LIVEdigitally

Category Archives: Gadgets

What it Takes to Make a Successful Hardware Startup

Posted on by

First, let me congratulate YCombinator and the founders they’ll fund, for putting forth an initiative to support the until-very-recently-unsexy segment of hardware startups. This is great news for the anyone and everyone in the “Internet of Things” and “Wearable” and other related segments. I myself am a mentor to Highway One (another such incubator) and know there are others in the space as well.

Building a Slingbox

Building a Slingbox

By way of background, for those who don’t know me, I’ve been involved in hardware startups since 1999, as a cofounder of Mediabolic (acquired by Rovi in 2006), VP of Products for Sling Media (acquired by DISH in 2007), and a former product consultant to great companies like Bug Labs, Boxee, D-Link, DivX, Dropcam, and many others (I’m getting all nostalgic here!). Having spent almost 20 years building mostly successful gadgets of one kind or another, I thought it might be good to chime in on the topics raised by some of the YC HW founders, and add my own “recipes for success” to share with other founders.

Hardware is still very hard.  
Seems amazing to me that, while things have gotten notably easier, anyone could possibly come to the conclusion that hardware startups are easy. You need expertise in so many fields, from distribution to marketing to manufacturing to support, and have so little wiggle room (more in a moment), it’s almost mind-boggling. And when things go wrong (more on that coming too), and things always go wrong, it’s entirely possible that there’s not enough resources/knowledge/etc to ever recover. TL;DR: there’s no pivots or growth hacking in hardware.

HW requires some fundamentally different skill sets than Software.
In software/app/web startups, there are a lot of skills that transfer easily, whether across platforms, segments, borders, etc. This is rarely true for a hardware startup where, for example, a very experienced customer acquisition/marketing specialist may find themselves completely in unfamiliar territory when building a distribution strategy. And from what I’ve seen across my career, not a single HW startup comprised of highly competent founders with no hardware background has shown tremendous success. TL;DR: make sure you have domain experts in your team.

You need to know what can go wrong with HW.
I’ll address the “what can go wrong” topic one more time below, but I guess I can’t emphasize enough: more can and will go wrong than you’ve ever thought possible. Ever have your manufacturer swap out specified memory chips in your device, not tell you, and not QA them prior to shipping to customers? Check. Ever have your CM have their assets seized mid-way through a production run, putting all your pre-paid inventory into a massive governmental lawsuit? Check. Ever have your rep tell you the design is being met to 100%, only you can see with plain eyes that they are cutting circles into the mold by hand? Check. Ever have your packaging fail to meet a retailers’ drop-test, one week after loading up endcaps? Check. Ever have a chipmaker massively exaggerate a platform’s capabilities, and not be able to learn the truth until 60 days before shipping? Check. TL;DR: start with the expectation that some unimaginable thing will go awry; never forget it.

You should raise more money / funding than you plan for.
Here’s a mind-boggler: success can bankrupt your HW startup as easily as failure. How, you might ask? Because with every month/quarter’s sales, you must order and plan for the next month, and do so without necessarily seeing revenue.  Basically if you’re getting orders from retailers, you need to plan for growth. And order the parts for future orders. And what happens when volume increases? So do cost of goods (even if the per-unit cost is dropping due to scale). I’ve seen this multiple times before: companies scramble to project ahead, order either too much or too little inventory, and run out of money along the way. TL;DR: you will incur costs prior to revenue and need oodles of cash on hand to manage!

The first media streamer!

The first media streamer!

HW requires a deeper understanding of customers / markets.
Its fine/great to start a software company and slowly learn the features that drive adoption, or discover hidden market opportunities. The ability to tweak products and meet different opportunities is the beauty of the modern startup. But this doesn’t work in hardware – you can’t add a button, change a component, etc to a product in the market. Sure if it’s a “headless” device (like a Slingbox or Dropcam) you can always improve the end-user software experience. But need more memory, or an extra port of some kind? Welcome to 2.0. TL;DR: there’s no such thing as a lean hardware startup.

You need a better “crystal ball”.
For the most part, since you are starting 6-18 months away from first customer ship, you need to pull a Wayne Gretzky. It’s not about where the puck is, it’s about where is the puck going? What technology/infrastructure will change in the interim? A product I had designed for a huge consumer electronics company won accolades and awards from retailers, industry professionals, etc. And then the world turned HD in an amazingly short window, and the product got killed. Done, game over. TL;DR: your HW startup vision should make bankable assumptions about the world 18-36 months from now.

Solid backup plan for when things go wrong.
So I’ve identified a plethora of things that can go wrong. Now what happens when something delays your device by 4 months (a fairly reasonable timeframe, if not longer)? What do you do with the ad inventory you’ve pre-agreed to? How about your marketing team you’ve been recruiting and hiring? Or the conference you paid to launch at? How do you keep up morale? TL;DR: have a plan in place, from day one, assuming a multi-month delay will occur at some point prior to launch.

It’s a very exciting time for hardware entrepreneurs, and it’s very true that the resources available to them today are far superior than anything before. But in all candor, most of this new support and infrastructure doesn’t actually fix the fundamental struggles that come along with making things. I’m looking forward to the next crop of must-have gadgets, and hope the above tips and thoughts help any readers who come along.



Why Apple Watch Pricing is Brilliant

Posted on by

90s-snap-bracelet-photolist-500Until Monday I was “that guy” fully believing Apple wouldn’t introduce a “watch” – maybe some kind of wearable (I had imagined a slap-wrist bracelet thing with Apple awesomeness) – but not a watch. I felt that (a) some kind of “remote extension” to the iPhone/iPad made a ton of sense but (b) “nobody” wants a watch. And then team Apple strutted their beautiful stuff, and I thought “gee willikers, at $99 that could just be a hugely adopted mainstream device.” But when the $349 price tag appeared, I scoffed and hemmed and hawed (note: no, I didn’t actually haw).

I woke up this morning thinking a little different. At $349 they might just have created another phenom.

At $99, I’ve realized, it may have been ready for mass adoption, but then – the masses may well have not adopted it. It’d be up for comparison with the various crud coming out of generic manufacturers. But not at $349.

What I believe Mr Cook and his cadre have created, at this much higher price point, is another high-falutin product. One owned by those with disposable income, enough that they’d “toss it away” on a “gimmicky” product. One with built-in scarcity.

In other words: they are re-creating want in a product, maybe even almost-need to those who can’t just have it.

Unlike the iPad, whose value I saw upon announcement, the Apple Watch is not so clearly framed in my mind. I can’t yet visualize how I’d use it on a day-to-day basis, which always slows down my likelihood to adopt.

But, I can now see the want that consumers will inevitably feel. The pride with which the early adopters will strut down the streets, wearing obviously too-short sleeves to ensure that everyone around will see they were first.  And one day it’ll drop to $299, then eventually some much more accessible price, perhaps even as low as $99 for a Watch Mini in a few years. Smart.

Thoughts on Amazon Fire TV

Posted on by

amazon_fire_tvLet me open by saying: clear win for Amazon. Here’s why:

  • Internet streamers are still a growing market, only present in less than a quarter of US households – not to mention International opportunities. Bringing *any* product to market under the Amazon brand is sufficient to move units. Amazon has an amazing channel to sell through, and numerous reports cite them as the #1 outlet for both Chromecast and Roku products.
  • It’s at worst a good-enough product, at best it’s the most thoroughly designed Internet STB available on the market today. Unlike the first gen of Kindle Fire, which had to compete against a mature iPad, there’s nothing utterly amazing in the category to compare against.
  • Supporting non-Amazon content is brilliant. I think they could’ve pulled off a winner just by supporting Amazon Prime and Amazon Instant Video, but now it opens up to anyone who watches any streaming content. Plus, just as Apple TV helps sell iTunes content, I’d be shocked to discover that FireTV households don’t slowly convert into Amazon content customers.
  • I’ve heard some naysay (already!) about the price point, and how it should be cheaper than Apple TV to compete. Totally disagree, no reason to do this as there’s no other magic point under $99 other than hitting $49, which I don’t see a reason to do.

Other stuff I like:

  • Voice search seems nicely done, especially in context with the mess of any 10-foot-UI experience.
  • Gaming! Very smart to make this a core component of the platform – I actually hope this remains in the cheap, simple, and easy category of gaming. Not that I don’t love trying to push 17 buttons on my Xbox controller simultaneously, but I think “Big Gaming” is just too complex these days and there’s a latent opportunity for simpler stuff.
  • Gary Busey

My two minor (emphasis on minor) missed opportunities:

  • HDMI passthrough. The single good aspect of the original Logitech Google TV product was HDMI passthrough – it let the end-user connect the device to the fought-after Input One, and work well. While I know adding passthrough isn’t going to sell any more Fire TV’s, it’s one of those little things I’ve been hoping for.
  • Not Free With Prime. Okay, this isn’t exactly fair to complain about, but I harbored this suspicion that Amazon would offer the Fire TV free with a 2-year Prime subscription. Now they always can just start a program like this, but I think it’d be a major wow-er out of the gate.

Let me close this this: building products is hard. Building really good products is very very hard. To get a 1.0 product out of the gate in such a strong state is impressive work, and while many might call it a “me-too”, I don’t. I think this is the exact right first step for Amazon in the living room, and will keep an eye on where it goes from here.

Prediction: Amazon Fire TV is the #2 Internet STB on the market (behind Apple) within 2 years.

Also, and again, Gary Busey.

Curved TVs are the new 3DTVs

Posted on by

20140108-162233.jpgApparently the hot, buzzy thing at CES this year is the curved OLED TVs. I saw one – it’s very very pretty. And much like the last 2 attempts by manufacturers to stir up interest in buying new sets, this just isn’t going to cut it.

Firstly, we all need to acknowledge the massive rush to buy new sets last decade occurred because of *multiple* factors that contributed to a zeitgeist-level shift in set ownership:

  • Thinness: sets went from being 2 feet deep to 6 inches or less deep
  • Size: sets went from 27 inches to 50 inches
  • Resolution: shift from below standard definition to high definition
  • Quality: not only the raw resolution, but every aspect of picture quality was obviously visually improved
  • Sex appeal: being early to having a plasma was sexy – then when it became mainstream enough, not having some kind of flatscreen was definitively unsexy
  • Format shifts: simultaneous to new sets, tons of new content was instantly available – and not just new content, but libraries of favorites were accessible
  • Set price: getting a flatscreen (at Costco!) was very very affordable
  • Content price: while VHS libraries were only for the few, building a collection of your favorite DVDs was relatively inexpensive (for younger readers: VHS tapes in the early 90s would sell for $80 or so)

All of the above occurred in an effective blink of an eye. There were so many reasons to to upgrade, it just had to happen.

But now that these beautiful, thin, huge displays got mounted on peoples’ walls, it’s become a lot harder to unmount them. I don’t even want to think about doing it – and I don’t think the manufacturers have yet presented us a reason to follow along.

Smart TV? OK, if I’m buying a new set. Or I just get an Apple TV, Roku, Xbox, Playstation, Chromecast, etc. I gain very little benefit from an actual set upgrade, compared with the cost of an add-on box that I can easily replace. It’s akin in my eyes to paying the extra $3+K for an in-dash GPS unit as opposed to buying a $100 Garmin, or just using my phone.

2nd try: 3dTV? Personally, I actually avoided one the last time I bought a set (63″ Samsung plasma – yes!). Turns out I wasn’t the only one, and 3d was (as I predicted it would be) quite a failure.

Batter up…. CURVED SETS! Huh? Don’t get me wrong – they are pretty in so many ways. Thinner than my iPad – love it, very slick. But would I even consider the hassle of the upgrade for it? Same deal for 4K – just not *enough* to cause another societal shift for “MORE”. Further, I think the curved nature of the device is an ill-fit for most living rooms, where the benefit of super-thin is eliminated by the odd shape in the room. Has anyone checked if these things are Feng Shui?

Sooner or later we’ll likely find the next big reason to upgrade displays, but it’ll have to rank in there in the leagues of when TV was first available to the masses, to when it first went color, to the current state, before it happens.

What a Next-Gen Apple TV Could Bring

Posted on by

While I’m not as bullish as others that the following tweet should be taken as gospel, I’ve been thinking a lot recently on what a new version of an Apple TV product could look like.

So, in no particular order… “why update the Apple TV?”

  • 4K video
    I wouldn’t bet on this, at all, since there’s virtually no content available today, and probably won’t be much in the next 24-36 months.  If 4K looks promising, they can rev again in the future.  Further, Apple has historically *not* led in this category, and I’d be surprised to see them do it this time.
  • Rich SDK
    Yes, there are plenty of apps available for Apple TV today, but access is limited and granted in an ad-hoc fashion to selected content providers.  Many folks assume one day they’ll open this up to a wider developer network -as in, all developers.  I know very little about the programmability/guts of the Apple TV, but I have to assume the current one simply wasn’t designed to be uber-expandable.  As a sub-point, I *could* see an argument for an extension of iOS here, but I’d hope it’d be a differentiated offering to relate to the different UI mechanisms.
  • HDMI Passthrough
    For the literal heaps of things Google TV has done wrong, HDMI passthrough was smart.  Enabling the Apple TV to sit on Input 1 at all times enables no-input switching for any connected experience.  But even better than that, it’s not a stretch to see a version of AirPlay with a, wait for it, transparent layer.  What does that mean?  Imagine every cool thing about Interactive TV you’ve ever heard or thought of, minus all the lame stuff, now have it actually work, powered by your iPhone/iPad.  Awesome.
  • Gaming
    Many of us already believe the next generation of consoles is doomed, but what if the Apple TV came with an optional joystick and as much gaming horsepower as an iPad or Xbox 360, and stayed at the $99 price point?  It’s the exact opposite strategy Microsoft is taking with their platform (gaming first, everything else second), but since about 1998 that’s pretty much a winning approach.

And that’s it – which is telling in its own way.  There’s no other “basic” TV/streaming need to upgrade the current hardware, and Apple certainly isn’t going to put out a new version without a very specific reason.  Perhaps I’m missing something (comment please!), but I am at a loss to come up with any other drivers for new hardware.   Oh, and yes, I’m ruling out Siri, physical motion gestures, cameras, etc – while any could certainly come at some point, they aren’t going to exist without one of the above as well.

Which leaves me with the following: if you do not think the above reasons are compelling, and you can’t come up with a better one, I think you can pretty much write off a new piece of hardware.  Further, I have strong convictions that the only truly viable option above is adding a Rich SDK/open developers kit, so if we don’t see that next week, I don’t think we see any new device show up either.

Expectations and Thoughts for CES 2013

Posted on by

I love the smell of CES in the morning.  Seriously, I *love* CES (here’s my walkthrough the show last year with Robert Scoble – be warned – its 45 minutes long), though I’d love to see them move it back in the year a few weeks.  CES is like SXSW, except people actually get some work done in addition to all the partying.  I love the vaporware demos sandwiched in between the unnecessarily huge screens and the neon. Lots and lots of neon.  LOVE IT – and no, this isn’t a long, drawn out sarcastic rant.  But I’m taking a break from my annual “CES Tips” lists, as there’s nothing substantive to add.  Instead, here’s some thoughts on what I’m expecting next week:

Nothing Revolutionary
That might sound weird, but I’m just not expecting any “big new thing” at this year’s show, instead lots of “mostly better things than last year”.  Bigger screens.  Thinner screens.  Lighter phones.  Longer batteries.  The major keynotes are from Qualcomm, Panasonic, Verizon, and Samsung – not one of these companies has a history of revolutionizing the show.

But yet, lots of cool updates
While nothing should blow us away, I’m expecting tons of improvements to other products.  More smart TVs with more smarterness to them.   Lots of UltraHD/4K TVs (sigh). More well-done AirPlay integrated devices.  It’ll be fun.

Especially OLED
Coolest thing at CES 2012 were the 4MM thick OLED TVs that didn’t ship in 2012, despite promises they would.  Coolest thing at CES 2013 will be the 4MM OLED TVs that might actually ship in 2013.

Meme Prediction: Complaints about the lack of stuff
If there’s one thing that follows the theme of “nothing revolutionary” its listening to everyone, their mother, and their mother’s facebook friends complain about nothing being new at the show. You shouldn’t be expecting something big, and whining about how you could’ve stayed home is just annoying.

Potential sleepers: Verizon & Qualcomm
Interestingly, both have keynotes, and both have large booths (and near each other).  If I had to put money on “doing something unexpectedly big” I’d place on either, or both of these companies.

What I’d love to see, but don’t expect
Flexible displays.  I’ll go so far as saying there’ll be *nothing* exciting in consumer electronics and mobile devices between now and when the first generation of devices with flexible/bendable displays arrive.  So I’ve got a secret hope that even prototype stuff will emerge from someone’s labs at this year’s show.

What I’m already bored of: More Tablets
I still haven’t seen a single product from a single company that defines a “tablet market” and I’m not expecting that to change at CES.  But, I am expecting loads of cheap tablets that might do well overseas, which is all fine and good.  Yawn.

I’m Betting On: Smarterer TVs
Every single TV company will announce new Smart TVs.  And every one of them will continue to make TVs that are harder to use than they were before.  Bummer.

Who Will Be Missing?
Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple – the four companies that would make the show dramatically more interesting.

That’s about all I can think of.  Shame is I’ve got so many other commitments at the show this year I have no idea if I’ll even get to walk the floor.  C’est La CES, C’est La Vie!

5 New Reasons Why Apple Might Not Build a TV, Yet.

Posted on by

So my last time around, I was pretty “pro” on the debate of Apple building a television set device product thing. I actually was following the topic fairly heavily, and bullishly, through CES last year, when the topic just kinda sorta disappeared.  For a bit I had a hunch they had intended to launch one in the Winter of 2012, then something fell apart with it, as the rumor mill simply hasn’t been the same since.

The two reasons I surmise why they may have planned, then pulled, a set are: (1) they weren’t happy with the physical product, possibly as a direct result of LG/Samsung demoing OLED TVs at CES this year, or (2) couldn’t pull together the content/partnerships they needed to make it the success they demand.  Then again, maybe they never had a plan to do one and finally the tech media moved on to another topic.

But here I am just shy of a year since my last post, and with some new thoughts.  In no particular order…

1) Apple makes “small” stuff. Every current product they make can be easily carried out of a store.  In fact, you can almost sense it by comparing sales rates of iPhones/iPads to iMacs.  TVs are even bigger, and while Apple has magic, you just can’t shrink the physical requirements of shipping around 55″ flat panels. While they could certainly have a white glove level of service, it doesn’t “feel” Apple to me if I can’t get it in the store, and bring it home – now. Apple is amazing at satisfying the on-demand lifestyle, and a big bulky box shipped to your door isn’t quite the same.

2) Apple makes “frequently replaced” stuff. Every current consumer product Apple makes has replacement cycles under 4 years, some 1-2. TV is 7+ and I don’t see that changing.  There’s a certain point at which the inconvenience and hassle of mounting (and unmounting) big things to walls trumps the sexiness of any product.  It’s one thing to decide on a whim you’ll replace your phone or laptop, it’s another to deal with TVs and inputs.  And even if there’s a magical solution for wall-mounting and a magical solution for cable management and a magical solution for set-top boxes, game consoles, and other equipment, consumers are used to this cycle, and that’s a much much harder thing to change.

3) Apple makes “clean” stuff. Of all my Apple products, my iMac has the most potential cables to connect, most of which aren’t used, and comes with wireless peripherals. My iPad has but one.  Clean, simple, elegant – Apple.  TVs, on the other hand, must be connected to other stuff.  Unless they can actually solve A/V Receivers, Set-Top Boxes, Game Consoles, and DVD/Blu-Ray Players in a single product, this mess continues to exist.  The living room TV world is practically defined by gozintas, so unless this is a TV set just for my bedroom, or Apple can convince consumers to replace a whole lot of other boxes, it’s putting an Apple product inside a big mess.  Doesn’t feel like their style as I see it.

4) Apple makes “transformative” stuff. Smartphones before Apple, with the exception of Palm products (early days) and a few other rarities, were ugly clunky awful things that came with plastic pens. Then the iPhone came, and most smartphones are better as a result.  The iPad too, transformed the entire concept of a tablet, one so good nobody else is even realistically in the market right now (and probably won’t be for a while).  They did it before with the original iMacs.  In each case, there was an experience to transform.  But TV isn’t broken in nearly the same way – yes, there are issues, but for the most part, most consumers utterly love the way TV works today. Further, in order to transform a TV experience, Apple would need to go leaps and bounds beyond current offerings.  I’ll never count the company out on anything, but the entrenched TV ecosystem is a bigger badder monster than anyone’s taken on before.  I have a very, very hard time seeing a transformation happening here.

5) Apple makes “well-distributed” stuff.  Every Apple product is available anywhere in the US, as well as Canada and oodles of other countries.  Even when the iPhone was only on AT&T you could buy it – you might have to switch carriers, but you could buy it.  Many rumors put Apple partnering with cable companies (eg buy an Apple Television from Comcast with a 2-year contract, at a steep discount), but this limits distribution regionally in a major way.  This would force them to deal only with satellite companies, but that brings an entirely different set of hurdles.  This effectively rules out distribution partners as a deployment vehicle, which then in turn limits the product to being a “dumb set” – something that seems even less likely for the company.

I may be wrong.  Heck, it’s Apple, they know how to solve problems others can’t even begin to figure out.  Let’s also be real and notice that their little “hobby” is already the #1 Internet streamer on the market, in a single year! But something about the magic needed to make a TV might be out of reach for a little while longer here.  Seems like until OLEDs become affordable (or some other equivalent step up) and until there’s a viable MVPD with full Internet distribution, we are going to have to wait a little longer for a glowing bezel to show up in our houses.

Is Amazon Building a Kindle Set-Top Box?

Posted on by

I'm awesome at photoshop! I hope it doesn't look like this!

I’m pretty sure the headline here says it all.  Let’s review the facts (it might be worth re-reading my bit on why HBO doesn’t go direct to consumers, as many of those issues are addressed here):

  1. Amazon has a large content library. They are actively increasing it.
  2. Amazon has a content distribution platform already capable of streaming to non-PC devices.
  3. Amazon has a recurring billing relationship with consumers.
  4. Amazon has a (phenomenal) marketing and distribution channel for getting devices into consumers houses.
  5. Amazon has a strong brand in the hardware space.
  6. Amazon has the customer service & support infrastructure needed to deal with service issues.
  7. Amazon has the ability to build hardware and deal with supply chain issues.
  8. The TV services industry is huge, and Amazon wants in.

Even if they don’t plan to decouple content from Amazon Prime, making a box is a very viable, and, in my opinion, a likely move.  In addition to all of the above, it is a strong move versus Apple (and possibly Google and Microsoft too).

A $99 Amazon Kindle TV box would not surprise me this coming holiday season (how about a September launch, right in time for school?).  But then again, I occasionally get Kindle predictions wrong.

Kinda saw this one coming, didn't ya?

Oh, and one more thing.  What if they do it by acquiring Roku?  Let’s review that scenario:

  1. Roku already has something better than a minimum viable product.
  2. Amazon could skip all the work on developing a new UI/UX (regardless of your feelings on the Roku UX, it is well more than functional).
  3. Roku isn’t a sustainable business yet, enabling Amazon to purchase at a reasonable price.
  4. Roku has a team with a strong background and industry knowledge relevant to the TV/Device space.
  5. Amazon can distribute the same hardware at the same price point (which seems to fall in the not-too-profitably category), yet supplement with reliable recurring revenue.
  6. Amazon wouldn’t have to drop the Netflix service, but could slowly chip away at it from within.
  7. It’s cheaper than trying to buy Xbox from Microsoft (though that’d be quite the coup, plus nobody would even need to relocate)

I don’t really think Amazon *needs* to buy Roku, but it would probably let them fast-track a bunch of steps.  And then it could be a $49 Kindle TV, which just sounds so… right.

Talking Future of TV & CES 2012 With Robert Scoble

Posted on by

I first met Robert back in my Slingbox days, and now we get together a few times a year to chat tech in general, kid stuff, but especially gadgetry. He sat down with myself and Maksim (the CEO of Dijit) this past summer, and a couple of weeks ago I went to see him and his new digs at Rackspace HQ. Here’s the video:

A quick summary of what we discussed:

  • CES 2012
  • Gadgets
  • Future of TV
  • Social TV
  • CES 2011
  • Kids
  • Tech
  • Facebook
  • CES 2010
  • Gadgets
  • TV
  • Dijit’s iPad app
  • CES (all others)

And for a fun flashback, here’s the video from our chat right before CES 2009:

good times, Robert, thanks!

Why Your Gadgets Don't Play Nice With Each Other

Posted on by

I’m in the business of helping make your devices and gadgets work better and more seamlessly in your home.  But the truth is, if the industry made just a few simple decisions differently along the way, I wouldn’t have a business to be in.  The “remote control overload” problem we all have comes primarily as a result of your devices being digitally ignorant of each other.  Which, from the consumers’ perspective, sucks (industry term).  But the reason this sucks more than it seems is that your devices could be talking already, they just… don’t.  And they don’t in two different ways!

Connection-based compatibility – HDMI
Pretty much every HD product shipped in the past ~5 years has an HDMI connection. And HDMI has this protocol cleverly called Consumer Electronics Control – you can guess what it’s for.  It’s been part of the HDMI specification since the very beginning. And in general, virtually no manufacturers use it to control other brands’ products, though even more egregiously they even use this protocol to control their own products.  So your Samsung TV knows when a Samsung Blu-Ray player starts a movie playback, but ignores a Denon receiver’s request to change inputs. Fail.

"standards".

Network-based compatibility – DLNA

Back in the early aughts, there was this thing called the Digital Home Working Group, formed by several consumer electronics companies with the specific goal of – wait for it – making sure that consumers’ electronics products would work together harmoniously.  The DHWG was renamed into the friendlier Digital Living Network Alliance, and then launched in 2004. I was personally on the original working groups for the (both?) organization(s?).  Even at the time, it was beyond obvious that this open standard by committee approach wasn’t going to give consumers the solutions they were looking for.  7 years later, and I’d assert that consumer awareness of DLNA is negligible, and the standard has yet to provide the industry a reliable solution.  

So there we are, oodles of technology, tens of thousands (if not more) of man-hours developing standards and platforms, and still, consumers have to deal with the “input one” problem (in a nutshell: devices connected to anything but the first/primary input of a TV tend not to get used, with the lone standout exception being video game consoles, which is likely due to a) more explosions and b) children operating the equipment).  Why is this the case? My friend Julie Jacobson ponders a little conspiracy theory over at CEPro.

My sinister plot scenario is actually much simpler.  I think there are specifically two reasons why consumer electronics products don’t do anything “advanced connectivity”-wise together:

  1. It’s hard to make it a priority.
    Testing technology, in general, is challenging.  QA can take as long as actual development time, often more.  Many products get rushed to market even before the testing is complete.  So imagine, if you are the person in charge of shipping the product, and your marketing team probably (a) announced prematurely and (b) likely set expectations too high.  You are likely underresourced, understaffed, and concerned about just shipping at all (or maybe a few weeks too soon?).  How much energy do you think you’d spend on testing other companies’ products?  Right, me too.

    I'm not in charge of line-straightening, that's a different department.

  2. It’s not financially rewarding to make it a priority.
    As illustrated above, just getting the darn product to market is a major chore.  Further, you know that much of your sales and success in the marketplace have to do with product reviews, as well as customer ratings (and worth of mouth and social media, etc – but these all come from the quality of the product itself).  Lastly, you know that virtually no reviewer, either “expert” or “typical consumer” is going to take the time to really do a lot of testing of compatibility, unless of course you claim compatibility.  So if you don’t, and just sit back on the sidelines and phone it in when it comes to cross-brand compatibility, it isn’t going to hurt your product sales or market perception in any meaningful way.

The only meaningful standards to expect in living room are (1) most content should be able to play on most devices, and (b) most devices should use the same cables as most other devices, and (c) most devices will come with arbitrarily confusing directions as to how to connect said cables.  Oh, and don’t forget (d) most devices will not come with the cable you really need at 11:30pm when you finally get to setting it up.

Maybe they'd do better if they stopped asking for my phone number just so I can buy some more AA's?

No, Microsoft, this will not do. Not at all.

Posted on by

Microsoft introduced Windows 8 for developers today, with a specific focus on their take on the tablet.  Now some are fawning over this, but they clearly don’t recall a summer day in 2005 when Microsoft showed off Vista for the first time.  I was there. It was, in a word awesome. The early demos of Vista blew us all away, it was as if we were at the Windows 95 launch all over again.  Then Windows Vista came out, it was *nothing* like the demos, the train blew through the station, and the company’s been in a bit of a quagmire ever since, losing market share as well as credibility and prestige in virtually every category (other than Xbox).

roughly as on target as Vista was...

So today, when they show us a decently cool looking version of a tablet that isn’t going to ship for another year, after series of missteps, I’m sorry if I don’t really get particularly excited.  Particularly when I see it’s got a fan inside.  This entire move, yet again, makes me wonder: who on Earth are they building this for? What is the real market opportunity here?  Even if the Windows 8 tablet *is* as good as the current generation iPad 2, that’s chasing a product that’s already 6 months old, and will be 18 months old by the time they are in the market.  Didn’t these guys watch the movie called “HP and the Wacky Adventures of the TouchPad”?  We’ve seen how it ends!

works like nothing... else...

There really is a great market for non-iPad tablet devices, there are a few in fact.  And Microsoft is perfectly poised to build a really great tablet.  But I don’t think that perfect Microsoft tablet is about consumers, nor is it about Windows.  These markets are, at present and for the foreseeable future, mostly closed to Microsoft, and they’ll have little luck there.  So empty your heads, don’t think of anything – they’ve only got one shot at this. Microsoft needs to focus on the other key product they have, the one software package Apple can’t really touch, the one where they make a boatload of cash.  Yup, it’s Office.

yes, that WAS a Ghostbusters quote, well played!

I can write another 1000 or words on the topic, but I’m going to keep this one short and sweet.  There is unquestionably a great business opportunity in a tablet device with a great Office productivity software suite.  If the iPad is a consumption/entertainment device, then for jebus’ sake, Microsoft, learn how to cross-program, and offer a completely different thing.  And do it really well, with no big committees, and nobody who’s worked for the company for more than say 4 years.  And then go let Dell build it.  Oh, and don’t standardize (read: compromise) – make one product that works one way, no drivers, fragmentation, or anything else.

ah, that's how they get so much done!

And please, don’t tell me about it until it’s ready to ship.

Musing on Apple Building a Television

Posted on by

I don’t think I’ve ever waffled on a topic as much as this one.  Back in ’07 I wrote two articles on Apple “owning” the living room and building TVs.  Ever since, I’ve gone full tilt in both directions.  Until about a week ago, I agreed firmly with Erik Schwartz on the topic, as he wrote today:

I am quite sure that there has been a team at Apple working on TV projects for literally the last 20 years. I am also quite confident that they are not going to release a TV in the near future.  (read more)

He continued to espouse on the four issues he saw: Margins, Replacement Cycles, Logistics, and Integration.  And on all four counts, I’ve agreed with him.

But now I have second thoughts.  My friend and coworker Adam Burg has long been a believer of “iTelevision” as has Dijit (and TiVo and many others) investor Stewart Alsop (who was quoted today in VentureBeat’s article on the topic).  For them, and many others, the rumors were way too much smoke for a lack of fire.  And on that point, I tend to agree that the rumors are a little stronger than what the Apple PR team will let flow when there’s no substance whatsoever.

So first, the case against iTelevision

Generally speaking, the two strongest “con” arguments are:

1. The margins in TVs suck, and since you can’t get away from the reality check of what it takes/costs to make a TV (hint: glass), the margins will suck for Apple too, and Apple doesn’t play in the “sucky margin” business.  This would force Apple to make a notably more expensive TV than anyone else, and even Apple can’t somehow get people to spend $1500 on the same sized screen they can have from Samsung for $1000.

We make THIS many!

2. The TV replacement cycle sucks, as the average family won’t replace a TV for ~7-8 years, and that’s not a world Apple typically plays in either.  Unlike phones (1 year) and PCs (2-3 years), consumers won’t be up for buying a new set very frequently, and the concept of having an “outdated” television will cause more infuriated people than Apple typically likes to create.  Note: this is a concern of the entire “Smart TV” industry (well, it’s probably not, but it really should be), and you can mark my words that backlash is going to hit these manufacturers in the next 6-12 months.

I’ve had a 3rd argument personally, which is Apple can’t make an iTelevision for $1000 whilst selling a “$99 upgrade” Apple TV product that brings the same functionality/services to any other manufacturer’s device.  Now the counter to that would be the Apple TV is there to enable wider content consumption, etc, but it’s still generally considered a “no-no” to cannibalize your own market.

We'll pre-announce while our existing product is on the market. What could possibly go wrong?

So now, why I’ve come around, and the case for iTelevision. I’ll start by refuting the arguments above.

1. Apple makes awesome margins on everything. If Apple’s building a TV, they’ve figured out their own amazing supply chain methodology to do it profitably.  Very profitably.  So if everyone else is selling a 50″ LCD for $999, they will too, only instead of making less per unit than the price of a really good bowl of soup, Apple will rake in the cash as they go.  They are the only tablet manufacturer selling at a real profit (HP not withstanding.  What, too soon?),  and I see no reason why, if they enter this space, they won’t do the same thing.

2. Apple will change or solve the replacement cycle issue.   Before iPhones, the US market was radically less likely to buy a new phone every year.  I have a much harder time accepting that Apple can successfully convince people to lug a 50″ screen home (and correspondingly, out of their home) once a year (or every other year).  This is way too painful a process, even for a fanboy.

I'm on a truck!

This implies either Apple can make a TV that is easy to move/replace or the components which would require upgrade can be guaranteed upgradeable for a few years.  Both are actually feasible, though the former requires some more impressive technology (flexible or roll-up displays, for example, could do it).  The latter is probably more likely – after all, even the original iPhone can still run a lot of the apps that are on the market.  What would matter the most here is that each generation of iTelevision is guaranteed to mostly compatible with the same content offerings as future generations (in other words, regardless of apps and whatnot, if Johnny Homeowner’s TV can only play 1/3 of the movies as his neighbor, he’s pissed – if he can play mostly the same stuff, just no Angry Birds, he’s less so).

3. They could coexist, if the other product is iTelevision and it isn’t the same thing as an Apple TV. So if the rumored iTelevision isn’t about “Apple TV inside a flatscreen” and is instead something new/different, this could be more feasible.  I’ve heard and debated scenarios ranging from built-in DVRs to TV tuners to CableCard and more.  Here’s all I know: whatever they do will be fully end-to-end thought out.  You won’t buy an Apple TV then have to go to the mall to pick up a CableCard.  You will do everything in an Apple store or online (or from your phone), and it’ll just work.

If I have to weight the pros vs cons these days, I have to say, the pros seem to have it.  Will it come out in 2011 or 2012? Hard to say.  Will they dominate the TV market the way they dominate tablets? Unquestionably NO, but they’ll probably profit more off the sales of TVs than anyone else, more akin to what they do in phones.  Will they shock us with their offering when it comes out? Probably, though probably in the same “why isn’t everybody just doing it that way” style they do with everything else.  Will they create a massive gaping wound in the side of the TV industry, and opportunity for a brand new type of ecosystem to emerge?  Absolutely.

Now, back to the waffling.