LIVEdigitally

Tag Archives: iphone

What a Next-Gen Apple TV Could Bring

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

6 Reasons Why Apple Won’t Announce NFC Payments

Posted on by
stuffed-costanza-wallet

DisCo-Stan-Za

Disclosure: This is a Guest-contributed Post

In the early part of the last decade, when everyone was carrying blackberries and phones, the big buzzword was “convergence.”  We couldn’t wait to have our phone mashup with our email device and carry just one electronic gadget that did both.  The iPhone launched and, though Blackberrys had added phone capabilities, this was true convergence as you could do email, browse the web, make phone calls (sometimes depending on AT&T), and listen to music.  This was the first widely adopted and functional “SmartPhone”.

We’re still looking for that great convergence of your Smart Phone with our wallets and every Apple release is preceded by rumors of Near Field Communication (NFC) and mobile wallet.  Here are the reasons why as much as I’d love to ditch my George Costanza-sized wallet for one device, this isn’t going to happen this year:

1. Stores don’t take NFC

Sure there are some stores that have NFC terminals, but those account for about 2% of all terminals world-wide.  For those drugstores like CVS and Duane Reade that do have NFC, it’s painful to watch a clerk try to be helpful when they have no idea how the technology works.  Apple won’t ship a phone with NFC payments that only works in some stores, some of the time.

2. It’s not Globally Equivalent

When Apple ships a product it generally is the same product around the globe.  There aren’t iPhone 4x’s in Singapore and iPhone4z’s in Germany.  The world gets the same platform with a few modifications to radio frequencies.  Sure, they add currencies and countries to iTunes over time, but a core capability always ships around the globe within months.

3. Apple isn’t first to market

Remember the Creative Nomad Jukebox.  Most of you won’t, but this was one of the many MP3 players that launched before the iPod . How about the Treo mobile phone and email device. Apple is notorious for not being the first to market with a piece of hardware, but when they launch getting it so right that it blows everyone away.  There are plenty of people trying to do NFC like ISIS – the consortium of carriers, MCX – the consortium of merchants, Google – the consortium of Google.  Apple is happy to wait and watch how they fail, let them educate the market and spend to “terminalize” stores and then swoop in many years later with an updated PassBook that you’ve been using to go to concerts, movies, board airplanes, etc.

4. Payments is messy

Payments is a complicated beast that has so many hands in the cookie jar of a transaction taking their crumbs that it’s hard to distinguish from beltway politics.  When you think of where apple would fit in the ecosystem, they closest you get is a PayPal solution for online, where they can set the merchant discount rate.  At the store, unless they became their own payment mark (not happening in 2 weeks), then they’d be riding on someone elses “rails” (Visa, MasterCard, Discover, Amex).   Sharing in this transaction with a partner upon whom they’d be reliant is not a very Apple thing to do.  They own customers and ecosystems.  They don’t share so well.  Also, payments is a high-touch, customer complaint wellspring.  Without accruing a lot of value to Apple, it doesn’t seem likely they would work to add this without nailing all the other promotional goodness that would yield benefit.

5. Apple isn’t an advertising company

The real money is in promotions and advertising where you don’t take .05% of a transaction,but get to take a bigger chunk by delivering a lead or changing customer behaviour. In previous efforts around advertising, Apple hasn’t had the stomach for these messy and high touch endeavors.  Look at iAd and why you don’t see Apple competing, seriously, with Google or even Facebook on that front.  They make software and hardware.  They generally aren’t great at services.

6. Swipe isn’t broken

Finally, Apple likes to create step-change in consumer experiences.  Swipe isn’t broken, nor does tap add that much ease of use and simplicity.  Anytime I’ve stood behind someone trying to pay with their mobile phone, I watch as customers get mad while they try and open the payments app, enter the pin code, and wait for the clerk to understand what’s happened because they didn’t hand over a credit card or cash.

So, while Apple may launch a neat way to share songs or photos using BlueTooth LE or NFC, or greater enhancements to their ecosystem of entertainment like a more robust remote for your apple TV, I don’t see payments coming anytime soon for physical world transactions.

Some TV is Created More Equal Than Others

Posted on by

As one could imagine, I end up in a lot of conversations about second screen TV apps, companion apps, social TV, etc.  Virtually every discussion takes some long varied road to get to a point where all involved agree that the only rule in building next generation TV platforms and products is this: not all TV shows are alike, and experiences must be built with this rule in mind.

Let’s start with #SocialTV – broadly defined in current terms as “people tweeting, checking in, and liking TV shows on social media platforms.”  While I’m pretty jaded in my belief that this is resoundingly uninteresting as a topic, it’s important to think of it on a per-genre basis, and in fact, a per show basis.  One could state that “dramas” for example won’t garner much social TV activity – who really cares about checking in to shows like CSI or House?  Then along comes Game of Thrones, rule broken.  Then you could use Game of Thrones data to claim people don’t tweet while watching live TV.  And along comes sports and reality shows.

When it comes to planning and thinking about how users may/will behave regarding social TV and shows, I recommend thinking about it from two perspectives: (1) live interaction and (2) cultural impact.  The personal drivers for a lot of these activities have to do with the social perspective.  People are interested in “connecting” with others, which drives the interactions (tweeting about your team, someone getting voted off the island, etc).  People are also interested in being part of the cultural zeitgeist – Game of Thrones is “in” and “cool” to tweet about, whereas CSI and House are not.

Next up are companion apps – smartphone and/or iPad apps designed for use during a TV show.  As above, the potential value creation here is entirely about the content.  Do users really want to pull out their phones and read trivia while watching an intense or immersive show like Game of Thrones or The Good Wife?  Doubtful.  Am I going to look away from a visually-rich experience such as Planet Earth? Or how about Family Guy, where half the show is visual gags?  Seems unlikely.  But during any reality show, game show, talk show, or sports? I’d guess there’s a huge opportunity here.

Same moral as above, the right companion apps keep the content in mind.  First, we really don’t need (or want) a dedicated companion experience for every single show that airs – it’s just plain unnecessary.  But regardless of that, the experiences should think about the audience and how they want to interact.  Sports is all about real-time and stats.  Cooking shows, on the other hand, don’t need a real-time experience, but yet offering recipes, how-to, pictures, etc that can be bookmarked, archived, and viewed in the future is quite handy.  Complicated plot-driven shows can offer complementary experiences that supply background or other pertinent information to help audiences keep up with whatever’s going on.

Enhanced content offerings – featurettes, behind-the-scenes, and other options that plunge the user in a further immersive landscape blah blah blah. Now, speaking as the guy who watched all 3 Lord of the Rings movies, extended cut, with director’s commentary on, there’s no question a marketplace exists for extra content.  Blooper reels.  Making-of’s.  Interviews with Cast & Crew.  The key focus again is identifying the right content for the right show and deploying it in the right place.

Do I really need a dedicated app for my iPad just to get extra content for each show I like?  Do I need to subscribe to something?  I think, fundamentally, content creators and technologists need to really spend time crafting the right offering for each individual show.  For example, having the “webisodes” of The Office available openly via Facebook each week is a great solution to enhance that offering.  But if I needed an Office app, with a new Office username and password, would it be worth the investment beyond the “Like”?  Doubtful.

Overall, the time has come for TV technologists, creators, producers, etc to work together to avoid one-size-fits-all approaches to TV experiences.  Every show, every network, every device, and every platform should be regarded as a unique opportunity to engage an audience and tell a story.  Except, of course, for reality shows about celebutantes, which should just go away. Please folks, just do the right thing here.  We can find a cure, we can make it happen.  We can do it!

Why I Miss Scarcity (and why it's the only thing that matters)

Posted on by

Back in college (ah, college), some buddies and I road-tripped down to New Orleans (thrice) to experience New Year’s Eve and/or Spring Break.  Good times had by all (thankfully this all happened in the pre-camera phone era).  Whilst there, I enjoyed local beignets, chicory coffee, and discovered Cajun Power Sauce. Yum.  I bought 4 extra bottles for the return, one to keep, the rest as gifts. By the third visit, I bought a dozen bottles, since everyone loved it and it wasn’t findable in the Pittsburgh vicinity.

Today, it’s not a big deal.  You can buy it online, from a variety of vendors. When I was a kid living in Montreal, the winter was a special time, as everybody knew someone returning from a Florida vacation, which meant a bag of fresh oranges/grapefruits.  Today, every supermarket everywhere has fresh produce, available pretty much year-round, coming in from around the world.  Today, I can order a fresh Maine lobster, have it arrive tomorrow in San Francisco packed in ice.  And it’s not just food.  With globalization, just about everything is a Google or Amazon search plus FedEx delivery away.

I was thinking about a few of my “favorite” things, and while none are mittens, most are the things I own that are more scarce than the rest.  The outdoor furniture my wife and I bought on our trip to Vietnam.  The shirts I had custom made in South Korea.  The t-shirts I order from CafePress are also fairly special to me, but no more so than the fridge magnets I pick up for my kids in every airport I visit.  All are hard(er) to find.  But the stuff I really like?  The highly limited run shirts at Threadless – until I bump into someone with the same shirt on. Sad face. My favorite t-shirt is one I bought from a UK-based semi-custom t-shirt store (pictured to your right – feeling good Billie Ray!).

I think there’s some kind of weird link between scarcity (or faux scarcity) and hipsters, who know about bizarre Japanese imports, coffee shops with no signs, and DJs who only play hidden clubs at 3am.  Think about the cache of being the first to discover some amazing artist, or having an iPhone case nobody’s seen before, or remembering that you played DrawSomething back when it was just a Facebook app.  Or knowing about Double Double Animal Style, back when it was actually a secret. Or having seen the original Hunger Games, when it was called Battle Royale.  Etc etc etc

At home we can make genuine chicory coffee imported from New Orleans.  We can find the recipe online for making Caffe Du Monde beignets.  I just ordered a bottle of Cajun Power sauce (and you should too).  But the truth is, I miss scarcity.  I miss things being hard to find.  I actually miss the feeling of missing out on being able to get something.  I also believe scarcity is power. Scarcity is the new hip.  Having “the only one” or limited production runs, etc matters.  Think about the desire for sites and services that launch “in beta”.  Think about the power of “only XX made – ever.”  I predict hyperpersonalization will be augmented with hyperlimited productions, and that will cross the lines between physical and digital goods.  And that’s something I can get excited about.

Abundance is a really great thing, except maybe when there’s just too darn much of it.

Why 2nd Screen Superbowl Ad and Social TV Experiences Suffered

Posted on by

According to Lost Remote, social media was en fuego during the Super Bowl this year.  Bluefin Labs contributed to these stats, and found over 12 million “social media comments” during the game.  Another element Lost Remote tracked were the plurality of Social TV Second Screen Apps in play:

The best second-screen experience: To start things off, we checked into the game on GetGlue, Miso,IntoNow, Shazam, ConnecTV, Umami, Foursquare and Viggle. Ok, that’s overkill, but we wanted to give them a spin on the biggest social TV event of the year. For starters, GetGlue sailed passed its all-time check-in, counting over 100,000 before halftime and 150,000 total for the game, 3X its all-time record (the company doubled its servers for the Super Bowl.) We’re let you know of other second-screen stats when we get them.

Now that doesn’t include the “official” Super Bowl app, NBC Sports, or a few other options.  But overall, I’m see a glass is half empty scenario myself.

The problem was in the experiences.  I tweeted a couple of times during the game, by using the Twitter app, which was native and easy to do.  The thought of launching another app, just to get something that would enable be to tweet never even crossed my mind.  In reality, most of these apps actually got in the way of the experience.  And yes, while there was tons of tweeting and updates occurring, I’d lay down a strong bet most of this was about people posting, not reading what others were posting.

I also found the Super Bowl ads highlighted two major flaws in the ad experience.  Shazam got a lot of pre-game buzz for all their ad partners.  Sounds cool in theory, but the experience is just plain lousy.  First, the commerical starts airing.  Then, at some point in the middle of the ad a little Shazam logo appears somewhere on the screen (I only noticed it a handful of times personally).  At this moment, the viewer must grab their phone, turn it on, unlock it, switch to the Shazam app, and then – and this is important – get everyone in the room to be quiet for 7-10 seconds.  Great in theory, but this is not a good experience for any user.

The second was a QR code which displayed on screen.  This in my eyes was even worse than Shazam, since QR codes require the user to have a QR app, which is just too obtuse for the average viewer.

worst. crossword. ever.

Compare either the Shazam or QR experience to having a simple URL onscreen.  Is it really easier to go through all the hassle and end up on the Honda website, or just tell the user to go to honda.com?  Plus, by obfuscating the simple methods, advertisers lose brand reinforcement AND are busy handing over the experience to a third party.  Similarly, when it comes to social experiences, is it to a consumers’ advantage to launch an app just to get an update into Twitter or Facebook, or to just use the native ones?

These experiences have come a long way, and are offering exciting potential for the future of TV and second screens.  But so far, we’re clearly at the infancy of what the consumer can use to really “enhance” a TV offering.  I hope some or many of these offerings will improve over the years, and really create a better experience, not one that makes us work harder just to watch TV.

My Top 10 iPhone Apps in 2011

Posted on by

Sharing your favorites seems to be the hip thing to do, so I thought I’d share my absolute favorite apps on both my iPhone and iPad (not including any default iOS apps).  These are basically the apps I use all the time, and really enjoy using. There’s also quite a few apps I use daily, but might not like as much, as well as apps I think are amazing, but only use on a very infrequent basis.  And there are also apps I don’t much like and rarely use, but I didn’t really see the point in including those…

One other note – I picked apps from all categories, including games, social, etc. Also, I didn’t deliberately pick 10, it just worked out that way.  First up – iPhone fave’s (in no particular order, btw).

Chef’s Feed

Chef’s Feed is a fun app for foodies (wannabe foodies as well).  The app has a list of the “top” chefs of a city, and said chefs have picked their favorite dishes (not restaurants) to eat.  The app lets you make a bucket list of dishes that appeal to you, and also is a handy way to find a good bite when you aren’t sure what to eat. Free app.

Words With Friends

It’s like Scrabble, only more “balanced” so players at many levels can really enjoy the game.  Vocabulary and knowledge of “Scrabble words” is very helpful, and tile placement strategy is essential to win, but regardless, it’s possibly the best non real-time game time waster app out there. Free and paid versions.

Camera+

It’s a good photo taker, but more importantly it’s a fun photo editor/filter.  Simple effects, easy cropping, and simple sharing (though I wish they’d just let me send images instead of creating a whole new link/web system). Paid app.

Test Flight

Simply put: Test Flight lets app developers send you their apps prior to putting them in the iTunes App store. It’s great for previewing or testing out apps in development. If you are an app developer and are not using Test Flight, you should start now.  Free to consumers, paid by developers.

GrubHub

GrubHub is an app that replaces all the crappy little delivery menus restaurants leave on your door (though hey, free rubber band).  They have tons of local restaurants, plus in-app ordering, and, as pictured above, an order history which makes it super convenient to remember where you liked (or hated) to eat.  Free app.

Starbucks

Yeah, I know, cliche, whatever. You prefer Blue Bottle, great, so do I, but $12 for a latte that takes 45 minutes to make doesn’t always work out for me. The Starbucks app does one main thing: let me not have to carry my Starbucks card around.  Nice.  Free app.

Flashlight

Guess what this app does?  Free.

Temple Run

After Words, Temple Run is the next best time-killer game I know.  Basically, you run, and run, and run, and then run a bit more.  You jump, duck, pivot, and you turn yourself around, and that’s what it’s all about.  Free.

Pandora

Free personalized radio on your iPhone.  Any questions?  Nah, I didn’t think so. Great for road trips.  Free.

Zite

Gosh I love Zite.  Zite brings me articles I want, on topics I like, and does so with sickeningly good accuracy.  While Twitter (and vis-a-vis Flipboard, Pulse, etc) are great for bringing me feeds on a variety of topics, the one thing these apps fail to deliver for me is topical content based on my interests, not my followers or those I am following. I open Zite, I find content I like.  Life is good. Oh, and – free.

That’s my list of favorite iPhone apps, hope you enjoy.  Here’s the quick list of “runners up”:

  • Plants vs Zombies – it’s fairly new to me, I’m having fun playing but I’m not sure how long it’ll hold my interest.  Could be a winner, not sure yet.  Paid.
  • WhiteNoise – self explanatory. Free and paid versions.
  • Flixter – movie lookups (solid app, just don’t get to see many movies).  Free.
  • IMDB – satisfies inner movie nerd needs. Free.
  • Path – just started experimenting.  Beautiful app design. Does all that Facebook stuff, only without the massive invasion of privacy.  Also, just for your real-world friends (you remember those, right?). Free.
  • Twitter – read description of Path above.  Now think the opposite of it.  Free.
  • Yelp – great to look up restaurants I already am thinking of going to. Not useful as a restaurant recommendation/finder app.  Free.
  • CardMunch – take picture of business card, scans it, sends to the Internet, comes back as LinkedIn contact.  Previous version of app was notably better than current, but still works great. Free.
  • Expensify – if you do a lot of business expensing, you must have this app.  Free.
  • Sonos – controls my Sonos.  Would be on the must-have list, but I know not everyone has a Sonos.  Free.
  • AppShopper – great app, lets you create a “wishlist” of apps you want, then notifies you when they go on sale.  Free.
  • iHandy Level – it’s a level.  comes in handy.  Free.

Anything you think I should check out – leave a comment!  iPad version of this list coming soon!

ps – I’d include Dijit, but that’s cheating. 🙂

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…

Do I Want a Gesture-Controlled TV?

Posted on by

With the latest updates, the XBOX 360 is able to show live TV via Verizon’s FIOS service. For Kinect owners, this enables a vision of a fully gesture controlled TV.  Swipe your hand left/right to change channels, up/down to change volume, and do a backflip to return to the channel you were previously watching.  Wonderful.

Well, wonderful in theory, that is.  But in reality, I’m not so sure.  First, I’ll get past the concern of my TV randomly changing channels when I gesticulate wildly during a hockey game (Go Habs!) and just assume it only does it when I want it to.  I’m going to move to the part of the conversation of “how much does this help me as a TV watcher?”

How does it help?
If I don’t need a remote control, at all, I’d say it’s a nice improvement (though as you’ll read below, this is pretty close to impossible).  With a caveat: it needs to work in such a way that every “command” is completely memorable.  If there’s a risk that I’ll forget how to Pause, Record, or access my DVR menu, and I’ll ever need to reach for that remote, it’s a done deal.  From my experience ranging from Siri on the iPhone to early gesture technology (my first ever was the original Black & White game), the moment the technology becomes semi-reliable it is functionally equivalent to unreliable.  And, dropped calls not withstanding, people for the most part do not regularly use unreliable technology.

How doesn’t it help?
Well, since there’s no way the gestures can replace on-screen menus (the dreaded 10′ UI), ultimately all the gesture does is replace a physical remote (in other words – there’s no gesture for “I want to watch The Office from my DVR” or “change to channel 704”).  So the user still has to deal with their sluggish, painful to use EPG (electronic program guide), navigate the tedious DVR menus, etc etc etc. Which begs the question – is waving your hand “up” really a “Great” improvement to pushing “up” on a remote?  I’d file this under the “not-so-much” category.

There’s a lot to be said for the transformation of TV.  There’s a lot of new functionality coming.  There’s a lot of new services coming.  This is about the most exciting time for innovation and change in the television industry that I’ve ever seen.  This also directly implies we’re going to see a lot of gimmickry, under which gesture controls firmly sits in my opinion (though ZDNet thinks it’s the bomb – but hey, to each their own).

But then again, if it lets people put down their poop-laden remotes, I guess that does make the world a better place.

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. 🙂

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!

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.

A Million (free) Angry Birds Downloads Exposes Critical Android Platform Fail

Posted on by

One of the most popular iPhone games has come to Android, it’s called Angry Birds.  While I’m not personally a big fan (no offense, team Rovio, just not my kind of game), the game has well over 11 million downloads on the iPhone worldwide, and as of August had sold 6.5 million copies.  So if my simple math holds up, at 6.5 million copies at $0.99 per sale, that’s a gross of $6,435,000, and after a 30% cut to Apple, it’s a net of $4,505,500.  Today’s accomplishment of 1 million Android downloads (which truly is impressive, congrats Team Rovio!) results in a net of $0.  But they could make some money down the road if the ad revenue shows up.

I’m not saying Rovio won’t make some decent money off the ad platform, after all Google did blow out revenue last quarter, and is apparently making a cool billion dollars a year on mobile ads already.  But the reality here is this is a weak solution for any developer to bank on.  Ad revenue for a platform game is a highly unproven model so far, and while there will certainly be wins for some, the concept that ads are the only way to make money off Android apps is pathetic.

First, it clutters the experience.
There is no possibility that an ad-laden video game is better than one without ads.  None.  And in the mobile space, where screen real estate is precious, it’s even more impactful.

Second, it’s not bankable.
A video game, even a casual one, is generally a pretty engaging activity.  Imagine lining up your purple bird in the slingshot, ready to take down some well-defended pig to clear the level (finally!), and lo and behold, there’s an ad for something.  What’s it for?  Who knows, because you’re never, ever clicking on it, you’re taking down that pig.

Third, it’s a band-aid at best.
I’ve actually purchased an Android app (Robo Tower Defense – pretty fun actually), just to make sure I’ve gone through the experience.  It is unpleasant to say the least (fanboys who are reading this, please click here prior to commenting, thank you very much).  Did you know there are apps in the Android Market whose price points are listed as, wait for it, approximate amounts!?  Now there is a reason behind it – international developers – but it’s just so awkward to see.  Further, the effort it takes to even find half-decent stuff is painful.  I’ve honestly found the best way to find apps is using the barcode scanner app, and simply won’t bother with paid ones.

Fourth, and most importantly, I don’t see it radically changing, ever.
Android comes from Google, who obviously knows how to monetize spam, SEO, and domain squatters advertising, but just doesn’t get user experience at all (SIX years to let us turn off Conversation View? Really? Really?).  So their DNA, their “mode de vie,” is about enabling ads, not making amazing consumer-facing experiences.  This, coupled with the issue that Android is an “open” operating system, means no single serving method of enabling simple transaction systems.  And, because any carrier and manufacturer can bring any product to market, there’s no single source for developers to work with.

In short (too late): the Android platform cannot possibly offer a one-stop-shop approach to developers wishing to monetize application development, other than advertising.

I’ve been musing a lot on the topic of Android having a “missing link” problem recently.  This may just be a hiccup in the path to having the prime mobile operating system, or it may be a fatal flaw in its ability to have serious legs.  Either Google themselves will need to step in and create a core payment infrastructure to enable developers, carriers, and consumers to all work together – which seems radically unlikely – or we’re going to see even more fragmentation of the Android market, and probably in the short-to-medium term at that.