LIVEdigitally

Tag Archives: slingbox

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.

Excited About Judging pre-CES i-Stage Event!

Posted on by

It’s been official since a tweet last week, but the i-stage website was updated today to reveal this year’s judges/mentors, and I’m extremely excited to have my name in the list.  Other judges this year are Richard MacManus (founder of ReadWriteWeb) and Frank Gruber (founder of TECH Cocktail), and previous judges have included Blake Krikorian (my boss and mentor at Sling Media, currently living mostly off the grid), Ryan Block (founder of GDGT, former editor-in-chief at Engadget), Natali Del Conte (CNET), Ross Levinsohn (Fuse Capital), Jeff Pulver (involved in pretty much everything), and more!  Needless to say, I’m honored to have my name in this list of esteemed technologists!

This is neither my first foray with i-stage nor first judging with CES.  Last year I was a judge for the prestigious Innovations awards.  Two years ago I was working with team Boxee when they went to, and subsequently won, the inaugural i-stage event!  This plus the three “best of CES” awards I’ve been involved in, and I’d say I’m quite excited about being on the other side of things this year!

We haven’t seen this year’s list of contestants (still two days to enter), but I’m excited to see what’s up-and-coming in gadget land (especially since I like to think I’m already involved with most of the new stuff – so this makes it even more intriguing).  I’ll put together some thoughts and recommendations on what contestants should (and should not) do to increase their odds at winning (and while cash is nice (kidding!!!!), I’m more interested in impressive technology and great product experiences).

Thinking about Googling my TV

Posted on by

Google, Intel, and Sony have apparently teamed up (and Logitech too) to develop an Android-based platform for interactive television. Let me start my post with some important background points and disclosure:

  • I was a cofounder of Mediabolic, a startup who built a platform for connected devices.  While there I designed about a dozen “convergence” products (one won a best-of-CES award), and the company eventually got acquired by Macrovision.
  • I was an early employee at Sling Media, where I was responsible for developing the Slingbox (another best-of-CES award).
  • I once interviewed at Google for a position in a “google TV” role, but didn’t feel it was a really great fit for me personally (not to mention the commute).
  • I am currently involved with Boxee.TV, a startup in a highly-related field. There is some amount of overlap here, though that is in no way related to this blog post.
  • I’ve also worked with VUDU, Clicker.com, DivX, and others on “future of TV” systems, services, and products.
  • I was on the original working group committees for UPnP (AV) as well as DLNA (even before it was called that).

Through the above experiences, I have seen a lot of failure and some success in the “connected TV” space.  But mostly failure.

It’s a space where techies dream, entrepreneurs try, and companies fail. The list of failed convergence companies is notably longer than the list of successes. It’s a field where even Apple, the current king of the world when it comes to entertainment technology, can’t get a reasonable foothold in the home.

Most of the failure is due to deeply entrenched systems heavily controlled by huge corporations with little interest or need to innovate.  While we can yell and scream about how bad a job the Cable/Satellite companies are doing at future planning, the blunt reality is it’s hard to argue that it’s necessitated.  These megacorporations can drag their feet, and deploy mediocre DVRs and HD services, and consumers (for the most part) are satisfied with their experiences.  Further, due to their current business structures, the concept of opening up the market to third-party devices, content, services, or applications is not just daunting, but likely unprofitable.

When I consider the opportunity in the digital home, I am convinced it cannot come about by directly competing with traditional broadcast models. Broadcast TV, and all the services with it, are generally easy to use, convenient to pay for, and effectively “good enough” for most people – making “better than current TV” offerings a significant challenge to bring to market.  Historically, the only thing to attract the attention of consumers beyond their existing entertainment solutions are:

  • Transformative content playback experiences. From VCR to DVD was one example, and from standard definition to HDTV is another.  The key word here is transformative – it can’t just be “better quality”, as evidenced by virtually all other introduced formats and technologies based around content.
  • Notably difference content offerings. Again, moving up to HDTV-enabled set-top boxes was a natural flow, game consoles are the other shining example of a successful category.  Boxes that simply deliver “more of the same” or “stuff you can get elsewhere, now get it here (e.g. digital pictures)” are typically not big hits.  Consumers have to see some kind of service that’s worth the extra money.

Everything else has failed to make a dent.  Most “Internet Set Top Boxes” have been, and will be failures.  The typical logic that brings these products to market goes something like “consumers are about to cut the cables for their Internet content, and really hate watching it on their computers.”  The evidence behind this claim?  It’s in the same folder with the WMD evidence the government started a war for (zing!).

I’m very curious as to the potential from Google, Intel, and Sony.  Intel has wanted in on the “connected TV” for a long time (disclosure: they were an investor in Mediabolic), and has never really executed very well.  It’s not to say they can’t, but it’s safe to say the space is far far away from their core DNA.  Sony too has stumbled frequently in this space (here’s their version of a convergence device). Logitech? See Sony. And then there’s Google.

Part of me thinks Google believes that all devices are effectively the same, and their (limited) success in the phone market implies opportunity in the TV market.  Another part of me thinks Google is just so big they take on any sector they see opportunity in.  But most of me thinks Google wants to get firmly entrenched in the biggest advertising market there is – television.  And as hard as doing phones might be, doing TV boxes is much much harder.  Here’s why:

  • Phones play highly restricted media types.  Converged TV devices are expected to play all media types.  This topic alone is probably worthy of a blog post, but trust me when I say – it’s hard.
  • Consumers buy new phones on a recurring basis (multiple times a year in some countries). Consumers replace TVs infrequently, and buy TV “accessory” devices only a couple of times per decade. While the market is huge, it’s hard to get new devices into the home.
  • Carriers are motivated to push new devices and services into the hands of their customers, it’s part of their business model.  TV service providers are not motivated to do so (as discussed above).
  • As much as phones are “closed systems”, a manufacturer is able to purchase equipment and get a device certified and get it on the network without too much involvement by a carrier.  While the path is actually similar (CableCard Tru2Way certification), the realities for both the manufacturer and, more importantly, consumer are much much worse.
  • Again, as stated above, consumers are generally dissatisfied with their phones (a problem unlikely to go away) and are excited about new ones.  Consumers literally dread changing equipment in their living room – even us geeky dads with cool quadrophonic sound.

Now with all that said, I’m truly excited about the future of converged entertainment in (and out) of the home. I remain mostly cynical about seeing any real change anytime soon.  I think there are a few companies who have built the right foundation to make some inroads, but I’m hoping everyone involved is prepared to win their “realist” and “slow and steady wins the race”  badges over the next few years-to-decade (or longer).  Can Google be the catalyst of change, or will they just be the next in the long list of companies who tried and missed the mark?

The Third Age of Gadgets nears its end

Posted on by

The iPad TabletMac MacTouch iSlate will supposedly launch next year, and with it comes the end of an era.  For that statement to make any sense, I should probably backtrack a bit and give a little explanation.  While considering the impact of this product (should it even exist beyond the labs in Cupertino, that is), I’ve been thinking back on the history and evolution of gadgets.  Incidentally, I’m only considering electronic gadgets, but not including computers (or laptops) nor kitchen-related items (pretty much everything in the modern kitchen is some kind of gadget).  I’ve grouped them (in my own mind) into three major phases, and in pure Tolkienish geeky wonderfulness, I’m calling them Ages.

The First Age

Definition: For sake of discussion, I’ll define the First Age of Gadgets as starting with calculators and LCD watches (and, of course, calculator watches).  Sticklers will quickly point out something I’m missing, but in my opinion that’s when the concept of “gadgets” really got kicking.  These products (1) required batteries and (2) did one thing, typically pretty well.  These early gadgets were typically fairly functional in nature, not very gimmicky or showy.  They were also workhorses as compared to modern products – you can drop most “old school” products and not fear for significant damage (probably directly related to LED or single-line LCD outputs).

Timeframe: roughly the early 1970s all the way into the 1990s. That said, many products came out in the ’90s that would still be considered First Age gadgets, per the definition above.

Defining gadget: tie between Walkman and Game Boy.  Both effectively defined a product category, and still do to this day in most respects. It’s far too easy to argue that the iPod is just a “modern” Walkman, and ditto for the DS/PSP.

Memorable gadgets: Mattel Football, Atari 2600, NES, Speak and Spell (the first DSP was inside it), the Polaroid instant camera, and HP calculators (they could graph stuff!), DiscMan (also great, but not as revolutionary as the WalkMan).

The Second Age

Definition: In a nutshell: USB connectivity and/or card reader integration. Slightly more detailed: the Second Age of gadgets is about products that were able to connect and/or share data with a computer (but did not include WiFi) and/or cell phones.  Gadgets started becoming a little more pervasive, a little more mainstream, a lot more pop culture. In addition to the gadgets themselves, the category of gadget accessories really began to boom (chargers, carrying case, rechargeable batteries, etc).  This was also the dawn of the gadget blogs. I asked Peter Rojas, founder of Gizmodo, if he could recall why he launched the site: “It was an experiment, something Nick and I started almost by accident.  I don’t think either of us thought blogging would become as big as it did. People are a LOT more interested in gadgets now than when I started Gizmodo in 2002 – it’s become part of pop culture.”

Timeframe: late 1990s to mid-2000’s.  Obviously there were definitely earlier cell phones and we still have completely disconnected gadgets coming to market today, but this is still a fairly definable time.  Interesting, I referred to this timeframe in another “look back” kind of post last year.

Defining gadget: tough call, but it’s the iPod. No other device was so utterly perfect at the concept of end-to-end interaction between the device and the computer.

Memorable gadgets: TiVo, Motorola StarTac and RAZR, PalmPilot and Palm V, Sony PlayStation, Rio mp3 players (especially the Karma), Casio Exilim and Sony U10/U20 digital cameras, Creative Nomad Jukebox, Garmin Nuvi.

The Third Age

Definition: Internet access and connectivity. Devices had either built-in Internet access, or some hybrid method of interacting with the Internet to share content, data, or services.  In many cases Third Age devices are simple evolutions to their predecessors, but some innovated distinctly enough so that there’s no blurry lines.  Just as the USB-only devices evolved to a point of wacky ideas, we’ve already seen the same thing begin to occur in the current era.

Timeframe: mid-2000’s to 2010.

Defining gadget: This is a debatable call, but I’m going to go with the BlackBerry. It truly ushered in the notion of a converged device with phone and Internet access, and was the major game changer of usage behaviors with regards to mobile devices.  Obviously the iPhone has had its own impact, but one could argue that (1) the BlackBerry is a clear success, and (2) the iPhone might never have come out without it.

Memorable gadgets: iPhone (see, it’s there!), Xbox 360, Harmony 880 remote, Slingbox (disclosure: I built it, so I’m biased, but I think it belongs on the list!), Sonos (disclosure: I have worked with Sonos in the past, but again, I think it’s hard to argue that any other product has so well integrated the Internet and personal media and home gadgets), Eye-Fi (like it or don’t, but it certainly opened new concepts), the Flip, the Kindle. Oh, and of course the Twitterpeek (just kidding).

The Fourth Age

Regardless of the iSlate, we are at the brink of a new generation of gadgets that utterly change the way we think of technology and mobility. Internet access and data synchronization/sharing will be considered ubiquitous and pervasive across new devices.  I consider gadgets like the FitBit right on the fringe of what I’m talking about – designed for a connected life, but don’t focus on a typical way of being used. My expectations for what I’m calling the Fourth Age of gadgets center around three major changes and improvements in displays, inputs, and power.

Displays: I assume we’ll be seeing flexible display surfaces (folding, roll-up, etc) that change the way we physically interact with a device.  The concept of a hard, flat screen (even a touchable one) seems very outdated to me. I think the real revolutionary tablet will be the first one with some form of flexible display (and my money’s on Apple for making this happen). I also foresee better use of microprojectors to remove the need for an on-board display at all.

Input: Next generation products should have inputs much more interesting than just a keyboard.  Let’s assume the concept of gestures is one good starting point, but it really needs to be taken further than the pinching and scrolling effect.  I’m also anticipating more use of optical recognition (like Natal uses) to simple “watch” the user control a device – gestures are even more interesting when you don’t have to touch a screen. Voice recognition and input is basically already here, but yet to be fully put to work (thanks David for that suggestion). Another is more interesting uses of accelerometers and motion sensors, where a gadget is interacted with simply by how you move it around.

Power: I consider batteries, even the most modern Li-Ion ones, one of the key deficiencies in gadget design. Batteries create massive inefficiencies in cost structure, environmental impact, and product usage. As a stopgap solution, I am a fan of the wireless charging concepts, but that’s really just a big bandaid in my opinion. We are right around the corner from making rechargeable fuel cell based devices very feasible. This is a good step, but I’m anticipating some more monumental leaps.  As per my thoughts on flexible displays, I think the materials sciences engineers out there are cooking up some very innovative solutions to make gadgets last longer, weigh less, and be notably cheaper to produce.

For a little sanity check, I asked Josh Topolsky, Editor-in-Chief of Engadget, his opinion:

“I think we’re just starting to scratch the surface of what’s possible in mobile computing (non-laptop, non-traditional computing, that is). Smartphones are in their infancy, tablets are non-existent; what we’ve seen in demos only just begins to show the potential in this space. When manufacturers can add the horsepower and bandwidth needed to those devices without sacrificing battery life or design, our perception of computing will shift dramatically. Multitouch interfaces and UI concepts that involve more than just moving boxes around on a screen will completely upend our ideas about how you interact with the machine; gadgets like the iPhone and Surface have already sparked that fire. In just a few years (say, less than five), I expect that using a laptop or desktop computer will seem quaint, or worse: antiquated.”

Personally, I’m excited about the future.  I’m just ever-so-bored of the current state of gadget affairs.  The iPhone has just sucked the life out of real innovation, and everyone’s playing a pretty boring game of catchup, with the occasional attempt to one-up Apple.  The problem is the giants of CE are acting like big sluggish organizations, and the cost structures have been prohibitive to enable startups to find easy paths to success, with few exceptions to these rules.  Hence why we in the Third Age we have One Phone to Rule Them All.  But 10 years ago we’d have bet on Sony, not Apple, to lead the revolution.  I wonder who will lead us on the road ahead (and if we’ll see it at CES 2010?).