kind of splash this makes in the coming months. How will AT&T respond to this perceived threat? After all, Line2 incentivizes users to reduce their AT&T plan to one with fewer minutes. And it’s surprising Apple approved it given how closely it resembles the iPhone’s own software – after all, Apple has a track record restricting against apps which appear and/or function too much like their own programs.

Needless to say, we’ll be watching closely to see how this plays out in the media.

There are apps for cooks.  Apps for music.  Apps for the great outdoors.  There’s even an app that simulates farting noises.

But just when you thought Apple’s iPhone had an app for everything known to man, you find out that even Apple’s iPhone has a limit. 

App Image

Last year, freelance photographer Sebastian Kempa, who lives near Dortmund, Germany, began a project to show how clothes “are our second layer of skin.” According to Kempa, “clothes disguise, reveal, mirror our innermost being or help to hide it.” Kempa has taken pictures of dozens of people with and without their clothing, and is showing the “before” and “after” results on the site, www.naked-people.de.

Kempa along with many people in Germany, do not consider his work anywhere near pornographic, so Kempa was shocked when he tried to create an iPhone application for his online exhibition, and it was rejected by Apple.  In a second attempt to make the application work, aware that Apple wouldn’t display anyone without clothing, Kempa used pictures of the models in clothing and in underwear, rather than fully naked, and called the application Not Quite Naked People.

Apple’s response?  No dice,

This is not all that surprising considering the fact that last month, Apple made the decision to remove nearly all “sexy” content from the App Store,  although some applications like Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit app and Playboy were allowed to remain.   Apple SVP of Worldwide Product Marketing, Phil Schiller, said “It came to the point where we were getting customer complaints from women who found the content getting too degrading and objectionable, as well as parents who were upset with what their kids were able to see.”  When asked about the Sports Illustrated app, Mr. Schiller said Apple took the source and intent of an app into consideration. “The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format.”

Just last week, the iPhone application for another newsmagazine, Stern, was blocked by Apple for several weeks, apparently because it included a fashion photo with a nude model.   As for Mr. Kempa, an Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on his website and instead referred to Schiller’s recent comment on all “sexy” content.

That explanation worries some German publishers who don’t think a technology company in California should be allowed to decide what is objectionable to the rest of the world.

So where do you draw the line?  Is judging “sexy” content on a case by case basis a slippery slope or a fair way for Apple to assert “good judgment?”  While the fate of these racey apps is yet to be determined, I have a feeling they will increasingly become a part of Apple’s past and not its present.