LIVEdigitally

Tag Archives: Apple

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″.

I'm in like with Siri

Posted on by

While Mat from Gizmodo is calling Siri “Apple’s broken promise” (and he makes valid points) I see it a totally different way.  I’ll open with his closing argument:

And for me, once the novelty wore off, what I found was that Siri is not so intelligent after all—it’s simply another voice program that will obey very specific commands. If it knows those commands. If it can understand you. And if it has a network connection. Were this Google, or Microsoft, I’d shrug. But it’s not, it’s Apple. And Apple is the company that sells perfection. It’s a company that usually keeps its promises, and in its Siri ads, it promises far more than what it actually delivers. That’s not what any of us signed up for.

I’d agree with most of that.  So it’s really about managing expectations.  I will agree with Mat that the commercials and hype around Siri do not set the right expectations.  If you think you can talk to your phone and it’ll just do exactly the thing you said, the way you meant it, you are in for a world of disappointment.  This was about how I felt back in the first few days of taking Siri for a test spin (talk?).

Now, a few weeks later, I’ve found Siri a great component of the iPhone 4S overall experience.  Today I had to get to the office, was driving, and was in a rush.  “Driving directions to work”.  Perfect.  Last week, wanted to know when Hannukah starts.  “When is Chhhhanukah?”.  Winner.  Again, driving, running late to get home.  “Send a message to my wife” followed by “Stuck in traffic will be home soon”.  Bingo.

If you can get your head around how Siri works, what it knows, and more importantly, what it doesn’t know, you can really enjoy the ability of controlling a device by talking to it.  It can’t do a whole bundle of things I want it to do, for example:

  • “Turn on Bluetooth” – this would be awesome.  Not present.
  • “Launch Evernote” – yup.
  • “Read me my last email” – cool, thanks!
  • “Browse www.livedigitally.com”. must-have.

There are effectively no limits, no upper bounds to what an enhanced or improved interface could offer over existing ones.  This is true for gestures, for voice, for physical recognition, etc.  But, in all cases, the user must know absolutely what they’ll be getting out of that experience.  If the consumer expects too much, and is delivered too little, they’ll abandon it.  This is true for trusted experiences as well – if a gesture is inconsistent, or voice-to-speech is intermittent – consumers will try it, play around for a while, but mostly give up on it.

For me, Siri is in the “it can be handy from time to time” category, and as such, is something I’ve grown to like. I don’t use it often, because I know when it will/won’t help me out, but my “hit rate” is pretty good these days.  It also has a good potential for amusement…

Steve Jobs: the Father of Consumer Technology

Posted on by

I surprised myself with the emotional reaction to hearing about Steve Jobs’ passing yesterday.  I guess I knew it was coming, but having never met the man, didn’t expect to have “a moment” about it.  After reading words from Eric Schmidt, Richard Branson, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and President Obama (not to mention a few other people), it became quite challenging to write anything original that I hadn’t covered when he resigned.  But there is one thing that I don’t think is as bluntly stated as I’d do it, so here’s my brief take.

Steve Jobs is, in my opinion, singlehandedly responsible for the concept of Consumer Technology.  Or, less brief, responsible for the concept of really amazing consumer technology.

I wasn’t always an Apple fan, but I think I (almost) always respected (most of) their products.  Even before I wanted a Mac, I thought it was awesome that they paid such attention to screws and other little details.  Even when I thought a turquoise computer was silly, I was able to “get” why they did it.  Even when I thought switching to Mac would just cause me a pain (fears of incompatibility, etc), I always kinda sorta wanted to go there.  Even when I thought they couldn’t pull off success in the phone market, I had a sneaking hunch they’d do something a little, shall we say, different, than the rest.

The Apple II was arguably the first mass-market personal computer.  The Mac was the first visual computing environment that put ease of use ahead of a command-line interface.  The iPod was the first end-to-end solution for digital music.  The iPhone transformed phones.  The iPad is transforming the entire computing landscape.

Steve certainly didn’t do it alone, and the entire teams he’s had around him for years deserve immense praise.  But it’s safe to say that no other inventor, entrepreneur, technologist, CEO, engineer, marketer, product designer, or anyone else has pushed the “consumer” in “consumer technology” so far as Mr Jobs did over the past four decades.

So thank you, Steve, for not just the gadgets, but realistically the entire concept of building technology for the people.  You made technology, as you’d probably have put it, delightful.

Expectations for Tim Cook's Oct 4th Event

Posted on by

The rumor mill has it that Oct 4th is the next big Apple event, in which we can expect to see Tim Cook kick off his term as CEO.  Here are some of my thoughts on what we can expect , in no particular order (note that I’m skipping all the pre-announced stuff, like iOS 5, etc):

No Steve Jobs
A variety of folks are speculating on whether or not Jobs will make an appearance.  I’d say absolutely not, other than possibly in the audience.  Jobs walking on stage would undermine Tim’s role as CEO and send a weak message to the media.  It’s time for Cook to run the show, and Wall Street in particular will be paying close attention to his every move (yet another example of how Wall Street’s mere presence harms us, but I’ll save that snarky feeling for another time. too late).  Granted I think we’d all love to see Jobs make an appearance, but unless they can figure out a way to do so without sending a lack of confidence message, I’d assume he stays on the sidelines.  This, by the way, will lead to rampant speculation about his health, again (under the veiled theme of “its news!” – tip: it isn’t, let the man be.).

Major Refreshes to Most Products
With one exception (below), I believe almost every product the company makes will get a refresh, either major or minor.  We already know about iPhone 5 and iOS 5, but rumors across everything else have showed up as well.  Per the above, it’s time for Cook to show his quality, and I think they’ll opt for over-delivering.

No iPad Updates
It’s just too soon.  Apple would frustrate their existing (huge) iPad base, and steal from whatever they’ll be doing in 2012.  Also, a complete dearth of competition in the space enables them to take their time and raise the bar next Spring.

New Presentation Style
Whomever created the “Steve Jobs Presentation” obviously deserves some kind of award.  But what made his style so special is how well it was tuned for Jobs.  I believe they’ll re-create the concept for Tim to enable him to deliver his own personal touch.  I don’t think it’ll be a massive departure, but I do expect some change.

Major iPod Changes
I wouldn’t be surprised if, starting next month, the iPod product line is reduced to the Touch and Nano (with WiFi), and everything else is gone.  That really is the purpose behind iCloud, and just like the company is killing off physical drives, it seems like the traditional iPod isn’t part of the new vision of the Apple digital lifestyle.  I’d like to see some minor “apps” for the Nano personally, but that might be a stretch.

One More Thing – iTelevision?
If they even continue with the “One More Thing” it could be the actual launch of the fabled Apple Television Set.  Or it could happen in 2013.  Or never…

Tune back on Oct 5th to review how I got 5/6 of these things wrong. 🙂

When Will Facebook Fail?

Posted on by

Just like governments, mixing “creativity” with “banking”, taking naked pictures of yourself and hoping they won’t end up on the Internet, and well, this stuff, tech companies have a certain inevitable amount of failure built-into them.  Sure, IBM, Xerox and Motorola have existed for many decades, and both Microsoft and Intel still have dominant positions, but if we really think about the “powerhouses” in technology today (Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple), they are all fairly young (I’m using the argument that Apple effectively reinvented itself in the late 1990s).  And if we look ahead even 10 years, it’s hard to argue those four will hold they same positions they do today.

Little known secret? Sony guts.

Of the four, I’d personally assess Google and Facebook as “most vulnerable” to obsolescence (just a hunch, I’m sure I’ll be ridiculed in the commentary for such a statement), and with the points made on “why Facebook’s the new Yahoo!” by Mike Elgan and Mathew Ingram, I thought I’d write up a little somethin’.

First and foremost, I see Facebook as in no way similar to Yahoo!  Not even a little bit, I’d barely even figure out how to compare the two companies (other than the “.com” at the end of their URLs).  The key thing, beyond whatever “Facebook.com” is all about, is that Facebook is unarguably the most well-distributed and deeply integrated service on the Internet.  According to Nielsen, Facebook users spent 53 billion minutes in May 2011 using the site – and this does not count Facebook-integrated features on other websites.  The Facebook “social graph” is at/near/above 700 million users at this point.  That’s a lot of the Internet.  A lot.

My God. It's Full of Likes!

I don’t see Facebook dying due to “stale technology” – they aren’t about technology (other than scaling, etc).  They aren’t about UI/UX (tip to FB: the “clickable thing” in an update should be the action/verb, not the user nor target/noun).  Most of the typical norms of a website’s laws of gravity simply don’t apply to them, due to the massive inertia they’ve built with their userbase. Further, the inertia of existing social graphs make growth of Google+ and Twitter effectively irrelevant – I think speculation that “Facebooking” will shift to a different social network is extremely hard to substantiate.

I used to take the “cool club in town” position on Facebook, and the moment it wasn’t “new” and instead full of B+T crowds, it’s popularity would sink and people would move on.   But I don’t think this argument holds up anymore, Facebook is too popular in too many demographics and the “cool kids” are “over” the fact that their lame parents are there as well.  It’s like the mall – just because Dad’s shopping at Eddie Bauer isn’t stopping the utes from hanging out in the food court.  I know it too is easily picked apart, but I think the mall argument works really well as a parable for Facebook.

Why does the one in the middle look so. much. older?

When you want to open a Gap, and you want customers, you find a mall.  Orange Julius? Mall.  Crappy replica furniture Bombay Company? Malls.

What’s the online equivalent of that?  Facebook, Likes, Facebook Connect, etc.  Facebook is the way brands are engaging with customers online.  And this is just making them even stickier.

I just hope there's a kiosk with a crazy lady selling mystical gems.

So how might Facebook fall?  A few thoughts…

  1. Massive shift to mobile interactions – Facebook’s weakest point at present is its mobile presence.  If the world continues its mobile/social/web path, I believe Facebook has less to offer that ingrains it so deeply in the traditional browser/web world.  Without the stickiness across mobile apps (especially with the iOS shift to Twitter and Android’s inevitable equivalent with Google+), they could be highly vulnerable.
  2. Massive revolt on social networking – At present, our society is unfortunately radically focused on narcissism and fulfilling ego problems.  This may (please, please, please!) change, in which case folks’ll have much less desire to share every (useless) nuance of their (mundane) lives with their friends/acquaintances/people they kinda met once.  If these patterns ever emerge, you can put Facebook at the top of the chopping block as it’ll become the target of said pushback.
  3. Massive elongated platform failure – Whether its by hackers or internal problems, a significant outage of Facebook and its related services could cause things to unravel in a significant way.  I’d wager that if a Facebook Connect downtime prevents users from logging into websites/apps for more than a few days could cause the digital equivalent of a bank panic by both the web services and the end-users themselves.
  4. Massive rapid shift to post-PC platforms – Similar to (1) above, if the shift from a computer-based world to a tablet iPad, phone, connected TV, and other device world happens, and Facebook can’t provide the same “glue”, they’ll be vulnerable.
  5. Massive privacy breach – When I say massive in this case, I don’t just mean Facebook makes some (typically) poor decision regarding consumer rights/privacy, I mean something really awful happens, and its very public, and its entirely due to Facebook.  Like, huge act of terrorism on highly visible people entirely tied to something that was Facebook’s fault.
  6. Unknown – This would be the deux ex machina of today’s post – something otherwise unpredictable comes along and clobbers them over the head.

It’s hard to predict the end of giants or eras.  But that they will fall and whither away is predictable.  Curious to hear any other people’s thoughts on the topic in the comments below!

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.

Thanks, Steve!

Posted on by

Apple is one of those companies that tends to polarize people. Some hate them for “closed” systems.  Others love them for beautiful products.  Some call them evil and bullying.  Others say they open markets.  I’m not one to debate, so I’ll just cut to the chase by saying Apple, in the past decade, has contributed more to consumer technology than most other companies combined.  And it’s fairly hard to argue that the Apple of today is entirely the company Steve built.

Steve Jobs’ resignation hits hard, but the only thing that comes as a surprise is the seeming suddenness of it (Yeah, but I mean the very end, when he actually resigned. That was extremely sudden).  Here’s a list of some of the things, love em or hate em, that we should all be thankful of Jobs/Apple for (and yes, I’m sure some dude in some lab somewhere invented all these things about 300 years ago, but if it weren’t for Apple, we all wouldn’t know about them):

  • Internet-based music distribution: from iTunes to Pandora to Spotify to Turntable, had it not been for Apple creating the iPod+iTunes ecosystem, it’s unlikely the music industry would’ve had sufficient motivation to enable “digital” as fast as they did.  The MP3 market would’ve grown much slower, resulting in less buy-in from the industry, resulting in a lack of streaming and on-demand services.  Would we have something like it today?  Probably.  Would it all be priced the way it is today?  Doubtful.  It took the muscle of the iPod’s dominance to enable Apple to negotiate the entire music industry into the $0.99 pricing schema we have today.  It’s likely that companies such as Amazon and Sony would’ve ended up much strong in this space, but we’d probably be paying more for the same content, and I’d wager services like Pandora would never have gotten off the ground.
  • “Real” smartphones: Unquestionably smartphones predate the iPhone.  Blackberries had some “smartness” and earlier generation Windows Mobile devices actually provided quite a bit of functionality, not to mention the granddaddy of them all, the Palm/Treo lines.  But let’s face it, the iPhone really changed everything.  Capacitive touchscreens (remember the stylus? nope, me neither), app stores (more on that to come), and more, all thanks to the iPhone’s success.  I think Nokia and RIM would still be considered the leaders in the mobile space if Apple had never shipped an iPhone, and team Android should be exceptionally grateful for its existence.
  • Gestures: Pinch + Zoom? Swipe? Multi-finger scroll?  One could argue this is just a subset of the smartphone, but it’s not, as gesture support has improved the computing experience overall.  Prior to the “two finger scroll” feature on MacBooks, the only thing even close was the variety of PC manufacturers who enabled the right-side scroll region on their inputs.  Once again, an area where numerous companies could’ve beaten Apple to the punch, but simply didn’t.
  • The Internet: Just kidding.
  • That's a Vaio?

    Nice Macbook, er, Vaio.

    Bringing Sexy Back: From the moment Steve rejoined Apple through to today, the company’s products have set the standard for technology aesthetics.  Whether it’s the sleek industrial design, the minimalistic approach, the amazing attention to detail, or the use of aluminium, it’s as if Apple showed up in a Porsche while everyone around them were driving Volvos (boxy, but good).  As a result, there’s been an almost frenetic rush to make distinctive, beautiful technology.  And some of it’s even been pretty good!

  • Changing Retail: When Apple first announced they’d open their own retail stores, they were literally laughed at. There’s now over 300 of them, and they are unbelievably successful.  They are considered the best retail customer experience overall. They are wildly profitable.  Consumers enjoy going there even when they don’t buy things.  In fact, my only surprise here is the lack of copycats – nobody’s even close to creating a similar experience at such a grand level.  Well, maybe in China…
  • The App Economy: Yes, my PalmPilot had installable apps, and so did my Windows Mobile phone.  But it took Apple to create a nearly $4-BILLION app economy and marketplace.  My hunch here is without Apple revolutionizing the concept (by, again, creating a full end-to-end experience regarding discovery, installation, and most importantly, payment, for apps), we’d have nothing even as advanced as the Android market is today, which I still consider to be floundering in the dust relatively (simple tip to radically improve said experience: sort all apps AND reviews by device – will fix 80% of fragmentation problems in one fell swoop).
  • The iPad: Remember when tablets really sucked?  Guess what, they still do.  But what doesn’t suck is the iPad.  Other than speculation and conjecture, the reality check is the only successful “tablet-like product” on the market is the iPad, all others pale in comparison.  I could write a dozen or so blog posts on what everybody else is doing wrong, but the thing that matters here is all the things Apple did right.  They made something that perfectly fits into a few dozen million peoples’ lives.  Flash? Nobody cares.  USB?  Nobody cares.  “Closed system”?  Nobody cares.  The iPad, as if by magic, navigated through the waters of touch-input devices to create the admittedly-not-perfect product, but so far beyond “good enough” that it’s changed computing as we know it.

I’m sure I’m missing a bunch of things that the company did that I can’t even recall at this moment, but these were the ones that hit me as most important.  How did they do it?  The comfort in saying “no, we can’t ship that yet, it’s just not ready.”  The comfort in saying “it’s okay if we aren’t providing every feature known to man, just so long as our features are great.”  The comfort in saying “we don’t have to be perfectly compatible with all other technologies that have come before us, if we make a strong ecosystem ourselves.”  The comfort in saying “we believe this is what people really want, and we’re going to give it to them.”

These are statements that no other technology manufacturer or provider make, so far as I’ve seen in my career (with brief exceptions, such as Sling, Flip, and a handful of others).

When Steve Jobs rejoined Apple in the late 90s, it’s well known that he rapidly ripped apart products, cut staff, and trimmed down the entire operation to get radically focused.  Since then, beyond all the technology and products, what Steve’s done the most is built the very DNA of the Apple that we know today.  The real contribution Steve made, in my opinion, was creating a culture of building to perfection, and understanding what that means as a core essence.

As I commented on TechCrunch, “Much like when a pitcher walks from the mound, the entire tech industry should stand and give a round of applause for one who has contributed so much.”

Time to call it a day

When a pitcher takes that walk, sometimes it’s because they’re pulled.  But every now and then, that pitcher gave his all, kicked some amazing ass, and it’s just time for him to take a rest.  But along the way he carried or maybe even made the game.  And his spirit carries the team even further.  And for those of us watching on the sidelines, we rise with applause, out of thanks and respect.

You rocked our world!

And then the game carries on.

Roku vs AppleTV smackdown

Posted on by

I don’t have cable. But I watch a lot of TV.

For my birthday I got a Roku and after tooling around with it for a couple of weeks, I cut the cable cord, much to the wife’s chagrin. Then, last Christmas, I found under the tree an AppleTV (although it is small enough it could have gone in the stocking.)

AppleTV and Roku essentially inhabit the same space. Both are around (or under) $100, both are solely media streaming devices and, unlike the mythical GoogleTV or the enigmatic Boxee, neither offer web access.

So with no methodology and no experience in product reviews, here is my official, unauthorized, David-vs-Goliath head-to-head streaming media device smackdown. In one corner, Apple, the single greatest human accomplishment in the history of the universe; the company that proves Intelligent Design is real. And in the other corner, Roku, which means “six” in Japanese.

Design

OK, this isn’t really fair because this is where Apple has always excelled. When I first got my Roku, I thought it was a pretty slick device. Black plastic, pleasing angles and the size of a turkey club sandwich (hold the mayo). Then I unwrapped the AppleTV and…. My God you’re beautiful! So small, so sleek…

I looked at my Roku, what is that hideous oversized slab of a streaming device currently attached to my TV?

Point: Apple

UX

I won’t even go there. Apple’s is amazing… Roku’s has always sucked.

Point: Apple

Content

So this is where it gets interesting. The gateway drug for both of these is Netflix and Pandora, which are both awesome services and the reasons why the sun still shines in my world. But what’s there beyond that?

With Roku, yes there is MLB if you like baseball (I don’t) and HuluPlus if you’re able to figure out why you would want it (I can’t). Where Roku really shines is access to all the weirdo webTV shows on Koldcast, Blip.TV, Revision3 and so on. You have to really like web-only TV and fortunately, I do. The wife doesn’t so I end up watching a lot of it by myself. You can also watch Al Jazeera streaming live on Roku in the event you need more proof as to how f-ed up the world is.

With Apple TV, your channel flipping will lead you to YouTube or to all the various audio and video podcasts on iTunes. That may sound lame, but it really isn’t. There is a ton of great stuff there and most of it is pretty bite-sized. So in 3-5 minute increments you can flip from news to comedy to movie trailers… unless you land on the “This American Life” podcast, in which case you’re stuck on the couch listening to your TV for an hour.

Winner of this round? I’m going to give it to Roku. I love all the cheese that webTV has to offer. My big complaint is again the UX… it is hard to find content and then to remember which channel it is on if you want to go back to it.

Reliability
So here’s the knock-out blow… this goes to Roku. Yes, it is close, but Roku wins it. I found a better picture and fewer artifacts when streaming from Roku. Also, surprisingly, AppleTV hung up and crashed more than the Roku did. Not by a long shot, mind you, but enough to notice.

Final Verdict

If you like design, UX and more mainstream content, you’ll love AppleTV.

But this is my smackdown and I’m giving the prize to Roku. They’ve got the edge in reliability and I love the goofy webTV access… but that is just me.

The Verizon iPhone is Not Too Late

Posted on by

Techmeme directed me to a recent Newsweek article that argues the Verizon iPhone is too late to stop the rise of Android smart phones. Daniel Lyons states that the open nature of the Google platform coupled with recent advances to the Android mobile operating  system make the Google Phone “an unstoppable juggernaut.”

John Gruber offers a smart rebuttal on Daring Fireball that re-frames the open/closed debate in terms of product design.

“We’re going to make these decisions for you and offer a limited number of choices” is indeed the company’s philosophy. That’s called design. Apple is indeed more focused on design than its competitors. It’s also been far more successful than its competitors over the past decade, in several lucrative markets.

Gruber’s analysis is more salient here. It is not too late for the Verizon iPhone.

While it is true that recent Android advances like Froyo have made me soften my initial take on Google phones, Apple’s iPhone still has several crucial advantages over Android devices.

iPhones Are Status Symbols

Even in 2011, there is something fun and sexy about the iPhone. Because of design, marketing and advertising, the iPhone has cultural value embedded in its hardware that Droids just can’t match. When people pull an Apple iPhone out in public they belong to an exclusive group that is desirable in society. There are enough people on the Verizon network that covet the social status connected to the iPhone to make it a winner.

iPhones Have The Best Apps

With the exception of Angry Birds, where are the killer apps on Android phones? Apple invented and perfected the mobile app experience (and recently brought apps to desktop computing, as well). The Android App Marketplace, by comparison, is lacking. People still want fun, useful apps on their smart phones and Apple has the industry’s best App Store stocked with the best mobile Apps.

iPhones are Usable

For a number of vocal proponents in the tech space, Android offers a superior smart phone experience.

But for the majority of people, the iPhone is the perfect entry into the smart phone universe. The device is stable, secure and easy to understand. That translates into benefits for average users on the Verizon network. Your Aunt Sally may not quite grok how “Droid Does” but she will understand the iPhone immediately.

The iPhone is not for everyone. But it does its job well and most people find something attractive in the device. I’ve already pre-ordered mine (OK, not yet, but I’ve decided to order one as soon as I can). It’s definitely not too late for the Verizon iPhone.

The most dangerous media company in the world

Posted on by

Apple.

Yes, Apple.

Even Apple is afraid of this company (I think). If they weren’t, then why would they let them come standard on the new AppleTV and offer a service that is essentially a competitor to their iTunes movie rental business?

The company I’m talking about is Netflix. If there is one company that should have everyone from Apple to the cable companies quaking it is Netflix.

The announcement that Netflix is standard on AppleTV solidified the company’s position as the default service to get content over the Internet. Over the past 10 years or so, while content producers, cable companies and others fiddled with Hulu, pay walls, and other ideas, Netflix built  the library and the audience and to take over the steaming content market the same way Apple took over the gizmo market.

Sure, Amazon and HuluPlus also have interesting offerings but they are more a compliment to an existing Netflix account, not a replacement. Yes, Amazon and HuluPlus offer some content you can’t find on Netflix, but there is also a lot of overlap (Why do I need to watch 30 Rock on HuluPlus with commercials when I can watch it commercial-free on Netflix?)

Even the bankers are getting in on deal! The other week CrediteSuisse pretty much called out Netflix as one of the main (among the many) nails in the coffin of cable companies. They estimated that a third of viewers age 25-34 use Netflix to cut their cable. While sadly I’m no longer in that prized demographic, I am among the Netflix-powered cable cutters.

Netflix is more than just a clever movie streaming service, it is defining the new content distribution model. When the history of online content is written Netflix will be lauded as one of the main agents that dismantled the old system and founded the new.

Predictions for Apple event, Sept 1 2010

Posted on by


Watch live video from Jeremy Toeman on Justin.tv

In a nutshell:
– iPad iOS 4.0
– refreshed iPods, with wifi
– no 3x3cm iPod touch
– adding “touch” to iPod classic
– iTunes with internet streaming & sync
– no iTV announcement today
– iBeatles