LIVEdigitally

Category Archives: Convergence

Why Smart TV User Interfaces Suck

Posted on by

Please don’t look at the following images on a full stomach:


Ok, sorry I had to do that, but it’s important.  And to my friends on the TV manufacturing side of the world – it’s not your fault!  It’s not your fault! Most “Smart TV” user interfaces, suck, and you’re doing your best.  But fundamentally they violate so many rules of user experience design. But why are they so bad?  In a nutshell, its for the same reason you don’t expect loggers to sell fancy high-end furniture (think about that one for a second).  The products are being built from the wrong end of the production team.

For the dining room table, what do you think, arrow foot or ball foot?

Let’s agree that user experience design is a challenge to begin with.  Apple does it great, everyone else, not so much – and even Apple products have flaws.  Further, virtually everything about a “ten foot” user interface (the terminology we use to describe what happens on-screen on your TV) is a broken interaction model, so this is going to be crippled no matter what.  I’ll write about this more in the future, but I believe there’s a fundamental breakdown on the limitations of what you can do with any 10′ UI and a remote control, regardless of gestures, speech, etc.

Next, per my logger analogy, effectively the teams building these products have absolutely no experience nor expertise at this kind of design.  The world of consumer electronics has (barely) evolved from dials, knobs, and switches to doing highly complicated interfaces on screens.  Not only that, every year the requirements are changing!

And since this is a new field (despite almost 20 years worth of ten-foot UIs), there are very very few folks out there who have dived deeply into this problem (the Wikipedia page on the topic barely even requires a scrollbar to read everything).  So the same people who are used to just getting the TV to work right, are now also in charge of creating “an experience”.  I think this is a guaranteed to fail situation, and it’s unfortunate for everyone involved.

The last "easy" TV user interface.

I do have some tips and thoughts for these UIs, since I can’t effectively get everyone to just up and stop making them (pretty please?).  First, you can read my comments a while back on designing better Boxee and Google TV apps.  Now, here’s three more things to think about:

  • Stop making things look like Commodore 64 graphics.  Seriously, I understand the graphics processors inside the TV platforms are low powered inexpensive solutions, but people have a natural (bad) reaction to seeing such low quality graphics on their beautiful HD sets.  If you can’t match them up, find ways to cut down on the overall interface and use the scarce resources to make things prettier.  See Boxee, Google TV, and Apple TV for the “prettier” 10-foot experiences.

Now in beautiful Full 1080p HD

  • Understand a 2D “grid” of options.  Many of these UIs create multiple planes of interfaces, yet fail to recognize the user has to navigate with a simple UDLR remote control (or wand or whatever).  This creates unpredictable experiences, and makes your user less naturally comfortable with the interface.  You should be able to look at the screen and always know “what happens if I push the Up arrow button”.
  • Reduce button clicks.  At no point should the user have to click more than 3 times to get from one part of the screen to another, and you should never create an internal scrollable region.  For example, my VUDU service (which I love) has me scroll through long lists of movies when browsing a category (such as Comedy/Drama, which, let’s face it, really means depressing movie with some funny moments).  But, as a result, if I want to change the category,I need to scroll all the way up to the top of the screen again to choose a new option.  This is too much work!

Ultimately, this again reinforces my belief that anything new coming from Apple will be highly based on AirPlay concepts, and the 10-foot UI will one day be a thing of the past.  And what will replace it?  This.

Why iMacs will get Apple TV, not Apple Television

Posted on by

Ah, Apple punditry, rumors, and speculation.  And back into TV land we go.  Today from Forbes:

Wedge Partners analyst Brian Blair this morning asserted in a research note that that the next version of the iMac, likely in the 2012 first half, will include some new TV functionality – basically, turning the desktop Mac into a bridge to a full-fledged television business.

This, plus another analyst who seems to know the exact sizes of the new long-awaited Apple Televisions is certainly fun reading.  But what parts make sense?

iMac + Apple TV?
Yep, makes sense.  After all, we’ve had Front Row in Macs for a long time now, it’s way overdue for an update, and having it function identically to Apple TV is a nice fit.  I’m buying this one.

iMac + Apple Television (aka iTelevision)?
To be a “television” a product, for the most part, includes a buit-in TV tuner.  It also has multiple inputs, and has all sorts of requirements/parameters for video display.  These components are effectively inconsequential to add, cost-wise to an iMac, so from a pure “could they build it feasibly” perspective, this actually passes a sniff test.

However,  what is this new product?  Is it a big computer “Now, from Apple, a 46″ iMac that you put in your living room”?  Is it a small TV “Now, from Apple, a 27″ iTelevision that fits nicely on your desk”?  Is it all of the above “Now, from Apple, in 7 different sizes, with 11 configurable options, the iMacTV.  We cook it your way”?

You know what it is?  Frankenstein.  Confusing.  To throw in some industry jargon – it’s what we’d call a “hodge-podge”.  Hard to explain.   How many other products that Apple ships are described like this?  None.  It’s the antithesis of an Apple product.  It’s something a PC company might do, certainly, but not Apple.

I still believe that iTelevision is coming.  I think we’ll, at the very least, learn a lot about it in 2012.  But there’s no weird “mashup” device coming.

They don’t ship iHodgePodge, not at 27″, 32″, or 55″.

Netflix + Arrested Development? Come On!

Posted on by

I was asked by well-respected analyst firm TDG to pen a piece of the impact of Netflix wrapping up exclusive rights to the upcoming 4th season of Arrested Development (for their must-read OTT Newsletter).  At first they asked if I could get it done in the next two weeks, but I said, “two weeks, I can do it in two days. Hey!”  So readers who are surprised at that phrasing will probably want to stop right about now, since the rest of it is, in fact, an analysis, but one heavily wrapped in Arrested Development quotes.  You’ve been warned:

“I’ve made a huge mistake,” a quote that could either be attributed to the hasty creation (and destruction) of Qwikster, or to one G.O.B. Bluth, Will Arnett’s character on Arrested Development. In a groundbreaking move, those worlds collided as Netflix announced it was the “network of choice” to distribute the upcoming revival of the cult favorite show (leading many of us to say, “them?”).

Not FOX (the original broadcaster of the show), not Showtime (once rumored to pick it up from FOX), was in play here. In fact, not a single broadcast, cable, or premium network will carry the new episodes.

While Netflix already has rights to a forthcoming original effort (House of Cards, by David Fincher and Kevin Spacey), the Arrested Development play is a first for an existing show to be revived yet not be available through traditional TV (as fans of the show might say, “no touching!”).

Part of the curiosity here is that the show now has a larger fan base than when it was cancelled in 2006, and populates many “Most Popular” lists on Hulu, Netflix, VUDU, etc. One would assume traditional broadcasters would express interest in locking down that large audience…so much for assumptions.

For Netflix in particular, this is a very big deal. The company is acting like a loose seal out of water and consequently has Wall Street running scared. Having exclusive access to this show might bring back some of the recently lost customer base and could sit well with show fans, especially given that a key criticism of its service is related to its catalog.

From an OTT perspective, it’s safe to say there is no illusion of the tremendous opportunity ahead. In a world that seems to be moving more and more down a path where consumers can get truly quantum video access – the content they want, from the provider they want, on the device they want, at the time they want – this is a big stride forward.

Disclosures: I own a tiny amount of Netflix stock personally, but much more importantly, I’m a huge huge Arrested Development fan.  And as they say, there’s always money in the banana stand.  Come on!

ps – and that’s why you always add a disclosure.

List of SmartTV Events for Fall 2011

Posted on by

Budapest Parliament Hall. This would be an awesome place for a smart TV conference!

Just like my Future of TV Newsletter (thanks to all the subscribers – wow!), I thought it would be helpful for all my peers to create a list of all the events I’m tracking this Fall that have anything to do with Smart, Social, or Connected TV.  That said, I’m sure I’m missing some (please email, tweet, or comment if you know of any!).  The list below also includes some of the speakers that are presenting, though is incomplete (I only had so much room on the page, sorry to anyone I cut – it wasn’t personal.  Well, mostly.).

The Future of #SocialTV – Sept 14 – New York City

Speakers include:

  • Brian Stelter, TV & Digital Media Reporter at The New York Times ( @BrianStelter)
  • Mark Ghuneim, CEO of Wiredset/Trendrr, @MarkGhuneim
  • Valerie Streit, Strategist at YouTube/NextNew, @ValStreit
  • Ryan Osborn, Director of Social Media at NBC News, @Rozzy
  • Alex Iskold, Founder & CEO of Get Glue, @AlexIskold

Lean Back – Sept 14 – San Francisco

Demos by:

Digital Home Summit – Sept 27/28 – Orlando

Speakers include:

2Screen – Sept 29 – London

Speakers include:

TV Next 2011 – Oct 4-5 – San Jose

Speakers include:

  • Sherry Brennan, FOX Networks
  • Steven Reynolds, Comcast
  • Eric Bruno, Verizon
  • Jim Louderback, Revision3
  • Larry Robinson, Motorola Mobility
  • David Mcintosh, Redux
  • Jeremy Toeman, Dijit
  • Kurt Hoppe, LG Electronics
  • Colin Dixon, The Diffusion Group
  • Stephen White, Gracenote
  • Richard Bullwinkle, Rovi
  • Ryan Massie, CBS Interactive

The Connected TV Experience – Oct 11/12 – Chiswick/London

Speakers include:

  • Anna Bateson, marketing director, EMEA at YouTube;
  • Lesley MacKenzie, group digital officer, at LOVEFiLM;
  • Anthony Rose, co-founder and CTO of Zeebox;
  • Dan Saunders, head of content services at Samsung;
  • Bjarne Thelin, chief executive, BARB;
  • Nigel Walley, managing director of Decipher;
  • Tom Wolfe, senior director, advanced advertising at Rovi.

Digital Hollywood Fall & the Variety Entertainment & Technology Summit – Oct 17-20 – Los Angeles

Speakers include:

  • Quincy Jones (yes, Quincy Jones!)
  • Harshul Sanghi, Motorola Mobility Ventures
  • Kerry Trainor, AOL
  • Jeremy Toeman, Dijit
  • Dan Cohen, Disney-ABC Domestic Television
  • Stephan Shelanski, Starz Entertainment
  • Leslie Wood, The Nielsen Company
  • Gregg Spiridellis, JibJab Media
  • Bill Gannon, Entertainment Weekly
  • John Griffin, Dolby Laboratories
  • Curt Marvis, Lionsgate
  • Lance Koenders, Intel Corporation
  • Kurt Hoppe, LG Electronics

Smart TV Europe – Nov 1/2 – London

Speakers include:

  • Karla Gecki, Facebook
  • Dan Saunders, Samsung
  • Stacey Seltzer, LG Electronics
  • Jordy Egging, Philips
  • Eric Elia, Brightcove
  • John Denton, BBC
  • Yosi Glick, Jinni
  • Anthony Rose, tBone TV

Streaming Media West 2011 – Nov 8/9 – Los Angeles

Speakers include:

  • Chris Knowlton, Microsoft
  • Michael Aragon, Sony Network Entertainment
  • Fred Santarpia, VEVO
  • John Civiletto, Cox Communications
  • Donagh O’Malley, Google TV
  • Paul Wehrley, Clicker.com
  • Ran Harnevo, AOL Video
  • Rob Roskin, MTV Networks
  • Gilles BianRosa, Fanhattan
  • Andrew Wallerstein, Variety
  • Greg Sandoval, CNET
  • Jim Funk, Roku
  • Evan Young, TiVo
  • Derrick, Oien, Chumby

TV of Tomorrow NYC Intensive 2011 – Dec 5 – New York City

Speaker list not yet finalized

Digital Living Room – Dec 7/8 – San Francisco

Speakers include:

  • Ashish Arora, GM, Digital Home, Logitech International
  • Ian Geller, VP, Business Development, Pandora
  • Joe Greenstein, Co-Founder and CEO, Flixster
  • Neal Hansch, Partner, Rustic Canyon Venture Partners
  • Evan Krauss, EVP, Advertising, Shazam Entertainment
  • Scott Levine, VP and Managing Director, Time Warner Investments
  • David Schlacht, Sr. Director, Multimedia, DirecTV
  • Jeremy Toeman, Chief Product Officer, Dijit
  • Charles Seiber, VP, Marketing, Roku
  • Paul Wehrley, General Manager, Clicker.com and TV.com, CBS Interactive

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.

Introducing the Future of TV newsletter and Twitter list

Posted on by

Now that I’m “back in the game” so to speak, I’ve spent the past few months creating a few tools to help me find industry relevant content.  A few of my peers have asked to take a glance “at my tools”, which I found shocking at first, but soon realized what they were talking about.  As such, here they are:

1 – the Future of TV newsletter

Inspired by my colleague Jason Hirschhorn‘s excellent “MediaReDEFined” newsletter, I’ve set up a newsletter that’s just me curating news in the “Future of TV” space.  Topics include Social TV, Connected TV, SmartTV, Second Screen, Four Screens, OTT (Over-the-Top), Cord Cutting and just about anything else that comes along that way.  It’s a fully manually curated production, so you should expect anywhere from 2-20 or so article per day (substantially less on the weekend).

Sample excerpt:

The Difference Between Connected TV, Social TV and Expanded TV (TribecaFilm) | Talk NYC

Posted: 19 Aug 2011 01:39 PM PDT

With television moving onto different platforms, it seems like nowadays we can watch TV everywhere. What is the ultimate future for television in a world that expects more from their
The Cable Customer’s Bill of Rights

Posted: 19 Aug 2011 01:39 PM PDT

Over the past few days, we’ve received more than 1,000 horror stories about bad cable experiences: tales of bad techs, terrible service, and troubling billing practices. We used those to build a cable customer’s bill of rights.

Hope you find this useful, click here to subscribe.  And don’t forget to tell all your friends!

2 – the Future of TV Twitter list

The best way to really *use* Twitter (other than pure self-promotion, narcissism, and stalking purposes that is), is to organize people into “lists” that tend to tweet about a given topic.  Even then, it’s an easy bet that said list will still contain it’s fair share of lunch-related discussion and reality TV show spoilers, but it’s still better than the pure noise of your regular Twitter stream.  I’ve culled a list of people who tend to be more likely than not to tweet about something having to do with the future of TV.  It’s not perfect, and it’s probably still missing some folks.  Here’s a sample:

Note that this is *not* a list of all companies or people in the Future of TV industry, and Twitter accounts from companies such as Miso and GetGlue are conspicuously absent – but this is because they aren’t really tweeting about TV, and are tweeting about TV shows themselves (not to pick on either company – and if there are Twitter accounts from them, or others, that are more germaine to this topic, I’d be happy to include them here).

I’ve also embedded this list into the sidebar of the blog, so you can follow along from here if that’s easier.   Or click here to see the whole list in action.

Hope either of these are useful tools to anyone in this very fun, very fast-moving industry.  Happy to take any feedback or suggestions as well!

12 by 2012: SXSW panels on the Future of TV

Posted on by

I’ve been in “Future of TV” startups directly and indirectly since 1999, yet haven’t once made it to SXSW Interactive (I was even supposed to speak this year, but my third child arrived way too close to the conference for me to make it unfortunately).  For 2012 I’ve proposed a talk entitled “Why the Future of TV has Four Screens” and hopefully the conference organizers will find it interesting to include.  This is obviously a space I have a lot of passion about, so I decided to go peek around at what other interesting and related presentations and panels are in the “PanelPicker”.

Here’s the ones I’ve found, in no particular order:

Title: Why the Future of TV has Four Screens

Speaker: Jeremy Toeman, Dijit Media

Studies have shown that over 70% of TV watching happens with a second screen in hand, whether it’s a phone, tablet or laptop, people are no longer just watching TV. They are tweeting, checking-in, Facebooking, searching the web for information and more. The rise of this social TV trend is causing companies across the entire TV industry, including content providers, TV manufacturers and startups in the convergence space to take notice. They are now trying to blend content, social and additional screen interaction in a variety of ways, from social networking on your TV screen to controlling your TV with your phone. However this is causing more confusion, not more entertainment. In this panel, we will explore: How are consumers using the second (or third or fourth) screens? Why are the additional screens important? How do those additional screens affect the way consumers interact with TV? And how are the additional screens are changing the entertainment landscape for the next decade?

Title: Why Digital May Forever Alter TV As We Know It

Speakers: Michael Aragon (Sony Network Entertainment), Jason Spivak (Sony Pictures Home Entertainment)

With 24/7 internet access on our mobile phones, Blu-ray players, HDTVs, laptops and gaming consoles, the ability to easily stream movies, TV shows, and other digital content has forever changed the way we consume film and video. People older than 50 are more likely to tune into TV broadcasts, while people younger than 25 are actively watching online video. The revolution in business models and digital distribution that disrupted the music industry has turned the TV and film industry on its head. As a result we are seeing a paradigm shift where producers, TV execs, gaming publishers, and print authors are paving new roads to build business models around on-demand video that is accessible across multiple devices. This presentation will discuss where the present round of convergence is leading, what the opportunity is for monetizing content beyond ad-based revenue, and what forms of new interactive media we can expect to see on network-enabled devices

Title: The Future of TV: Bigger, Brighter and Greener

Speaker: Amit Jain, Prysm

The way we interact with our television is changing. Submissive TV watching is a thing of the past. What does the demand for larger, interactive video displays mean for the future of in-home entertainment? The days of passive television viewing are gone. Today’s audiences are savvier and more engaged in the technology around them and expect more from their television screen than simple 2-D moving pictures. Television screens continue to get bigger and deliver a more immersive viewing experience accompanied by high-def picture quality and 3-D capabilities. As these technologies continue to improve, in-home entertainment is getting more and more life-like. Unfortunately, the current television market cannot keep up with the consumer demand for a bigger, better viewing experience at home. While 55” plasma screens seem like the next best thing, they offer a logistical nightmare. From the transportation between store to home, to the installation and additional infrastructure needed to support them, to the mass quantities of power they consume, it seems the larger the screen the bigger the headache. In this session, Prysm CEO, Amit Jain, will explore the future of television and discuss the changes in technology needed to make this a reality.

Title: Brave New World of Smart TV: Myths & Misperception

Speaker: Mario Queiroz, Google TV

The age of convergence is finally here, but the landscape remains complex and confusing. In this session, Mario Queiroz will work to address the common myths and misperceptions around smart TVs and the promise the category holds for consumer electronics manufacturers, content owners, and consumers. Like the smart phone before it, the smart TV will bring a new layer of functionality to your existing home entertainment experiences. Mario will explore the value the web will bring to your living room experience. This platform will be targeted, personal, and discoverable with a touch of the button, and it will be integrated across multiple screens, from mobile phones to tablets to TVs. The developer transformed the world of smart phones and is doing the same for tablets. Mario will also address why smart TV is the next frontier for application development and why the prospects for killer apps that will fundamentally change the way we view and engage with television look promising.

Title: Second Screen and Social TV: Which way from here?

Speakers: Carlton Cuse (Carlton Cuse Productions), Brad Pelo (i.TV), Lisa Hsia (Bravo Digital Media), Alex Iskold (GetGlue)

For years we’ve debated the promise of interactive TV. Until now, the promise has not been realized but with the advent of real-time social services like Twitter and TV-specific social apps, we seem to be on the cusp of a sea change when it comes to how people watch and engage with television. This session will discuss the state of the second screen, why it’s important and what it will take to finally make interactive TV a reality.

Title: Can a Social Web of Things keep TV cords connected

Speaker: Alison Moore, HBO

It’s 2015 and over half of the devices in your home are connected to the Internet. On the drive home you consider taking a longer route, but when you ask for directions the GPS system reminds you that you need to get home soon – you have a viewing party. The television recognizes you when you walk in the door and suggests that you pour a glass of wine since everyone else is online and waiting for you to join the Game of Thrones premier party. In response, the wine cooler switches on, illuminating the last bottle of red – a 2007 Scarecrow. You cringe but open it anyway. Your HBO app automatically loads a summary of last season’s characters since you still seem to have them confused, and then asks if you’d like to join the group video chat. “Go ahead”, you say, “I will catch up as we go.” Join Rhonda and Allison as they think aloud about the future of media immersed in a world where everything is connected, and television becomes something that you live instead of just watch.

Title: Power Shift: Gadgets Rock Entertainment Ecosystem

Speaker: Richard Bullwinkle (Rovi Corporation)

We love our gadgets — all three, four, or even five of them. Daily, we constantly use our iPad, smart phone, laptop, iTouch, and devices that interact with our TV. Research confirms that we love to multi-task with our media — while watching TV, we surf the web, text and instant message. Generation Y may not have grown up with electronic gadgets but they face it full on as corporate America is grappling with how to use the iPad as a business tool while for many Generation Z ankle-biters, the iPad is their Fisher-Price busy-box. Today, technologists and content owners struggle to make content flow freely from one device to another, but we all know that day will come. This session will take a look at our fascination with being connected anytime, anywhere as it weaves itself into the very fabric of society, forever changing how we live, work and play. It will address how touch screen, connected, and high-resolution technologies are shaping consumer and social behavior, and defining what consumers expect their gadgets to do for them tomorrow.

Title: #futureoftv: Breaking through the noise

Speaker: Maureen Costello (Little Cannonballs)

New TV technologies are being launched at a breakneck pace, yet, right now it is all noise until some standards are set. Our industry is poised for a future of innovation, but the landscape still looks like a jumble of wires. Who are the current players breaking through the noise? What intellectual capital have we netted from the world’s investment in the Internet and its standards? What have we learned from the mistakes of the music industry? How can industry players—new and old—work together to define standards for success? Can we predict who will be left standing in the greatest reality competition ever—for TV’s digital future? Let’s break through the noise and get with the program folks!

Title: Enriching TV experience with companion apps

Speaker: Perry Cooper, NHL

As TV audiences age, marketers are challenged to appeal to their prime demographic of 18-to-49-year-olds. The younger demographic is definitely watching TV, but they now require a second screen to enhance their viewing and steer away from the traditional TV experience. The second screen of choice, being the mobile device, is now accessed by 86% of mobile Internet users simultaneously while watching TV to browse the web, social network, and text, according to a recent Yahoo! study. To appeal to this younger, more tech-savvy demographic, the NHL will be offering an in-game experience for the mobile users that will stimulate behavior and keep fans engaged throughout the entirety of every game. What will be referred to as “predictive gaming” will combine the attraction of fantasy sports to live games where users can compete with friends to predict what their favorite player or team will do next in real-time, adding a new layer of excitement to the game. The proposed presentation will examine how the second screen will become the virtual requirement for future TV programming.

Title: Convergent iTV Apps: Factors for Great Products

Speaker: Wes Williams, Scripps Networks

Many factors distinguish great apps from coulda-been-a-contender apps. We’ll do a deep dive into questions you should ask when producing convergent apps for connected TVs, smartphones and tablets. The framework will be an unbiased review of apps in the real world, balancing user-oriented thinking with business needs. This will reveal factors to consider when building interactive apps related to TV viewing. Learn how to determine which features you need to reach marketing, advertising and audience goals, whether on just the TV screen or multiple platforms.

Title: Tablets & TV – Building Second Screens Experiences

Speaker: Klemens Wengert, Turner Broadcasting

Creating phone and tablet companion applications for television shows presents a unique opportunity for content providers. By linking the two screens together we have a new way to engage and deliver content to the users, integrate advertising and enhance the experience of watching television. This presentation is going to focus on how to create a second screen experience that makes sense for your audience, for your brand and your advertisers through case studies from Turner Broadcasting as well as some best practises and lessons learned.

Title: 3 Screen Minimum: Convergence of TV & Social Media

Speakers: Fred Harner (SportsNet New York (SNY)), Stephanie Agresta (Weber Shandwick.com), Eric Bruno (Verizon), Soraya Darabi (Foodspotting)

A full 70 percent of US tablet owners say they use their devices while watching TV. Companies like Verizon are baking social into their products and enabling users to tweet, watch online videos and update Facebook directly from their TVs. Channels like Bravo capitalize on this by weaving emerging tech like Foursquare, Foodspotting and Shazam into their TV output, as well as having personalities engage actively with fans and critics on Twitter and other social media. Google Hangouts allows people to watch web video together online. Join as forward thinkers from Verizon, Foodspotting, SportsNet NY (SNY) discuss what’s next for the convergence of social media and TV.

Speculating On Motorola + Google TV

Posted on by
Googorola!

Googorola!

Google is planning to acquire Motorola Mobility, which is a deal about patents and Android, but also one to raise questions on quite a few existing product lines.  What will happen with Moto Droids and the Google Nexus line?  Where do Android tablets go from here?  Is MOTOBlur dead?   (my answers: bye bye Nexus, tbd, and yes).  The other interesting area is Google TV, particularly interesting because the Motorola Mobility dept is the one that makes the set-top boxes (which are, next to refrigerators, one of the least likely products to be mobile in my house, but maybe that’s just me).

I’ve seen tons of speculation this week about what the deal means, as it pertains to Google TV, and have batched together some of the perspectives that are floating around.  Most common theme: now that Google owns the STB business, they can just sprinkle Android into all the next-gen cable boxes…

That gives Google an attractive footprint to leverage on a number of different fronts within the digital home, perhaps with a Trojan Horse strategy of pushing Android-based middleware out to shore up its lacklustre connected TV strategy.

Source: With Motorola, Google gains a big TV strategy | News | Rapid TV News http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/2011081514335/with-motorola-google-gains-a-big-tv-strategy.html#ixzz1VEtbiUZe

Also surmised by Apple Insider, Robert Scoble, CNET, Business Insider, NewTeeVee, and Lost Remote (and others).  Here’s the thing, this isn’t even a topic/issue/option in play, at all.  It’s not exactly like Motorola’s been unable to acquire operating systems to power their set tops, and could easily have chosen Google TV prior to now.  Further, there’s simply no such thing as “sneaking” technology into the cable infrastructure, not even a tiny bit.  We’ve seen (and I’ve worked for) many companies try to accomplish some set of these tasks, and not one shred of success.  Why?  Because the cable industry commissions the hardware and features they want, and not the other way around.

Burger King creepy guy

You Can Have it Your Way. aka 7' tall and creepy.

Another widely spread philosophy is that the only reason Google TV hasn’t caught on yet is due to not having had the right chance/opportunity:

“Google TV has not caught on yet,” wrote AOL journalist Saul Hansell on his personal blog. “This could be the wedge to get it in millions of living rooms.”

Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20092451-261/motorola-could-help-cure-ailing-google-tv/#ixzz1VExC7Dqg

Shared feelings from Zatz Not Funny, Lost Remote, NewTeeVee, and more, but not by myself (nor my friend Dan Frommer, though he’s much nicer about it than I would’ve been).  Google TV hasn’t caught on with consumers because it’s the wrong value proposition for consumers, period.  In my ten-plus years of building “connected TV” products, the thing I’ve learned is that the more interaction you throw on the screen, the less you engage and benefit your users.  While there are moments for “lean-forward” activities, they are fleeting.  Google TV is built on the opposite premise.

Maxell dude + Venom

This isn't exactly the lean-back experience I was expecting.

One last comment that I’ve seen making the rounds was that Google just gained a bunch of knowhow regarding building boxes.  This doesn’t much pass the sniff test either, as other than Apple, everybody builds boxes the same, and there’s very little secret sauce here.  If anything, they should consider offloading all hardware production that still gets done internally or dive in deep in fully integrated software/hardware solutions.  More on that in a bit.

So that’s enough about everybody else’s theories, time for a few of my own.

  1. The acquisition was entirely about the patent portfolio, the synergy (or not) between Google TV (G-TV) and Motorola’s STB division (M-STB) is positive, but was coincidental.
  2. Google must demonstrate to current M-STB customers that they will not disband nor change the status quo there in the short term (let’s call it 2-5 years).  If this doesn’t happen quickly, we could see an exodus to the numerous viable competitors.
  3. Google would be better off moving G-TV inside M-STB than vice versa.  M-STB has the requisite business practices savvy for dealing with the cable industry, which is significantly more vital to longevity than any software platform.  In fact, gaining this type of business experience is quite a boon for Google, as its an industry they have historically (dating back pre-YouTube days) not well-understood.
  4. The other massive obstacle that seems underreported is the complete lack of fit between M-STB hardware platforms and G-TV software architecture needs.  One of them will need a rewrite, and that’s costly.
  5. Without a major improvement to the platform itself, this acquisition does not change G-TV’s fate.  No cable company on the planet is simply going to allow technology into their boxes (yes, they buy em, they rent em to customers) without a) control and b) a clear path to revenue/profits.  Granted, there are indications those profits could come, but not with the current platform.

Ultimately, I think this is a fascinating topic.  The nuance of industries involved, the hugeness of capital in play, and the clearly disruptive horizon for the TV business is more exciting than virtually anything I can think of.

Chile Volcano Lightning

Well, almost anything.

Eating Some Words – a Smartphone's a Pretty Sweet Remote After All

Posted on by

So last Fall when I first heard about companies turning phones into remote controls, I thought it was a silly idea.  I’d like to kick this post off by saying I’ve come around fairly full circle on it.  In other words? I was wrong (yes, it’s happened – but don’t worry, it’s just this once). So I’m going to counter my own post with my revised feelings on the matter.

To begin with, my fundamental argument against the phone as remote is similar to my feelings as the phone being used for anything other than a phone (+apps) on a recurring basis.  In other words, my phone is a lousy GPS device if I need to make a call while I’m lost.  My phone is a lousy cooking timer if the alert doesn’t remind me to get my eggs off the burner because I’m playing Words With Friends.

Over the past ~8 months, I’ve evolved this argument into the following state: users must conditions themselves to the concept that their phone can be a pretty good  ____, but will ultimately default to be a phone first and foremost.  In other words, your iPhone is a phone that can also be a GPS or also be a kitchen timer.  But at the end of the day, if you really really need a super reliable GPS or kitchen timer, you probably don’t want to solely rely on your phone.

So in that context, and now highly specifically related to Dijit (where I work, remember?), I’ve come to find my iPhone makes for a really good remote control.  I just sometimes still want the physical one nearby – and that’s okay.  In my media room (aka mancave), I have 6 devices, their remotes, and a Harmony 880 as well.  I’ve got it working pretty nicely with Dijit/Beacon, and I think it’s overall a better solution than I had before.  Here’s why:

1. Completely customizable controls – as much as the Harmony unified all my devices, there’s just no way to have all the relevant buttons accessible at the same time.

2. Line of sight – two of the devices I own have mediocre IR sensors, which makes the task of perfectly pointing the physical remotes a challenge which the Beacon’s stronger IR emitter solved.

3. IP-enabled – at least 3 of my consumer electronics devices are “smart” and can be controlled over IP, meaning I can have absolutely perfect control without any need for IR whatsoever – and there’s only more Smart TVs and related products to come… (btw Roku owners can see what I’m talking about already – download the app here)

4. Upgrades and the Future – not totally fair, since I know what we’re actually building at Dijit, but suffice it to say the future looks incredibly bright for what the fully integrated app has in store.

I think my final comment on using the iPhone as a remote is this: for my personal use, I still like having a physical remote around (not 6, but 1), and that’s okay.  I like having mute, pause, and volume controls accessible 100% of the time with no risk of sleep, battery, app switching, etc.  Some people won’t have these issues and will go iPhone-only.  Some people will never get past a touch-screen remote.  But I have a hunch there’s going to be a lot of folks like myself, where a hybrid solution presents an amazing experience for the digital living room.  Can’t wait to share more about what we have in store down the road!

They Pulled Me Back In! I’m Joining Dijit Media as Chief Product Officer

Posted on by

A week ago I announced that Jim Schaff would be taking over active duties at Stage Two, and that I’d be focusing on “other stuff.”  Today I’m excited to share the stuff:  I am joining the management team of Dijit Media as Chief Product Officer, where I’m responsible for product and marketing (here’s the official update).  Not only that, my virtually common law married colleague (business partners for much of the past 14 years) and very close friend Adam Burg is the company’s VP of Business Development.

What???

Last Fall, I gave a presentation at the Set-Top Box Conference in San Jose, and the entire drive back I had a feeling of near elation.  Not that I had said anything extremely profound, but it was wrapped up in the feeling of doing something I had a lot of passion for – in this case, discussing the future of television.  Over the next few months, I spent a lot of time doing research in the Smart TV (also called Connected TV or Internet TV) space, and started seeing some trends emerge, and realized there were some very interesting business opportunities on the horizon.

Adam and I spent months developing a prototype concept of the vision we had, and went to meet with some of the brightest folks we know in the convergence field.  One such bright folk was well-known VC Stewart Alsop, who I’ve known since the late 1990s, who introduced us to Maksim Ioffe, CEO of Dijit.  In our very first meeting with Maksim it was clear he shared much of the same industry and product vision and philosophy with Adam and me. I’ll keep this part of the story short, as we’ve all seen this movie before – we ended up agreeing to join the company. And there was much rejoicing (yay).

Why Dijit?

The grand vision of Dijit is to create the ultimate “four screen” (phone, tablet, computer, TV) social entertainment experience, one which seamlessly merges disparate products and platforms and content into one single, easy to use, consumer offering.  The company is well on its way, and its first product is an iPhone app that enables a really sophisticated, yet elegantly simple control experience for home media centers.   As Maksim put it, “Consumers have 21st-century home entertainment experiences but are stuck with remote controls that haven’t been updated since the 1980s.”  The company partnered with Griffin to produce the Beacon, a clever take on the “IR blaster” product, and one that’s already receiving solid reviews (and I haven’t even done anything yet!).  This is going to be a very exciting company to be a part of, and I’m thrilled to have such an opportunity.

Reminiscing.

I still recall the early days at Mediabolic, where we enabled networked home entertainment solutions that interfaced with legacy, analog consumer electronics devices (yes, we were networking the living room in an era where there were virtually no HDTVs, no YouTube, no Pandora, and no… iPod!).  At Mediabolic I learned what it takes to design and build embedded entertainment devices, to work with consumer electronics manufacturers, and the deep set of challenges surrounding the connected home industry (fun trivia: I heard the phrase “this is THE year of the digital home” every single year starting in 2001 – possibly earlier).  It was a great experience, and key people from that team now work at amazing companies like Netflix, Rovi Corp (Rovi acquired Mediabolic in 2007), etc.

At Sling Media I had the unique opportunity to work for and with some outstanding individuals, not to mention the position of being tasked with figuring out how to deliver the perfect “living room experience” – only over the Internet.  The company’s CEO, Blake Krikorian, taught me the meaning of focusing on every detail and nuance, remaining truly innovative, and keeping the consumer’s wants and needs in the forefront of every product decision.  I also had to learn the ins and outs of social media, back in the era before it was called “social media,” where “the bloggers” were a special, hard to understand subset of humanity (or, as I rapidly learned, just cool people).  We accomplished a great success building the Slingbox, and I’m proud of the product, the team, and the experience.

Over the past four years at Stage Two, I’ve had tremendous exposure to startups, big companies, CEOs, visionaries, the media, and managing a great team.  We literally put companies like Boxee, Bug Labs, and Pogoplug on the map, and have also had the chance to work for well-established firms like Electronic Arts, Best Buy, and VUDU (now Wal-Mart).  I’ve learned from entrepreneurs like Jim Lanzone (now president of CBS Interactive), Peter Semmelhack (Bug Labs), David McIntosh (Redux), Rahim Fazal (Involver) and so many others (I’ll write another post in the next little while chock full of shout-outs).  I’ve redesigned product experiences for dozens of products, and created marketing/PR/social media campaigns for dozens more, and had the pleasure to work with great teams along the way.

The Future.

And now I’m taking all of the above, and putting it to work at one place.  Welcome to Dijit.

3 Things That Are Helping the Spread of Connected TV

Posted on by

Over at Mashable there’s a post entitled “3 Issues Hindering the Spread of Connected TV” and I couldn’t help but read it and say “well that most certainly needs a counterpoint.”  Actually I said something more dramatic but I tend not to type in pottymouth.  Anyhow, I couldn’t disagree more with the concept that Connected TV (aka Smart TV) is doing anything other than growing in a massive way.  Counterpoint begins… Now!

1. The Guts.

An HDTV set is much like a computer, with a “brain” inside that does HD decoding, processing, etc.  Only a few companies make said guts, topped by ATI, Broadcom, and to a lesser degree, Intel.  And all of those companies have effectively put WiFi inside the guts. And, the WiFi components are inconsequential to the COGS of making a TV (as opposed to 3D, which is actually costly to include). In other words – virtually every TV manufactured in the future will have WiFi built in, much like cell phones with bluetooth or laptops with webcams.

2. The Content.

I’m not even going to bother finding a link to substantiate the following statement: literally every day the amount of online content made available and consumed increases.  Since content is king (and queen, knight, and even rook), and the offering of content directly to Connected TVs (aka Over-The-Top or OTT) is increasing, the inherent value of having a Connected TV is increasing constantly.  And, unlike 3D where title availability can be measured in numbers that my 4-year-old can count, even non-techie folks know there’s a ton of stuff to watch online.

3. The Infrastructure.

Let me phrase this bluntly: every single player involved in the TV space is pushing for Connected TVs.  Cable companies, TV manufacturers, content owners, startups, advertisers, retailers, game consoles, etc are all betting on it, and betting big.  Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo all have platform offerings for manufacturers to use.  Intel, Best Buy, Netflix, and Amazon are putting amazing resources out there to get consumers aware of the products.  Apple? Yes. In fact, I’d be hard-pressed to find a major player in the (roughly) Two Hundred Billion Dollar industry that we call television who is not playing ball in some way, even if just in trials.

Since this post is a rebuttal, I’ve kept my list to three.  I’m pretty sure it could go to twelve (thought I was going to say eleven, didn’t you?), but that’d be unfair.  I will acknowledge it may take a decent amount of time to get consumers to actually go through the hurdles of connecting these devices, but that’s not going to slow down the products themselves.  In fact, that piece alone is just one of the many, many opportunities ahead in Connected TV.  That and fixing some of the amazingly terrible interfaces virtually all the companies are offering consumers.  And better control.  And better content.  And improved social.  And… well, maybe there’s a few good startups left to build, eh?  🙂

ps – blogging feels good, glad to stretch the muscles.  I’m back baby!

Netflix Controls 60% of Digital Movie Business

Posted on by

Peter Kafka has a new article up at AllThingsD that proclaims Netflix is “crushing the digital movie competition.” In fact, according to new market research, Netflix controls 61% of the digital movie space. That means 6 out of every ten movies streamed is via Netflix.

The next closest competitor, Comcast, controls only 8% of the market.

As NPR reported yesterday, companies such as Amazon and Facebook are looking for ways to compete in online video. Quoting from that article:

“You know, it’s pretty unusual for the world to let you run away with a couple of billion dollars of revenue and a large market cap without testing the waters,” says Ted Sarandos, the chief content officer at Netflix.

Netflix showed astounding growth last year, and has over 20 million customers. As more people stream content, expect competition in this space to intensify in the coming months.