Twitter Adds Button That Lets You Subscribe To Live Video Notifications

Twitter is tweaking its platform to make live video more prominent.

On Wednesday, the company added a new button that lets users subscribe to live video notifications from individual accounts, alerting them when the accounts go live on Periscope and share the link on Twitter. The button appears on each user&;s profile page and is available globally.

“With live notifications, you won&039;t miss a moment of live video on Twitter,” a Twitter spokesperson told BuzzFeed News.

Twitter has been investing in live video lately, not only continuing to push Periscope, but cutting premium, live video deals with sports leagues like the NFL, MLB, and NHL.

In July, Twitter also streamed both the Republican and Democratic conventions in the United States. And the company&039;s chief financial officer, Anthony Noto, has essentially turned his Twitter feed into a running list of events you should “Watch Live&;”

Eventually, Twitter might use these notification subscriptions to alert users to premium, live video they may be interested in.

Periscope is in the midst of a fight for market share with Facebook&039;s Live streaming product (BuzzFeed is one of Facebook&039;s paid media partners), so every bit of promotion it can get from Twitter proper makes a difference.

Quelle: <a href="Twitter Adds Button That Lets You Subscribe To Live Video Notifications“>BuzzFeed

Apple's Strategy Is Innovation By A Thousand Tweaks

Via Apple

You probably want to talk about the headphones. You’re pissed about having to buy a new pair of headphones, or haul around an easily lost dongle adapter, or to have to use the word “dongle” in public. You’re frustrated that you need to pay $150 for wireless danglers that might fall out of your weirdly shaped ears. You’re angry that this company invented a brand-new category of thing for you to buy, and you’re angry that you think you might kinda want it, this product you didn’t even know existed when you woke up this morning.

But that’s a distraction. To focus on the missing 3.5mm hole in the top of your next hunk of metal and glass and plastic is — unless you’re an audio engineer — to miss the point. You’ll use the dongle, or you’ll buy some new headphones, and in a couple of months this entire conversation will feel so incredibly beside the point. This is what Apple does best: It spends untold hours and countless dollars tinkering and perfecting until it can make a seemingly user-hostile decision in order to scrap what it deems to be a piece of vestigial technology. There might be a little turbulence along the way but today is arguably the day that bluetooth and wireless audio becomes the new standard for consumer headphones. Airport vending machines will be lousy with them by Christmas.

But that’s not enough for Apple. It doesn’t just push people into unfamiliar product spaces, it also works hard to make sure those spaces are firmly within territory it controls. It isn’t pushing Bluetooth headphones, it’s pushing AirPods (and, of course, wireless headphones from its subsidiary Beats that use the same technology). And AirPods are all about lock in.

Via Apple

The way the company envisions it, AirPods will make your other Apple products, like iPhone and Mac, even more essential. They will connect (via Bluetooth and Apple’s own proprietary technology) instantly to your devices. Because the case connects with iCloud, you’ll be able to seamlessly switch between different iOS devices. No need to take off your headphones when you walk into work from your commute — just hit one button and you’re now streaming from your computer.

This — these masterful incremental tweaks that add up to a different way of living with your devices — is Apple in 2016. It’s evolutionary and not always flashy, but it’s often just enough to pull you deeper into the Apple universe of products and services. It’s what CEO Tim Cook meant when, about 56 minutes into today’s keynote, in one of his throwaway victory laps about iPhone sales (over one billion sold&;), he boasted that the newest iPhone will “enrich your daily experiences.”

All the painstaking engineering inside the AirPods (the Accelerometers, optical sensors, microphones, and antennas that makes them so damn expensive) is all geared toward drawing you deeper into Apple’s ecosystem. The quick double-tap that triggers Siri is not just meant to, well, help you access Siri: it’s a ramp to get more people into the habit of using Apple’s personal assistant, which is slowly evolving into the connective tissue between Apple’s product suite as well as the primary way the company would have you navigate its operating systems. And even though they’re costly, the AirPods are new and fancy and maybe even a little bit cool. They’re not for everyone, but for Apple’s core users — the ones who’ve been through nine years and three or more iPhone upgrades — the earphones give you yet another reason to upgrade your iPhone and also maybe not jump ship from your Macbook to a $200 Chromebook.

Same can be said of the newest edition of the Apple Watch. While the watch now comes in something called ceramic and has a new series of customizable bands and faces, its main selling points are almost all small-but-important evolutionary tweaks. There’s built-in GPS, water resistance, and a partnership with Nike that creates a social workout experience that seems to be centered around guilting you to get off your ass and move around.

These improvements are meaningful but still subtle enough that you might not really notice them unless you’ve been paying attention. The Series 2 is less of an attempt to introduce a New Computing Device™ than it is a sensible fitness product. Like the earphones, the watch is a portal for Siri. It’s also a gateway into Apple’s growing collection of health apps and it’s all part of the continuity push across devices. Sure, you could just get a FitBit for cheaper but this watch is arguably better AND let’s you shoot off an emoji iMessage or check your email by yelling into your wrist. Basically: Here&;s this awesome thing for working out that’s especially great if you already have other Apple products. And that kind of continuity just might make you less likely to swap your iPhone for a Samsung when it’s time to re-up.

And then there’s the phone. The new iPhones are perhaps the most direct embodiment of Apple’s philosophy: Innovation by a thousand tweaks. Despite two (two&033;) new black finishes and the extra camera in the Plus, and the water resistance, and that missing headphone jack, the phone looks and behaves much the same as it did before.

Near the end of the keynote, in a slick video wrapping up the new iPhone features, Apple VP Greg Joswiak summed it up: “iPhone 7 makes the thing you do most even better.” The video — not much longer than a minute — is full of superlatives: “better,” “more powerful,” “brighter,” “faster,” more. Last year Apple’s approach toward this methodical innovation was a bit ham-handed — the company suggested that “the only thing that’s changed” with the new iPhone “is everything,” which some (including myself) dismissed as marketing jargon.
This year Apple seems more confident in its evolutionary stance.

Every keynote is a state of the union — an opportunity to get a glimpse into how Apple sees itself. And the lesson from this year’s seems to be that it’s time to stop thinking of Apple in the classic Jobsian sense. That every product introduction is a paradigm shifting game-changer. Today, we saw a company — which is setting its sights on non-tech related initiatives like making TV shows and investing in moonshots like cars — stand on stage and own what it is: a hardware company that&039;s making smart little evolutionary changes at just the right time.

Quelle: <a href="Apple&039;s Strategy Is Innovation By A Thousand Tweaks“>BuzzFeed

Inside iPhone 7: Why Apple Killed The Headphone Jack

Apple VP Greg Joswiak is grinning as he holds up what is easily the smallest iPhone adapter I have ever seen. iPod white and about the length of a matchstick, it’s designed to connect audio headphones with an industry standard 3.5-millimeter analog plug to the Lightning port on Apple’s newest iPhone, which no longer bears the industry standard jack they require to work.

“This time, we’re putting an adapter in every box,” Joswiak quips, a wry nod to the backlash evoked in 2012 the last time Apple killed a widely used iPhone port — a move that rendered thousands of peripherals designed to interact with it incompatible without a $29 adapter, and pissed off legions of people in the process.

Apple is no stranger to killing things people use all the time — and even love. But the headphone jack? It’s on a whole other level than disc drives or ports named after their number of pins. The headphone jack predates not only Apple, but computers themselves. And it is ubiquitous. So, when you’re killing a century-old standard around which the entire audio industry developed, it’s wise to take precautions.

Thomas Edison listening to a phonograph through primitive headphones.

Getty Images

Invented for use with telephone switchboards in the late 1800s, the audio jack is among the oldest existing electrical standards. Originally 6.35-millimeter in width, it was reduced to 3.5-millimeter in the &;60s, a transformation that made it pervasive across most every piece of electronic audio equipment you can think of — home stereos, car stereos, camcorders, guitar amps, laptops, airplane entertainment systems, cochlear implants, smartphones, and — until today — the iPhone.

Apple is arguing that the future of audio is wireless, that the world’s current assumptions about mobile audio are not only antiquated, but worthy of immediate abandonment. In a world of Spotify and Sonos, it’s tough to disagree. But right now that future comes with a price: You’ve got to leave behind the perfectly good headphones you own and you’ve got to purchase the new wireless ones as an iPhone accessory. It’s up to Apple to make the case that this is a worthwhile exchange.

“It’s a dinosaur. It’s time to move on.”

“The audio connector is more than 100 years old,” Joswiak says. “It had its last big innovation about 50 years ago. You know what that was? They made it smaller. It hasn’t been touched since then. It’s a dinosaur. It’s time to move on.”

Perhaps, but “if not now, when” is hardly a good argument when there are two pairs of reasonably high-end headphones in my desk that require that connector and every audio device I own has a 3.5-millimeter port. So does my car. And my laptop. The last plane I flew on. The alarm clock in my hotel. Microphones. Speakers. Baby monitors. Audio equipment and accessories purchased in every stage of my life. Everything. That little jack is in everything.

Historically, Apple has been pretty savvy about moving away from legacy standards and adopting new technology. Historically, this has been because whatever new tech Apple has adopted has delivered value orders of magnitude greater than whatever it replaced. Many have pointed to the floppy drive as a previous example of Apple’s willingness to kill off a widely used standard to make way for the future. But the thing is, when Apple scrapped the iMac’s floppy drive, the floppy disc was ferociously inadequate as a storage solution and in obvious need of replacement.

The 3.5-millimeter audio jack, however, is neither inadequate nor in obvious need of replacement. Sure, it is certainly dusty. But it is widely used and unencumbered by patents. You don’t have to pay anyone to use it. The signal it transmits doesn’t need to be decoded. And because it is an analog and not a digital standard, it cannot be locked down with digital rights management (DRM). Like the AC power socket adorning the walls of our homes, the headphone jack is a dumb interface. In Apple parlance, “it just works.” Buy a pair of headphones — from an audiophile store or an airport vending machine — and plug them into a headphone jack and you’ll likely hear whatever it is you were planning on listening to. So why send it off for a dirt nap?

The iPhone&039;s 3.5-millimeter headphone jack.

iFixit / Via ifixit.com

For Dan Riccio, Apple’s senior vice president of hardware engineering, the iPhone’s 3.5-millimeter audio jack has felt something like the last months of an ill-fated if amicable relationship: familiar and comfortable, but ultimately an impediment to a better life ahead. “We’ve got this 50-year-old connector — just a hole filled with air — and it’s just sitting there taking up space, really valuable space,” he says.

Riccio has been at Apple since 1998, and he has had a hand in most all of the company’s marquee hardware. He’s fully on board with the company’s wireless narrative, as well: “In a world of mobile and cellular connectivity, the one wired vestige out there is this cable hanging from people’s ears to their phones — why?” he asks. But he’s far more interested in the ripple effect of advancements the removal of the audio jack set off in the iPhone.

“It was holding us back from a number of things we wanted to put into the iPhone,” Riccio says. “It was fighting for space with camera technologies and processors and battery life. And frankly, when there’s a better, modern solution available, it’s crazy to keep it around.”

It’s hard to imagine Apple’s hardware design team hamstrung by a diminutive legacy port. But when you’re dealing with a computing device with extraordinarily tight dimensional tolerances, there are bound to be challenges. Riccio spends a good 15 minutes explaining them. I’ll try to do it in two.

A tentpole feature of the new iPhones are improved camera systems that are larger than the cameras in the devices that preceded them. The iPhone 7 now has the optical image stabilization feature previously reserved for its larger Plus siblings. And the iPhone 7 Plus has two complete camera systems side by side — one with a fixed wide-angle lens, the other with a 2x zoom telephoto lens. At the top of both devices is something called the “driver ledge” — a small printed circuit board that drives the iPhone’s display and its backlight. Historically, Apple placed it there to accommodate improvements in battery capacity, where it was out of the way. But according to Riccio, the driver ledge interfered with the iPhone 7 line’s new larger camera systems, so Apple moved the ledge lower in both devices. But there, it interfered with other components, particularly the audio jack.

So the company’s engineers tried removing the jack.

In doing so, they discovered a few things. First, it was easier to install the “Taptic Engine” that drives the iPhone 7’s new pressure-sensitive home button, which, like the trackpads on Apple’s latest MacBook, uses vibrating haptic sensations to simulate the feeling of a click — without actually clicking. (Did we mention that Apple killed the physical home button too?) Taptic Engine vibrations will also be used to deliver feeling specific notifications — hitting the end of a scrolled page, for example. And because Apple has given developers an API for it, an awful lot of other stuff as well — particularly in games.

“You can’t make it feel like there’s an earthquake happening, but the range of customization lets you do an awful lot,” Apple SVP Phil Schiller explains. “With every project there are things that surprise you with the meaning they take on as you start to use them. The Taptic Engine API is one of them. It turned into a much bigger thing than we ever thought it would be. It really does transform the experience for a lot of software. You’ll see.”

Second, there was an unforeseen opportunity to increase battery life. So the battery in the iPhone 7 is 14% bigger than the one in its predecessor, and in the iPhone 7 Plus, it’s 5% bigger. In terms of real-world performance gains, that’s about an additional two hours and one hour, respectively. Not bad.

Even better, removing the audio jack also eliminated a key point of ingress that Riccio says helped the new iPhone finally meet the IP7 water resistance spec Apple has been after for years (resistant when immersed under 1 meter of water for 30 minutes).

The 3.5-millimeter audio jack has been headed to its inevitable fate for some time now. If it wasn’t the iPhone 7, it might have been the iPhone 8 (or, for that matter, the iPhone 6). In the end, it was simple math that did the audio jack in, a cost-benefit analysis that sorely disfavored a single-purpose Very Old Port against a wireless audio future, some slick new cameras, and the kind of water resistance that anyone who has ever dropped an iPhone in the toilet has long wished for.

Apple

When you think about the iPhone, you probably think of it as a single gadget. So it’s helpful to step back and realize that it contains an array of formerly distinct devices sandwiched together. When Steve Jobs introduced the original iPhone in 2007, he said that it wasn’t one device, but three: “a widescreen iPod with touch controls, a revolutionary mobile phone, and a breakthrough internet communications device.”

And as it turns out, among the features people most care about in a high-end smartphone — enough so that Apple is willing to spend millions of advertising dollars to remind you of its dominance, and upend a decades-old standard — is the camera.

“End-to-end these camera systems are a massive jump in capability over the ones in the 6s,” Schiller says when I observe that the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus have the same 12-megapixel cameras as their predecessors. He rattles off a list of camera geek specs to prove his point. They are faster, gather more light, have custom low-energy, high-performance chipsets and a bunch of near-future, gee-whiz stuff. Much of this is impenetrable: A slide in Apple’s Wednesday keynote presentation proudly touts a new image signal processor’s ability to calculate 100 billion operations in 25 milliseconds, for example. But it all comes together for me when I see a stunning un-retouched aerial shot of Coney Island that was, incredibly, shot on a phone.

“The new iPhones are crazy powerful,” says Neill Barham, founder and CEO of Filmic, a highly regarded mobile video app for iOS. He’s effusive in his praise, saying Apple’s new A10 chip has brought a “seismic” improvement in video processing to the iPhone. He jokes that Stanley Kubrick probably would have loved the 7 Plus, though he concedes he probably wouldn’t have shot Barry Lyndon with it.

“In layman’s terms, the prior 6S/+ is like a sprinter: it can do a lot of work in a short amount of time,” Barham offers. “The 7, on the other hand, is more like a marathon runner, or better yet, a triathlete that can perform multiple processor intensive loads all day long.”

Shot on iPhone 7 Plus at 2x optical zoom

Courtesy of Apple.

At a small vineyard in the Santa Cruz Mountains far above Silicon Valley, a brief camera demo. Panoramas, portraits, Live Photos, close-ups, video of the vineyard dog that wanders into our group with a well-chewed tennis ball. To my nonprofessional photographer’s eye, everything looks really good. The images are sharp, vibrant. The new wide color capture support Apple has built into the iPhone makes the orange of a California poppy appear psychedelic. On the iPhone 7 Plus, switching between the two side-by-side cameras is pretty much seamless; the changes between the wide and tele lens occur so quickly and smoothly you don’t notice them. It feels like a single camera. With the zoom, I can just barely see pick-stitched lines of glue affixing a wine label to its bottle.

A few months from now, Apple will roll out a software update that adds a new camera feature to the iPhone 7 Plus. It’s called “Portrait,” and it basically creates a bokeh effect — a sharply detailed subject in the foreground set against a soft, out-of-focus background. Because both cameras in the 7 Plus can be run simultaneously, it can capture nine layers of depth from foreground to background. And it can display them in real time. So when you’re in Portrait, you’ll be able to see that bokeh effect and, crucially, whether it’s worth using or not.

“Is it a better bokeh effect than the one you’d get with a Leica M and a 50-millimeter lens?” Schiller said earlier. “Of course not. But have you ever seen anything like it in a smartphone before?”

Nope.

But a “coming soon” camera advancement isn’t exactly the sort of tectonic smartphone innovation we’ve come to expect from Apple — though Apple CEO Tim Cook thinks the changes in this year&039;s iPhone are pretty big. When I ask him if — after a run of tectonic innovations like FaceTime, Siri, and Touch ID — we&039;ve reached the point where we’re starting to exhaust the innovation possible in the smartphone, he disagrees — diplomatically — with the premise of my question.

“Innovation is making things better,” Cook says. “If you step back and look at the things that are most important to iPhone users, it&039;s the photos they take and the other stuff they use to build the diaries of their lives. So the camera updates, the software optimization that we&039;ve done, the increases in battery life, and then all the features in iOS 10? These things collectively are a huge advance forward.”

Earlier this year, Apple’s rumored plan to remove the headphone jack from the next iPhone was met with predictable outrage and apology, delivered from equally predictable soapboxes. (Nevermind that two other smartphone manufacturers had already released phones without the port.)

The headphone jack is great for delivering audio, widely used, and unencumbered by patents and digital rights management, critics argued. Why remove it, leaving only an Apple-proprietary digital port that might in some dystopian future be locked down with the very DRM schemes that Steve Jobs bemoaned in his 2007 essay “Thoughts on Music”? Why provide a diminutive headphone jack adapter that will cost me $9 to replace when I inevitably lose it? Why allow even for the possibility of a scenario in which I cannot play a song that I own, whether it be because of copy protection lockdown or a “This accessory has not been certified by Apple” error? How does Apple respond to critics who’ve described removing the headphone jack from the iPhone as “user-hostile”?

“That’s pure, paranoid conspiracy theory.”

Schiller thinks it’s a silly argument. “The idea that there’s some ulterior motive behind this move, or that it will usher in some new form of content management, it simply isn’t true,” he says. “We are removing the audio jack because we have developed a better way to deliver audio. It has nothing to do with content management or DRM — that’s pure, paranoid conspiracy theory.”

For what it’s worth, USB audio has allowed for copy protection since the mid-2000s, and according to Abdul Ismail, USB-IF CTO and principal engineer at Intel, the recording industry guys don’t really use it. “Audio content owners are a lot more comfortable with not requiring copy protection,” he says. “It has been almost a decade since iTunes started selling DRM-free music, and illegal file sharing hasn’t been rampant.”

Beyond that, Lightning is a good portable high-fidelity audio solution. It’s a powered connection, so it can support things like noise cancellation in headphones that typically require batteries, and because it’s digital, it can provide a lot of granular control over the frequency response and whatnot (Audeze makes a pair of Lightning headphones with a 10-band EQ of -10 to +10 decibels for each band).

But that’s not the argument Apple is making. Remember, the future of audio is wireless. And while the company might be giving every iPhone 7 owner a pair of Lightning EarPods (and an adapter&;), what it really wants is for them to buy a pair of wireless AirPods.

Apple&039;s new wireless AirPods

Apple

Quelle: <a href="Inside iPhone 7: Why Apple Killed The Headphone Jack“>BuzzFeed

Watch Apple CEO Tim Cook Do Karaoke (Oh And Check Out The New Wireless AirPods)

Watch Apple CEO Tim Cook Do Karaoke (Oh And Check Out The New Wireless AirPods)

Apple held its big iPhone event today in San Francisco, where it announced two new phones, a new Apple Watch, and its much-anticipated wireless headphones, called AirPods. Below, some videos and demos that Apple aired during the event. Enjoy&;

With this video, Apple Chief Design Officer Jony Ive explains how Apple’s new wireless AirPod headphones will work.

View Video ›

Facebook: video.php

Here’s what people who love to exercise will like about the new (swimproof!) Apple Watch.

View Video ›

Facebook: video.php

Aaaand, just for fun, here’s Apple CEO Tim Cook doing Carpool Karaoke with The Late Late Show’s James Corben… and Pharrell!

View Video ›

Facebook: video.php

Quelle: <a href="Watch Apple CEO Tim Cook Do Karaoke (Oh And Check Out The New Wireless AirPods)“>BuzzFeed

Here's How To Use Your Old Headphones With The New iPhone 7

RIP headphone jack.

Yes, it’s terribly sad that Apple is moving away from a 150-year-old technology – but, hey, wireless Bluetooth headphones aren’t all bad.

Yes, it's terribly sad that Apple is moving away from a 150-year-old technology – but, hey, wireless Bluetooth headphones aren't all bad.

They can even be great&;

The most important thing to note is: the new iPhones come with an adapter in-box, so you can *still* use your favorite pair of headphones.

The most important thing to note is: the new iPhones come with an adapter in-box, so you can *still* use your favorite pair of headphones.

Plus, the new iPhones also come with Lightning-compatible, wired EarPods.

Plus, the new iPhones also come with Lightning-compatible, wired EarPods.


View Entire List ›

Quelle: <a href="Here&039;s How To Use Your Old Headphones With The New iPhone 7“>BuzzFeed

Is This An Ad? Jonathan Cheban And The Whopperito

Welcome to our weekly column, “Is This an Ad?,” in which we strap on our reportin’ hat (it is NOT a fedora, please stop imagining that) and aim to figure out what the heck is going on in the confusing world of celebrity social media endorsements. Because even though the FTC recently came out with rules on this, sometimes when celebrities post about a product or brand on social media, it’s not immediately clear if they are being paid to post about it, got a freebie, just love it, or what.


Instagram: @jonathancheban

THE CASE:

Jonathan Cheban is a former publicist, current entrepreneur, bon vivant, internet troll, and, perhaps most famously, Kim Kardashian’s best friend. Martha Stewart does not know who he is.

In his current career incarnation (Cheban is quick to point out that he hasn’t done PR in years, and now owns between 5-10 companies, depending what month you ask him), he has some sort of relationship (perhaps partial owner?) with a burger joint on Long Island and a lifestyle website called TheDishh.com.

Perhaps because of these new business developments, he’s taken a turn to positioning himself as some sort of culinary expert, referring to himself as the “Foodg&;d.” The bar over the “o” is called a macron, and it means the word should be pronounced “foodgoad”.

(I have a theory of how this came about: starting maybe two years ago, Cheban began experimenting with a fairly typical Instagram ploy to gain followers: reposting like-bait photos of decadent desserts or other foods. These were photos he found elsewhere and would caption things like “mmm yum&;” or about how much he wanted to eat it. He still does some of this sort of stuff, like a recent post where he posted a photo of an ice cream cotton-candy hybrid with the caption, “I need to try this cotton candy ice cream cone immediately …xx Foodg&x14D;d.”)

Instagram: @jonathancheban

But we’re not here to talk about ice-cream cotton candy. We’re here to talk about Cheban’s recent post about eating Burger King’s new menu item, the Whopperito.

The Whopperito is fairly straightforward: it’s Whopper filling (with spicer meat), in a burrito tortilla instead of a bun. Nick Gazin, a Vice reporter who recently ate three of these for a review, wrote: “It is my belief that this Whopperito was made to cater to the Jackass generation who want to do gross things on Instagram to show off. I don&;t think this was an earnest food invention. I think this is stunt-burgerism created to get press and hashtags.”

THE EVIDENCE:

So, the obvious thing here is that Mr. Cheban used the hashtag . That seems like, obvs it’s an , right? I mean, he’s saying it right there. OR IS HE?

Here’s the weird part: if you search that hashtag, two posts show up. The other is from 3 weeks before Jonathan&039;s, from a young fashion and lifestyle blogger named Ria Michelle (I reached out to her to ask if she could confirm she was paid; I did not hear back). The best theory here is that a digital marketing agency convinced Burger King to pay social influencers to post about the Whopperito using the cheeky and winking tag thekingpaidmetodoit (so transgressive and ironic, right?) And yet… they only found 2 people to actually use the tag? Sounds like some ad buyer somewhere has some explaining to do.

There’s something more mysterious about the fact that only two people used the tag – it confuses the obvious narrative that this is clearly a paid ad. Was this just a huge failure, or is there something else going on?

Here’s how celebrity endorsements work: companies want someone who will ~align with their brand’s message~. Even if consumers know it’s an ad, that’s ok, it still has to be someone who makes sense. When we see Matthew McConaughey monologuing to a cow in a TV ad for Lincoln cars, we know it’s he’s getting paid, but isn’t there something about it where you’re like “yeah, I could totally imagine he’d drive a Lincoln”? There’s a good brand alignment there.

Cheban’s recent personal branding as “foodgoad” is relevant here: He’s worked to establish himself as an influencer in the world of viral, unhealthy food. Remember what Vice said about the Whopperito, how it was just a social media stunt food? Well, what better way to align a product that is purely a vapid, frivolous trend food designed only to appeal to society’s lowest denominator than with Jonathan Cheban? It’s simply good brand alignment.

THE VERDICT:

UNDETERMINED.

Believe it or not, we couldn’t verify this. BuzzFeed News reached out to Burger King to confirm if this was a paid endorsement, and they refused to comment on it. Which…. is not a good look for them, since according to the FTC’s point of view, it’s the responsibility of the brand to be crystal-clear about paid social media endorsements.

So then we tried to ask Cheban. I’m already blocked by him for posting about how he is rude to fans on social media, so fellow BuzzFeed reporter Jess Misener asked:

Cheban didn’t reply, and promptly blocked Jess on Twitter.

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING, JONATHAN?

Since both Cheban and Burger King were stonewalling me, I went to some experts in the field of celebrity endorsements to find out their opinions on this.

According to Stefania Pomponi, founder and president of the Clever Girls influencer marketing agency:

I am 99.9% positive Jonathan Cheban&039;s Whopperito post is a paid sponsorship. He is being coy about disclosing his paid endorsement, which is in direct violation of FTC guidelines which state that standardized hashtags like ad or be used. The guidelines further explain that disclosure hashtags must have a clear meaning to the audience (meaning the audience shouldn&039;t have to guess if a post is sponsored) and hashtags can&039;t be abbreviated (e.g. instead of sponsored). If Cheban wants to be in compliance, he needs to make sure his disclosures … are clearly and easily understood by his audience.

Lucas Brockner, associate director of partnerships and business development at the social media agency Attention:

While nobody loves seeing the ad, sponsored or the somewhat sneaky sp, it’s part of the FTC guidelines and something we ask all influencers to include in posts. To no surprise, influencers don’t like putting this in their posts as it can result in negative backlash from their audiences. As a result and as seen in this example, you’re starting to see more clever ways that influencers are disclosing that they were paid for these types of social promotions. Of course, the more authentic the partnership, the more creative you can be. For example, the idea of using the language “in partnership with” has become a favored term amongst influencers/celebrities and brands when it’s an ongoing content series versus a one-off endorsement.

Dear readers, I have failed you here. Some secrets are too deep, too dangerous, too guarded by the forces of power and money to ever be revealed. Whether or not Jonathan Cheban ate that god-awful meat tube for fun or profit is one of those secrets.

Quelle: <a href="Is This An Ad? Jonathan Cheban And The Whopperito“>BuzzFeed

An Afternoon In The Park With The Soylent CEO And A Star Of "Silicon Valley"

Josh Brener (left) with Soylent CEO Rob Rhinehart.

William Alden / Via BuzzFeed News

The press event could have been a scene from HBO’s Silicon Valley. At least, that&;s what the reporters who showed up were supposed to think, waiting for the CEO of Soylent in a Silicon Valley parking lot.

Rob Rhinehart, CEO and co-founder of the Los Angeles-based meal-replacement startup, arrived in a white truck emblazoned with the company’s logo, alongside the actor Josh Brener, who plays the character Nelson Bighetti, or Big Head, on Silicon Valley. The truck, too, was an inside joke: Cartoon Soylent trucks appear in the show&039;s opening credits, and Rhinehart said that inspired him to make one in real life.

The entrepreneur and actor were touring California’s actual Silicon Valley to pitch Soylent&039;s latest products, out this month: Coffiest, bottled nutrient sludge combined with coffee, and Food Bar, a caramel-flavored slab of soy protein, algal flour, and isomaltulose. By the time they pulled into the parking lot in Holbrook-Palmer Park, they had already visited eBay and Google X (officially known just as “X,” the “moonshot factory” of Google’s parent company, Alphabet), to hand out product samples and pose for selfies. Later that afternoon, they were scheduled to visit GoDaddy.

Rhinehart

William Alden / Via BuzzFeed News

If Rhinehart is among the weirdest CEOs in the tech world — he sells food whose brand alludes to dystopian sci-fi, he has blogged about getting rid of his fridge and giving up laundry, and he had a brush with the law this summer after installing a shipping container on a small piece of land he owns on an LA hilltop (as an “experiment” in housing) — then Brener is perhaps his perfect celebrity pitchman. The shaggy-haired actor approached the role of shill with a polished deadpan. You almost couldn&039;t tell whether he liked the product — or had even tried it.

“I don&039;t drink Coffiest, because caffeine makes me a monster, but Food Bar is delicious,” Brener, 31, said. “I had it for breakfast and will probably have it for the rest of the meals for my entire life.”

Later, he took a sip of the caffeinated goop. “That&039;s really friggin&039; good&;” he said. “I shouldn&039;t sound so surprised.”

“Everyone expects it to be bad,” Rhinehart replied.

At another point, the slightly built Brener said, “I like to use Soylent as a post-gym recovery drink. It gives me the protein I need to bulk up.”

Brener.

William Alden / Via BuzzFeed News

Silicon Valley has its finger on the pulse,” Brener said. “Soylent is coursing through the veins of this great township.”

This reporter&039;s attempts to ask normal questions — Is Soylent paying you? How much? — were futile. Rhinehart and Brener, who wore Soylent windbreakers that Velcroed up the front, are friends (they met through Rhinehart&039;s sister, a filmmaker). They shoot skeet together in LA. On Tuesday, they did a jokey friend routine.

“All my meals for the next — what is it, 300 years? — are taken care of,” Brener said, sitting at a table on a sun-baked dirt patch near the park&039;s Fitness Cluster.

“Or death, whichever comes first,” Rhinehart added.

So, that&039;s payment in Soylent?

“You wouldn&039;t pay an elephant in anything but peanuts,” Brener said.

What did he and Rhinehart do at the mysterious Google X?

“We handed out product, we stole company secrets,” Brener said. “They came by and hung out with us and told us what they were working on, in great detail.”

The whole thing was layered thick with irony. Even the visit to Google involved a wink or two: In Silicon Valley, Brener&039;s character works for a Google-like company, and previously, in the 2013 comedy The Internship, Brener played a Google employee. When Hollywood imagines a comical Googler, it sees Brener.

Brener on Silicon Valley.

HBO / Via hbogo.com

His TV show, packed full of inside jokes and references, seems at times like it&039;s tailor-made for the Soylent-drinking tech set. It&039;s satire, sure, but it&039;s gentle enough to be widely beloved among the young strivers and the power players of Silicon Valley, as BuzzFeed News&039;s Nitasha Tiku has written. Brener&039;s character, in theory, represents one of the show&039;s more pointed jokes, a slacker who manages to make millions without lifting a finger. But real-life Big Heads eat it up.

“It is shocking the number of people who are like, &039;Dude, I&039;m your character&033; I just sit around and do nothing and get paid for it,&039;” Brener said. “Which is sort of disheartening.”

Brener isn&039;t the only Silicon Valley actor to moonlight in the tech sector. Kumail Nanjiani, who plays Dinesh in the show, has shilled for the e-commerce startup Jet.com. This is the sort of convenient windfall can arise when you set out to mock a popular industry that has wealth. There&039;s nothing wrong with it, per se, but it does show how closely tied this satirized tech world is to the real one.

Or as Brener put it, “Who doesn&039;t like getting ribbed? Trojan built a whole empire on being ribbed.”

“I do think it shows great, not self-awareness, but at least a levity, that you embrace the satire instead of fighting against it,” Brener added later, getting serious. “People here are really big fans of the show and enjoy having that crossover.”

Coffiest.

Soylent

The people who make Silicon Valley like to talk about how realistic it is. In doing research, the show&039;s writers have to act almost like venture capitalists, searching for themes that will be relevant in a year&039;s time, when episodes finally air. Brener relayed an anecdote about a neighbor who found the show hard to watch because it was “too close to home.”

But the weirdness of the real tech world, embodied in Rhinehart, is sometimes too out-there for the show. A group of Silicon Valley writers once met with Astro Teller, the head of Google X, according to a recent New Yorker article, but when an annoyed Teller tried to leave the meeting in a dramatic huff, he ended up wobbling away on his Rollerblades. They didn&039;t use the joke because it was too “hacky,” the article says.

A joke like that “doesn&039;t feel real,” Brener said. “It&039;s so insane, it&039;s so bonkers.”

Brener and Rhinehart.

William Alden / Via BuzzFeed News

Minutes earlier, Rhinehart had given a small speech about his shipping container project, which was supposed to be an experiment in sustainable housing. Neighbors complained about the metal eyesore and said it attracted vandals. City prosecutors charged Rhinehart with violations including unpermitted construction. He removed the container and wrote a blog post offering his “sincerest apologies.”

But on Tuesday, Rhinehart said he wanted to try again.

“Hopefully by next year I&039;ll have four or five containers on the land,” he said.

He explained how he would arrange them on his quarter-acre property on top of the hill. “Where there&039;s a will,” he said, “there&039;s a way.”

Instagram: @robertrhinehart

Soylent Wants To Be The Red Bull Of Video Gaming

Quelle: <a href="An Afternoon In The Park With The Soylent CEO And A Star Of "Silicon Valley"“>BuzzFeed

Is This An Ad? Beyoncé And Her Super Bowl Airbnb

Welcome to our weekly column, “Is This an Ad?”, in which we strap on our reportin&; hat and aim to figure out what the heck is going on in the confusing world of celebrity social media endorsements. Because even though the FTC recently came out with rules on this, sometimes when celebrities post about a product or brand on social media, it&039;s not immediately clear if they were being paid to post about it, got a freebie, or just love it, or what.

THE CASE:

Remember, if you can, back to Super Bowl 2016. It was the Denver Broncos versus the Carolina Panthers, held in San Fransisco&039;s Levi&039;s Stadium. The halftime show was Coldplay featuring Bruno Mars and Beyoncé. You will probably not remember Coldplay, but you will remember this amazing moment where Beyoncé *almost* fell, but miraculously righted herself:

NFL / Via giphy.com

Beyoncé showed up in San Fransisco a few days before the Super Bowl, presumably to rehearse the show, which involves some complicated elements (Chris Martin&039;s tight henleys, unusual set designs, lots of dancers, etc…) She clearly needed a nice place to stay while she&039;s there. Some place nicer than just an anonymous hotel room… a comfortable place for her family to stay for a while.

On her Facebook, Beyonce posted this photo with the caption, “it was a Super weekend @Airbnb”:

On her Facebook, Beyonce posted this photo with the caption, "it was a Super weekend @Airbnb":

Beyonce’s Facebook (now deleted)

It was quickly reported that the particular Airbnb that Beyoncé was staying at was this one, which rents for $10,000 per night. The house is just outside San Fransisco in the town right next to Mountain View, and it looks super nice.

THE EVIDENCE:

Beyoncé is too classy to shill for stuff on her social media, right? She&039;s no Scott Disick, she&039;s fucking Beyoncé. She&039;s not posting crap like teeth whitening lights or hair growth gummies on Instagram. Why would she start now, with Airbnb?

Perhaps she just loved this particular rental, and wanted to shout it out. And isn&039;t the term “Airbnb” kind of almost like Kleenex at this point —a generic term to describe “rental home”? So maybe it&039;s not so weird she&039;d tag the company.

But do we think she paid for it? The place is 10 G&039;s a night – something that basically ONLY a Beyoncé can afford. That&039;s chump change to her, but it&039;s still … a lot of money&;

On the other hand, does the NFL pay for her accommodations as part of her performance fee for the Super Bowl? It&039;s not unusual for travel and accommodation fees to be added onto a musician&039;s performance fee. Or sometimes a large flat fee is offered, and any travel/hotel costs are built into that.

The halftime show is sponsored by Pepsi, a company that Beyoncé has done ads for and in 2012 made a $50 million deal with. Perhaps part of the deal is that Pepsi paid for her stay.

Or do we believe that Beyoncé isn&039;t posting anything about any company for free? If she&039;s tagging them, she&039;s getting paid?

THE VERDICT:

It was a freebie&033; According to reps for Airbnb, Beyoncé was not paid to post about her stay. However, a source familiar with the situation told BuzzFeed News that her rental fee was comped by Airbnb (the host got paid).

“We’re huge fans of Beyoncé and we’re thrilled to see her Facebook post and hope she was crazy in love with her Airbnb listing,” Airbnb wrote in a statement at the time. This is, you&039;ll notice, doesn&039;t indicate whatsoever that Beyoncé wasn&039;t a paying Airbnb customer — to me, this statement implies the opposite, that she is a paying customer.

The FTC has rules – lots of rules – about how bloggers or social media stars are supposed to disclose if they&039;re getting paid to post about a product or company. But these are confusing, especially if it&039;s not a paid ad, but a free gift like a comped hotel room – something that celebs get all the time. The general rule of thumb, though, is that the average person should be able to tell if something is an ad or not.

I consider myself pretty knowledgeable on this kind of stuff, and I couldn&039;t really tell. Bobby Finger, host of the Who? Weekly celebrity gossip podcast, wrote in Jezebel that he wasn&039;t sure if it was an ad, either. If someone whose job is writing and podcasting about celebrity gossip can&039;t tell if this was an ad or not, then how is the average person supposed to know? Especially when Airbnb PR&039;s statement to the press at the time was so ambiguous. Airbnb did not respond to several requests for comment from BuzzFeed News, and when the Washington Post wrote about how the lack of clarity may be an FTC violation of advertising rules, Airbnb did not respond their request for comment on wither or not it was actually an ad.

Getting a comped hotel doesn&039;t obviously feel the same as, say, a $50 million contract with Pepsi to do TV ads. So it&039;s very possible Beyoncé probably didn&039;t think of her post about Airbnb the same way she does about doing a TV ad for Pepsi.

But the FTC maybe does, based on its own rules. Last week, Bloomberg reported that the agency plans on cracking down on confusing celeb ads on social media. But how it plans on actually doing this isn&039;t really clear, and Bloomberg talked to many people in the advertising industry who said that the rules themselves aren&039;t even that clear.

The FTC&039;s moves so far have been to only dole out violations to the brands or ad agencies, not the individuals. This means if the FTC decided that Beyoncé&039;s post violated the rules, then it&039;s Airbnb who is on the hook for the misdeed, not the singer. (The agency does not comment on individual cases to the press.) And even then, the FTC doesn&039;t act on this often — in only been a handful of cases so far has it gone after a company for social media violations (most recently Warner Bros. for having video game vloggers doing positive reviews without disclosure).

Would the FTC have preferred it if Beyoncé had written “I was gifted a free vacation rental by Airbnb, but not paid to post about it”? Yes, I&039;m sure they would have liked that. But are they going to go after Beyoncé or Airbnb for not doing that? Who knows&033;

EPILOGUE:

A few months later, Justin Bieber stayed at that same Airbnb. While he Instagramed photos from inside the house, he didn&039;t give an Airbnb shoutout like Beyoncé did. Did he also get it for free? Who knows&033; Stay tuned for future installment of Is This An Ad?

Quelle: <a href="Is This An Ad? Beyoncé And Her Super Bowl Airbnb“>BuzzFeed

Is This An Ad? Beyoncé And Her Super Bowl Airbnb

Welcome to our weekly column, “Is This an Ad?”, in which we strap on our reportin&; hat and aim to figure out what the heck is going on in the confusing world of celebrity social media endorsements. Because even though the FTC recently came out with rules on this, sometimes when celebrities post about a product or brand on social media, it&039;s not immediately clear if they were being paid to post about it, got a freebie, or just love it, or what.

THE CASE:

Remember, if you can, back to Super Bowl 2016. It was the Denver Broncos versus the Carolina Panthers, held in San Fransisco&039;s Levi&039;s Stadium. The halftime show was Coldplay featuring Bruno Mars and Beyoncé. You will probably not remember Coldplay, but you will remember this amazing moment where Beyoncé *almost* fell, but miraculously righted herself:

NFL / Via giphy.com

Beyoncé showed up in San Fransisco a few days before the Super Bowl, presumably to rehearse the show, which involves some complicated elements (Chris Martin&039;s tight henleys, unusual set designs, lots of dancers, etc…) She clearly needed a nice place to stay while she&039;s there. Some place nicer than just an anonymous hotel room… a comfortable place for her family to stay for a while.

On her Facebook, Beyonce posted this photo with the caption, “it was a Super weekend @Airbnb”:

On her Facebook, Beyonce posted this photo with the caption, "it was a Super weekend @Airbnb":

Beyonce’s Facebook (now deleted)

It was quickly reported that the particular Airbnb that Beyoncé was staying at was this one, which rents for $10,000 per night. The house is just outside San Fransisco in the town right next to Mountain View, and it looks super nice.

THE EVIDENCE:

Beyoncé is too classy to shill for stuff on her social media, right? She&039;s no Scott Disick, she&039;s fucking Beyoncé. She&039;s not posting crap like teeth whitening lights or hair growth gummies on Instagram. Why would she start now, with Airbnb?

Perhaps she just loved this particular rental, and wanted to shout it out. And isn&039;t the term “Airbnb” kind of almost like Kleenex at this point —a generic term to describe “rental home”? So maybe it&039;s not so weird she&039;d tag the company.

But do we think she paid for it? The place is 10 G&039;s a night – something that basically ONLY a Beyoncé can afford. That&039;s chump change to her, but it&039;s still … a lot of money&;

On the other hand, does the NFL pay for her accommodations as part of her performance fee for the Super Bowl? It&039;s not unusual for travel and accommodation fees to be added onto a musician&039;s performance fee. Or sometimes a large flat fee is offered, and any travel/hotel costs are built into that.

The halftime show is sponsored by Pepsi, a company that Beyoncé has done ads for and in 2012 made a $50 million deal with. Perhaps part of the deal is that Pepsi paid for her stay.

Or do we believe that Beyoncé isn&039;t posting anything about any company for free? If she&039;s tagging them, she&039;s getting paid?

THE VERDICT:

It was a freebie&033; According to reps for Airbnb, Beyoncé was not paid to post about her stay. However, a source familiar with the situation told BuzzFeed News that her rental fee was comped by Airbnb (the host got paid).

“We’re huge fans of Beyoncé and we’re thrilled to see her Facebook post and hope she was crazy in love with her Airbnb listing,” Airbnb wrote in a statement at the time. This is, you&039;ll notice, doesn&039;t indicate whatsoever that Beyoncé wasn&039;t a paying Airbnb customer — to me, this statement implies the opposite, that she is a paying customer.

The FTC has rules – lots of rules – about how bloggers or social media stars are supposed to disclose if they&039;re getting paid to post about a product or company. But these are confusing, especially if it&039;s not a paid ad, but a free gift like a comped hotel room – something that celebs get all the time. The general rule of thumb, though, is that the average person should be able to tell if something is an ad or not.

I consider myself pretty knowledgeable on this kind of stuff, and I couldn&039;t really tell. Bobby Finger, host of the Who? Weekly celebrity gossip podcast, wrote in Jezebel that he wasn&039;t sure if it was an ad, either. If someone whose job is writing and podcasting about celebrity gossip can&039;t tell if this was an ad or not, then how is the average person supposed to know? Especially when Airbnb PR&039;s statement to the press at the time was so ambiguous. Airbnb did not respond to several requests for comment from BuzzFeed News, and when the Washington Post wrote about how the lack of clarity may be an FTC violation of advertising rules, Airbnb did not respond their request for comment on wither or not it was actually an ad.

Getting a comped hotel doesn&039;t obviously feel the same as, say, a $50 million contract with Pepsi to do TV ads. So it&039;s very possible Beyoncé probably didn&039;t think of her post about Airbnb the same way she does about doing a TV ad for Pepsi.

But the FTC maybe does, based on its own rules. Last week, Bloomberg reported that the agency plans on cracking down on confusing celeb ads on social media. But how it plans on actually doing this isn&039;t really clear, and Bloomberg talked to many people in the advertising industry who said that the rules themselves aren&039;t even that clear.

The FTC&039;s moves so far have been to only dole out violations to the brands or ad agencies, not the individuals. This means if the FTC decided that Beyoncé&039;s post violated the rules, then it&039;s Airbnb who is on the hook for the misdeed, not the singer. (The agency does not comment on individual cases to the press.) And even then, the FTC doesn&039;t act on this often — in only been a handful of cases so far has it gone after a company for social media violations (most recently Warner Bros. for having video game vloggers doing positive reviews without disclosure).

Would the FTC have preferred it if Beyoncé had written “I was gifted a free vacation rental by Airbnb, but not paid to post about it”? Yes, I&039;m sure they would have liked that. But are they going to go after Beyoncé or Airbnb for not doing that? Who knows&033;

EPILOGUE:

A few months later, Justin Bieber stayed at that same Airbnb. While he Instagramed photos from inside the house, he didn&039;t give an Airbnb shoutout like Beyoncé did. Did he also get it for free? Who knows&033; Stay tuned for future installment of Is This An Ad?

Quelle: <a href="Is This An Ad? Beyoncé And Her Super Bowl Airbnb“>BuzzFeed

Instagram's Stories Is An Example Of Tech's Disgusting Anti-Lefty Bias

TBH, I think Instagram&;s new Snapchat-clone feature, “Stories”, is pretty good. There was a little bit of skepticism at first, but now that it&039;s been out for two weeks, people seem pretty into it. It&039;s fun to see people use Instagram in a more loose way without the pressure of feeling like you have to pick the perfect image for your feed. And Instagram has a big advantage for me over Snapchat stories: I follow way more people on Instagram already, so its stories are more fun since it&039;s a weird mix of people: celebrities, friends, randos, weird funny accounts.

But there is one thing that is FAR FAR FAR inferior to Snapchat:

It sucks for lefties.

I&039;ll explain: One of the cool features on Instagram stories is that you can easily go “back” to re-watch the previous person&039;s story as you&039;re tapping through. Snapchat doesn&039;t let you re-watch as easily – you have to go back to the homescreen and pick out the person you want to see again.

This maneuver is accomplished by tapping on the left-hand side of the screen. Left side tap means back, right side tap means forward.

A lefty tends to tap on the left side, which is “BACK”:

A lefty tends to tap on the left side, which is "BACK":

And herein lies the problem. If you&039;re a lefty, you&039;re more likely to be holding the phone in your left hand, tapping with your left thumb.

Since the left thumb is naturally closer to the left edge, you&039;re used to doing most general scrolling or tapping on the left edge. This means that you&039;re constantly accidentally hitting “back” and having to re-watch stories you don&039;t want to see again. If you want to go forward, you have to stretch your thumb across the screen, obscuring the visuals, or use another hand.

On Snapchat, you can only skip forward, but you can tap anywhere you please on the screen to skip ahead — no problem for lefties.

Silver pencil hand: the lefty&039;s curse in life.

Plenty of everyday objects have been inconvenient for the 1 out of 9 of the population who are lefties: can openers, spiral notebooks, school desks, scissors. We&039;ve learned to adapt (maybe that&039;s why we&039;re so much smarter).

Technological devices have added a new layer of inconvenience. Basic things like computer mice are designed for righties. Certain devices have their own built-in bias: Kindle Paperwhite wants you to “turn” the page by tapping on the right side of the screen (left is “back”). Only older models are ambidextrous page turners. I mean, it&039;s FINE, you can still turn a page, but it&039;s far less comfortable and convenient for someone who wants to mostly hold the device in their left hand.

And the Kindle app for iPad also has the same page-turning bias:

Look, it&039;s not like lefties can&039;t use Instagram. This isn&039;t life threatening or dangerous or anything like that. Accidentally hitting “back” a few times while thumbing through your friends&039; pics isn&039;t the worst thing in the world.

But left-handed people account for 1 out of 9 of us&; For a service like Instagram with an estimated 500 million users, that means something like 55 million lefties are now accidentally bonking the “back” button on Stories.

Product designers and user interface designers should be considering left-handed users when they&039;re designing these new features.

Listen up, Instagram: we demand lefty rights&033;

Quelle: <a href="Instagram&039;s Stories Is An Example Of Tech&039;s Disgusting Anti-Lefty Bias“>BuzzFeed