Category: Featured Tech.pinions

I had a conversation with a colleague this week at CES and he offered me a bet. He bet me $20 that in three years time we will no longer be talking about the internet of things. After a few seconds of thinking about it, I declined to bet because I realized I agreed with him.

In the very near future we will not be talking about the Internet of everything at CES, or as an industry, because everything shown at the show will already be participating in the Internet of everything. Our excitement when we see that this or that connects to the Internet, or to our smartphone via an app, will shift to an expectation that this or that will absolutely connect to the internet or another smart device. In fact, in just a few years time if something is developed and shown at CES that does not connect to the Internet or another electronic device we will doom it an instant failure. This is the trajectory we are moving to which is inevitable. Every electronic device will connect to the Internet and/or another electronic device.

We are on a trajectory to ship 6 billion connected devices in 2016 alone. In 2015 alone connected devices will generate over 8 billion zetabytes of data. By 2020 there will be over 200 billion connected devices in use. Nearly every forecast I see grossly underestimates the size, speed, and scale of the trajectory of the Internet of things. Which is why I share in our industry presentations that our anticipation is that by 2025 there will be a trillion connected objects in use.

This years CES convinced me even more that this will happen faster than many realize.

The Embedded Internet of Everything

I want to highlight a number of things I saw at CES that showed me the full potential and inevitability of this future.

Sleep Number Sleep IQ
Sleep Number announced a new technology called Sleep IQ which will be a standard feature in all their Sleep Number beds by the end of 2014. These beds have over 500 rows of sensors integrated into the mattress. These sensors exist to track your sleep patterns. Because they are embedded into the mattress they can get significantly more data about your sleep patterns than any device you put on your person. It will track heart rate, breathing patterns, hours of deep sleep vs restless sleep, as well as the patterns of your partner should you have one. This data lets you analyze patterns of your self and your partner throughout the night. For example, say your partner goes to bed early and you go to bed late. Does your pattern change once they get in bed in any significant ways. This is the kind of in depth data you can get when sensors and connectivity are embedded into your everyday objects vs. something you just stick on your wrist.

Connected Sports
Two things I saw were extremely impressive. The first was from a company called 94fifty. This company has created a basketball with sensors built into the ball which measure backspin rotation, arc of the ball while in flight, as well as where on the rim or backboard you missed as well as if you made the shot. You can use this data to understand and get tips on what you can do to get better while training.

The other is a new tennis racket released from Babolat called the Babolat Play. This innovative new piece of sports tech has all the appropriate sensors and microchips built into the handle of the tennis racket. What this does is accurately and precisely track things like how many forehands vs backhands you hit in training or in a match. How many first serves vs. second serves. How many topspin, flat, and slice shots you hit on each forehand and backhand stroke. It tells you your power averages of each stroke variety. It even tells you the location of where on the racket strings you hit as a percentage of each and every stroke variety. Being an avid tennis player I find this is an incredible innovation. If I go to train and realize I wasn’t getting as much power on my groundstrokes, I can use the data gathered by the racket to note that perhaps I am missing the sweet spot either too high or too low on the racket strings and make any necessary adjustments. Compared to other sensors I have tried that mount onto the end of the racket, the data generated by being embedded into the racket itself is far superior and more in depth than when it is mounted.

The Connected Baby
Lastly, Rest Devices showed off the Mimo Baby which is a onesie for infants with a series of sensors built in that gives parents data about their baby. While the object on the onsie is a bit larger, it demonstrates the future where sensors and microchips will be embedded into the fabric of our everyday clothes. When this happens wearable computing will truly be a reality.

What these examples show us is the true inevitability that sensors and microchips will be integrated into every day objects we use and provide us with valuable data without having to stick a separate object on us all the time to get that data. What is important to me is the data. And when everything I own which is electronic, and even a great many of things which are not, have sensors and microchips in them I no longer need to worry about wearing a separate object to gather this data.

When you look at it this way it is easy to do the math. How many beds are sold every year? How many golf clubs? How many Tennis rackets? How many soccer balls? How many basket balls? How many pairs of shoes? How many sets of clothes? How many home appliances? You get the picture.

Now, as wonderful as this future may seem few seem to address a critical part of this story. How will this data be managed, accessed, shared, and more importantly secured. What I suggest in this big picture view of the IOE industry is that it brings up massive challenges that will catch many off guard over the next few years. Security and data management being a big one. But also network capacity, spectrum, and a host of other infrastructure issues which are not ready to support the embedded Internet of everything.

This future is lucrative and abundant with opportunities but we still have a lot of work to do to get there.

Android is turning up in the strangest places. The Google mobile operating system, alresady the numerically dominant platform for smartphones and tablets worldwide, is making a move to desktops and laptops.

It’s not clear that this is something Google envisioned or much desires. Google has had a fair amount of success with PC-like Chromebooks using the browser-based Chrome OS. But OEMs are opting instead to use Android in systems, which ofter also incorporate Microsoft Windows in some form.

At CES, Both Hewlett-Packard and Lenovo are showing all-in-one desktop units running Android that can also double as standard desktop monitors. I’m still having a bit of trouble figuring out the use case for these systems, as well as the case for Android rather than Chrome OS, but the manufacturers are pressing ahead.

The Hewlett-Packard Slate 21 Pro All-in-One is a $399 21.5-inch touchscreen Android desktop aimed at a business makers. With its 21.5-inch 1080p display, it looks like a seriously oversized tablet. A hinged prop gives a continuous range of screen adjustment from near vertical to near horizontal and a USB mouse and keyboard are standard.

The Slate 21 runs Android 4.3 (Jellybean) and connects to the Google Play Store to run all standard Android apps. Since the Slate 21 is more-or-less permanently fixed in landscape position, a modification to the OS lets portrait-only apps run scaled up and post-boxed on the horizontal screen.

A couple of features let the Slate 21 function as a business thin client. Built in software supports printing to network printers. And the unit is certified to run Citrix Receiver, letting it function as a virtual Windows desktop in a Citrix Xen Mobile environment. Skype and HP MyRoom teleconferencing apps are preloaded. And you can convert the Slate to a stand desktop monitor by plugging in a PC with an HDMI cable and pushing a button to switch.

HP is targeting the Slate 21 primarily as small and medium size businesses as well as hospitality and other verticals, including kiosk use. The device is compatible with standard VESA accessories for wall or swing-arm mounting.

HP is also selling a version of the Slate aaimed at consumers (without the ability to double as a monitor.) Acer also offers a similar consumer device.

Lenovo is taking a somewhat different tack with the ThinkVision 28. This $1,199 Android all-in-one features a stunning 28-inch 4K touch display that can double as a PC monitor. Its primary market is likely to be creative professionals, such as photographers and graphic artists, though it’s still a but unclear to me what they will do with the Android part. Lenovo also offers a cheaper ands smaller consumer Android all-in-one, the $399 N308 with a 19-inch display.

Both Intel and AMD are pushing a somewhat more curious idea, alptops that can dual-boot both Windows and Android. Technically, this is not particularly difficult, though dual boots have never been terribly popular outside of some niche markets. Asus has announced the Transformer Book Duet, a 13-inch convertible laptop, starting at $599, that can boot both Windows 8 and Android Jellybean.

I’m no great fan of Android tablets to begin with and it will take some convincing to get me to believe there is a real market for these products (I think similar devices based on Chrome OS might makemore sense. Still,its good to see experimentation continuing in traditonal form factors.

One of the most common complaints heard around the Consumer Electronics Show these days is that the pace of innovation seems to be slowing, particularly in the world of hardware. For years, we seem to have been treated with amazing new products or capabilities on a frequent basis and somehow got tricked into believing that this pace of change could continue ad infinitum. Of course, the reality isn’t quite that clear—yes, we saw a number of important new categories get created over the past 10 years or so, but in many cases, they were really incremental changes over existing devices: iPods updating Walkmans, flat-panel HDTVs replacing standard definition CRTs, touch screen smartphones taking over from candy-bar style mobile phones, etc. Those same kind of innovations continue today with touch-based 2-in-1 PCs outpacing traditional notebooks, curved OLED 4K TVs outdoing flat-panel LCD HDTVs, and so on.

The difference now is that the improvements versus previous generations are arguably smaller—in large part because the previous generation products were (are) pretty good. As a result, the new products aren’t necessarily as compelling—as must have—as those previous generation products. In general, I believe you could argue that we are seeing an innovation curve that appears to be asymptotically approaching zero—at least when it comes to hardware—hence the title of this week’s column. Now, to be clear, I’m not arguing that innovations are stopping—obviously, that would be ridiculous. But I do think the extent of traditional hardware innovations is slowing. For example, if you look at the transitions between recent generations of popular products—iPad Mini to iPad Mini with Retina, Galaxy S3 to Galaxy S4, etc., the actual feature improvements were relatively modest. And, I think some of the products we’ll see this year will show even more modest changes—what is the second generation iPad Air really going to offer over the first (other than a fingerprint reader of course…)? Most of the new innovation is happening around software and connectivity options—things that don’t necessarily have an impact on the physical form factor of the device. Right or wrong, that’s how many people view or expect innovations in the hardware world to present themselves.

If you think about it, most of the more interesting device categories are all moving to the same basic archetypal shape: an increasingly thin piece of glass sitting on top of a circuit board. Whether you’re talking about wearables, smartphones, tablets, PCs or TVs, they’re all moving towards variations of smart glass. Now, I think we all like sleek, sexy touchscreens of various sizes, but the logical end to these types of advancements seems to be in sight.

But of course, innovation (even in hardware) isn’t really ending. So, what’s going on? Well, it’s not entirely clear yet, but I believe the traditional mechanisms of measuring innovation may indeed be moving to zero. However, I also think we’re on the verge of some major shifts in the shape of the innovation curve. I believe some of the more interesting innovations that we may start to see this year (but certainly next year) will be more orthogonal developments that aren’t necessarily thinner or sleeker, but just different—in some cases maybe very different. These could be driven by the kind of funky world view of the SteamPunk movement or intensive customization enabled by the availability of low-cost 3D printers, or other things that we haven’t thought of yet. I also believe major developments in bendable and eventually foldable displays will drive some dramatic innovations, but despite the early hype around some of these technologies, mass production is still a long way off.

So, in the meantime, I’m going to be on the lookout for things that either take a dramatically different twist on an existing design, or even better, put together combinations of capabilities we haven’t considered before. It’s here that I believe we’ll free ourselves from the slowly declining innovation asymptote and start to move in some very different directions. Should be fun to watch….

As the CES pre-announcements pour in, it’s clear that a leading feature of this year’s electronics extravaganza will be wearable devices of all types. Smart watches will make the biggest splash, but I have grave doubts about this category’s chances for success. On the other hand, small, no-display wearables built on sensor technologies are likely to have a big impact over time.

I have been using a Qualcomm Toq watch for the past couple of weeks, and while I find it a very interesting technology demo, it fails a very basic test as a product: I cannot figure out what problem I have to which the Toq is an answer. Unlike many of my younger colleagues, I don’t feel fully dressed without a watch, even though my omnipresent mobile phone serves perfectly well as a timepiece.  But I am not about to trade the elegant Baume et Mercier that I have worn for years for a big chunk of plastic.

The Tog does a fine job of relaying selected information–incoming calls, messages, email headers, stock prices, weather, and more–from an Android phone, currently a Moto G, to my wrist. But I can get all that information and a great deal more just by fishing the phone out of my pocket. I just don’t gain enough from a smart watch to justify wearing one.

Not that the Toq is without its interesting features. At the top of the list is its Mirasol display. This is a reflective dichroic technology the, like E Ink, requires no power to maintain a persistent image but, unlike E Ink, displays full color. This makes it possible to have a display that is always on, as a watch should be, and still be able to go for up to a week without recharging (wirelessly, in the case of the Toq.) The color is considerably less vibrant than an LCD or OLED display (and less saturated than in the Qualcomm photo above), but it’s not bad and the reflective technology means that the quality of the image actually improves in bright light. The big problem with Mirasol is that Qualcomm, which has been working on the technology for several years, has had a lot of trouble manufacturing it at scale. Even now, it’s not clear that Mirasol displays can be produced competitively in sizes than the Toq’s 1.55 inches.

Pure sensor wearables have a lot more appeal. So far, the field has been dominated by two types of devices. Fitness sensors, such as those from Fitbit, Nike, and Jawbone, with a very limited or no display and medical sensors, such as heart rate or respiration monitors, that mostly are regulated as Class 1 or Class 2 medical devices.

The potential for big improvements in sensors is coming from technologies like the M7 chip in the Apple iPhone 5s and the X1 chipset in the Moto X. These combine accelerometers, gyroscopes, and compasses to give six-axis motion sensing with memory and a low-powered processor. The result is a device that is able to log motion over a long period of time with very little power consumption. If these technologies are moved into a separate device and combined with a Bluetooth LE (low energy) radio, you have a freestanding device that can record sensor measurements for an extended period and upload the data for analysis only when it is convenient. If the devices get small enough and cheap enough, they could be built into clothing, athletic equipment, or pretty much anything else you can imagine.

Thinking hard about the smart watch, I have not been able to come up with a reason why I would want one (and why, despite persistent rumors, I don’t think Apple will go beyond internal experiments with the design.) But let your imagination roam and you can come up with all manner of uses for wearable or embeddable sensors. That’s where the action will be.

The Washington Post led today’s front page with a very curious choice: An article, by Steven rich and Barton Gellman, that said the National Security Agency is sponsoring research into quantum computing that, if successful, would break public key encryption. The story is odd for two reasons. First, it would be very strange is NSA were not doing this, since quantum computing is a hot area of cryptologic research and that is at the core of the NSA’S mission. Second, except for revealing a contract between the NSA and an obscure University of Maryland physical sciences  lab, the article contained essentially nothing new. In fact, if you read to the end of its fourth paragraph, it told you “the documents provided by [Edward] Snowden suggest that the NSA is no closer to success than others in the scientific community.”

To understand why this is important, you’re first going to have to put up with a brief lesson in cryptography and math. Traditional “symmetric” encryption algorithms, such as the Advanced Encryption Standard, are very efficient, but have a big problem: You must have a copy of the secret key, typically a 128- or 256-bit number (roughly 40 or 80 digits) to either encrypt or decrypt the data. This isn’t much of a problem when you are, say, encrypting the data on your own hard drive. But if secret information needs to be shared, securely transmitting the secret key has traditionally been encryption’s secret heel.

That’s the problem asymmetric, or public key, encryption was designed to solve. Data encrypted with one key can be decrypted with another and only one of the keys need be kept secret. The two keys are related by a mathematical technique with the interesting property, called a trap door, that makes it simple to compute in one direction but all but impossible to reverse. In the case of the RSA algorithm, key security depends on the fact that it is easy to multiply two large prime numbers–typically about 350 or 700 digits–together, but very hard to factor their product to find the primes. In a more abstruse technique called elliptic curve encryption, the challenge lies in solving something called the discrete logarithm problem over an elliptic curve (which I am not going to attempt to explain, though you can read about it here.)

Public key encryption has one very big drawback: It is orders of magnitude slower than symmetric techniques, making it practical only for encryption of very short messages. So, public key and symmetric encryption are used together to get both speed and convenience. For example, to protect a financial transaction on the internet, public key encryption, built into your browser or app, is used to protect a “session key.” Once the session key has been transmitted, a symmetric technique such as AES is used to protect the actual data.

What does any of this have to do with quantum computers? In 1994, a Bell Labs (now MIT) mathematician named Peter Shor developed an algorithm that could factor numbers many, many times faster than the best classical technique. The difficulty was that it relied on quantum effects and could only be carried out on a quantum computer. And while the theory of quantum computing is well understood, the machines have proven devilishly difficult to build. In 2001, an IBM Research team succeeded in using Shor’s algorithm to factor a number for the first time. Unfortunately, the problem it solved was 15=3×5. In 2012, this result was improved to 21=3×7. While these were important theoretical results, they leave us a long way from being able to factor the the 1,024-bit product of two large primes. And a variant of Shor’s algorithm that can be used to solve the discrete logarithm problem is even further from practicality.

The reason why the NSA would be interested in quantum computing is obvious, but so is the fact that the current state of the art does not pose a threat to anyone. In recent years, there have been suspicions among researchers that the NSA might have achieved a secret breakthrough that would put it well ahead f academic researchers. At least to the extent we can tell by the documents obtained by Edward Snowden, that does not appear to be the case and our current techniques of encryption are safe from at least this type of attack.

Note: This article was updated to correct the omission of Google.

There’s no more tedious subject on the internet than an endless discussion of which companies are or are not innovative. If you doubt it, pick a random Tech.pinions comment thread; if the thread is of any length the subject is sure to come up.

The main reason these arguments are so fruitless is that people are not bothering to define their terms, so they end up arguing more about what innovation is than who does it. So to end the year by rushing in where angels fear to tread, I want to take a look at the most innovative companies of the personal computer era, going back to around 1980.

But to start with, I am going to define just what I mean by innovation. Unlike invention, innovation does not require major technological breakthroughs. Instead, it is the process by which inventions, perhaps yours, perhgaps those of others, are turned into novel and useful products and services. The companies I am talking about here created products or services that changed the world in important ways, though many of them invented little or nothing. Here, in no particular order, is a look a eight companies whose personal electronics innovations changed the world for the better.

Apple: Apple may, as its critics claim, not be much of an inventor but the company has an unparalleled record as an innovator. From the Apple ][ to the Mac to the iPod to the iPhone, the iPad, and  the new Mac Pro, Apple has (except for a few grim years in the mid–1990s) an unparalleled record of innovation. Apple simply made everything it touched work better. Even its occasional flops, the Newton MessagePad and the QuickTake camera, for example, were interesting products that made significant contributions. And when Apple wasn’t doing breakthrough products, it was revolutionizing the retail experience and, as Harry C. Marks points out here, customer service.

Google: In some ways, Google is the anti-Apple. Where Apple is tightly focused and highly selective in its product development, Google seemingly will try anything and many of its projects go nowhere. Its spectacular innovative success, of course, is web search. Sergey Brin and Larry Page did not invent the mathematical approach of the Pagerank algorithm, but they tamed it and made it usable, and Google has never stopped  refining  search. Nor has Google ever stopped finding new ways to put search to work, both providing services and making money. The outstanding example of a search extension was Google Maps. There were plenty of digital maps before Google came along, but it took the combination of location awareness and search to make them truly useful. Google’s mobile maps on the iPhone and later Android phones helped turn smartphones into indispensable information tools.

Intel: Intel is an exception, both a major inventor and innovator. The company invented the microprocessor and, if you count the work co-founder Robert Noyce did at Fairchild Semiconductor, it can claim the integrated circuit as well. Intel’s microprocessors condensed the complex computational guts of computers onto a single chip and enabled the personal technology revolution. But Intel added innovation by developing a production process focused relentlessly on manufacturing efficiency. The company was often not the first to use the newest new chip technologies, but it was organized so that once a technology was adopted, it could move into production very rapidly and at massive scale. The result was a steady increase in computing power and decline in price that transformed the industry.

Amazon.com: Amazon’s most significant invention is the notorious “one-click” patent. But as an innovator, it has revolutionized retailing. It also turned a decade of failed attempts to create e-readers on its head by making the purchase and consumption of digital books a simple and seamless experience. And along the way, it turned some surplus computing and storage capacity into a Amazon Web Services, multibillion dollar business that has allowed countless startups to get off the ground and scale, sometimes to spectacular size (see Netflix), with minimal capital investment.

Microsoft: No leading tech company has been more reviled for lack of innovation than Microsoft. It’s true that the company has not been a deep fount of invention, though it’s done more than most critics will allow, but innovation is another story. The most significant contribution of Microsoft was the democratization of business computing, which in turn made the wxplosion of personal computing (and the commercial internet) possible. Having cleverly negotiated a non-exclusive license deal form MS-DOS with IBM, Microsoft worked with Compaq and other clone makers to make computig cheap enough to put a PC on every desktop. The development of Windows, especially Windows 95, dramatically increased the accessibility of computers to non-techincal users. And though it was late in recognizing the importance of the internet, it was Microsoft that gave hundreds of millions of users the wherewithal to connect.

Motorola: Motorola didn’t quite invent the cellphone by itself. AT&T Bell Labs scientists came up with the idea of cellular networks years before there phones to use on them. But a Motorola team headed by Martin Cooper developed the first practical cell phone, the DynaTAC. Because of the size and cost of early handsets, most of the first cell phones were permanent installations in cars. But Motorola came up with the pocketable (if you had a fairly big pocket) MicroTAC and then the “miniature” StarTAC (still a lot bigger than today’s smartphones) that turned cellular telephony into a true consumer industry. After dominating the industry in the early years, Moto lost its way during the transition from feature phones to smartphones and now is a division of Google, but its innovative contribution is undeniable.

Hewlett-Packard: No, not the computer PC operations, which turns out competant, mostly boring machines by the millions. HP’s big innovation was making laser printing universally available. Apple actually produced the first desktop laser printer, the LaserWriter, but it was very expensive and worked only with Macs. HP took the same Canon printing engine and produced a hit for offices of every size and soon after, for home use too. As a bonus, the early HP LaserJets, especially the LasetJet 4 series, were monsters of reliability and durability. HP’s big fail: Failing to do much to make connecting computers and printers simpler since about 1990.

Palm/Handspring: Neither Palm nor its offspring and later acquirer Handspring were ever phenomenally successful companies. They were chronically underfunded, and Palm suffered from terrible corporate ownership. Yet for all of their soap-opera struggles they managed to bring to market two tremendously important firsts: The first useful PDA and the first practical smartphone. The Palm Pilot wasn’t the first PDA, but it was the first one people wanted to use, mostly because of designer Jeff Hawkins’ relentless focus on a simple user experience. Qualcomm came out with the first smartphone by combining a Palm with a cell phone, but the sleek, integrated Handspring (later Palm) Treo set the stage for the revolution.

Watching CNN on New Year’s Eve, I learned that the National Security Agency was able to snoop on everything I did or said on my iPhone. Actually, I had been reading this for a couple of days on an assortment of web sites, whose idea of reporting seems to consist pretty much entirely of reading and borrowing from other web sites, with, or more likely without, attribution.

If you dig back through the sources here, you find a fascinating dump of documents in Der Spiegel (German original) about the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations including a 50-page catalog of snooping devices worthy of MI-6’s fictional Q. One, called DROPOUTJEEP, claimed the ability to compromise an iPhone by replacing altering its built-in software. “The initial release of DROPOUTJEEP will focus on installing the implant via close access methods,” the 2008 document said. “A remote capability will be pursued in a future release.” In other words, before any snooping took place, the NSA first needed to get its hands on your iPhone and replace its software ((It shouldn’t come as a surprise that a device that falls into the hands of an adversary can be compromised in this way. The ability to jailbreak iPhones is as old as the iPhone itself, and once you can modify the firmware, you can make it do pretty much whatever you want.)) .

This extremely important qualification quickly disappeared from subsequent reports. For example, an Associated Press story (which appeared on the Huffington Post under the headline “The NSA Can Use Your iPhone To Spy On You, Expert Says”) said: “One of the slides described how the NSA can plant malicious software onto Apple Inc.’s iPhone, giving American intelligence agents the ability to turn the popular smartphone into a pocket-sized spy.” Forbes.com reported: “The NSA Reportedly Has Total Access to the Apple iPhone.”

Part of the problem is that Jacob Appelbaum, an independent journalist allied with Wikileaks and a co-author of the Spiegel article, went well beyond the cautious printed piece in a speech to the Chaos Computer Club in Heidelberg, Germany. Unlike more circumspect accounts of NSA disclosures such as those by Bart Gelman in The Washington Post ((Very interestingly, the Spiegel articles made no mention of Edward Snowden, the source of the recent flood of NSA revelations.)) , Appelbaum was quite willing to speculate far beyond what was supported by his texts. As quoted by the Daily Dot, he said in his CCC speech: “Either [the NSA] have a huge collection of exploits that work against Apple products, meaning they are hoarding information about critical systems that American companies produce, and sabotaging them, or Apple sabotaged it themselves.”

Apple was typically slow to respond to the charges. In a statement released Dec. 31, after the story has been percolating for a couple of days, it said:

Apple has never worked with the NSA to create a backdoor in any of our products, including iPhone. Additionally, we have been unaware of this alleged NSA program targeting our products. We care deeply about our customers’ privacy and security. Our team is continuously working to make our products even more secure, and we make it easy for customers to keep their software up to date with the latest advancements. Whenever we hear about attempts to undermine Apple’s industry-leading security, we thoroughly investigate and take appropriate steps to protect our customers. We will continue to use our resources to stay ahead of malicious hackers and defend our customers from security attacks, regardless of who’s behind them.

I’m not sure how upset we should be about NSA’s Tailored Access Operations, of which DROPOUTJEEP was a part. A lot of this is the stuff of spy movies and is the sort of thing intelligence agencies are expected to do. ((One thing not quite clear from the Spiegel story is whether the NSA was designing the exploits and leaving them to others, such as the FBI, to execute,  or whether NSA was running its own “black bag” operations. The latter would be disturbing, as it appears to be outside the NSA’s charter.)) One the whole, I agree with University of Pennsylvania security expert Matt Blaze, who tweeted:  “Given a choice, I’d rather force NSA to do expensive TAO stuff to selected targets than let them weaken the infrastructure for all of us.”

But I have no doubts at all about the quality of much of the journalism. The idea that the government can tap into any iPhone anywhere, anytime, makes great clickbait, but sorry reporting. Too many writers, it seems, couldn’t be bothered to track the story back to the original sources or even read the NSA document that many plastered on their sites. There’s no excuse for this.

The next year promises to bring some critical new changes to the world of devices, the software and services that run on those devices, and the usage of those devices in both commercial and consumer environments. In this year-end column, I predict what I believe will be the top 5 changes impacting the tech market for 2014.

PREDICTION 1: WORLDWIDE “PHABLET” SHIPMENTS WILL OUTPACE WORLDWIDE SMALL (8” AND UNDER) TABLET SHIPMENTS

The technology market, the hardware supply chain and most vendors have been almost obsessively focused on the tablet market for the last several years. Of course, they’ve had good reason to do so. Tablet shipments grew from almost nothing in 2010 to a market that in 2014 will be measured in the hundreds of millions of units and tens of billions of dollars. During that time, we also witnessed an important transformation within the tablet business, as the market flip-flopped between demand for larger tablets (such as the original iPad) and smaller tablets (such as the Google Nexus 7). In fact, in 2013, the smaller 8” and under category was expected to account for about 60-65% of all tablets. At the same time, we began to see the growth of the 5” and larger screen size smartphone (commonly called a “phablet”), thanks to the popularity of products like Samsung’s Galaxy Note.

In 2014, I expect these two powerful developments to cross streams, with the phablet category gaining the upper hand. Specifically, I predict that the market for large-size smartphones will surpass that of smaller tablets (in the range of 175 million units versus 165 million units) and that development, in turn, will have a dramatic impact on the hardware and software ecosystems supporting these devices for many years to come. For US-based industry observers, this phenomena may be a bit difficult to see initially, in part because I believe it will occur outside the US first. But this difficulty is also because many in the US have failed to look past the idea of a phablet as anything more than a device that looks ridiculously large when held up to your head to make a phone call. In many Asian countries (notably forward-looking South Korea—where phablets already make up about 2/3 of all mobile phones and where tablets remain a limited market) as well as developing regions, where broadband connectivity and WiFi hotspots are more limited, phablets are seen for what they really are: always on, always connected, always with you mobile computing devices that occasionally make phone calls (and typically with a Bluetooth headset when they are).

I believe many vendors—including Apple—will enter and/or strengthen their phablet offerings in 2014, with a particularly strong push from Chinese vendors such as Huawei, ZTE and Lenovo. In fact, these vendors, amongst others, will help drive down the costs of these devices significantly over the next year—even in markets where there are little or no subsidies from the telco operators. This, in turn, will open up hundreds of millions of new customers to a more complete, more visual experience of the internet and, for many of them, serve as their sole computing device. The impact is bound to be enormous.

PREDICTION 2: THE BUSINESS PC MARKET WILL REBOUND

The PC market has been written off as a lost cause for years by some in the tech press and even within the industry itself. And again, there has been good reason for these concerns: PC shipments peaked in 2011 and have been declining ever since. But, I would argue, even a steep decline, does not a death foretell. In fact, in the business world, there are several signs of hope. The last few quarters in the US commercial PC market, in particular, have returned to positive year-over-year growth and I believe this phenomena will continue in 2014 and even spread to other developed regions.

The reasons for this belief are several. First, the installed base of commercial PCs is aging and a reasonable number—the exact percentage being a hotly debated subject—are in need of replacement. Second, there are a number of business organizations still running Windows XP and with the April 8, 2014 end-of-support (and more importantly, end of security updates) deadline now just a quarter away, there are bound to be a bunch of last minute stragglers who will purchase new PCs to upgrade some of these older machines. The third reason—and the one I believe actually has the biggest potential impact—is the increasing awareness that PCs in business are not going away anytime soon. For all the justified excitement around tablets, smartphones and the aforementioned phablets, people also now recognize that, particularly in business environments, those devices do not replace PCs. They are great supplemental tools—and for some, perhaps even the primary tools—but the likelihood that large numbers of people in a typical business environment would be willing to completely walk away from a PC and still feel confident that they could get their work done is small, particularly in regions outside the US.

Even consumer PCs may get some badly needed reinvigoration late in 2014 thanks to the expected arrival and growth of lower-cost (sub-$500) 3-D printers. Part of the reason consumer PCs have struggled is that many feel they are overkill for the types of applications most people use. Viewing, creating, editing and scanning 3D images before they are printed, however, seems like exactly the kind of activity that could get at least some people to justify a new consumer PC purchase. I expect to see 3D cameras that could function as simple 3D scanners in notebook PCs by the end of the year, so this is an area that bears watching—but it probably won’t have much of a serious impact until 2015.

PREDICTION 3: LOW-END SMARTPHONE BUSINESS WILL DRIVE MAJOR PLATFORM READJUSTMENTS

The majority of the focus on the smartphone market for the last few years has been on the high-end devices geared towards developed (and relatively wealthy) markets, such as the US and Western Europe. In 2014, however, a confluence of factors will start to shift more attention to the lower-end markets in developing regions and the full impact of the widely anticipated but long delayed BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) phenomena—in which developing economies, such as the ones found in these four countries end up having a much greater impact on worldwide trends—will likely hit the smartphone market more than it ever did the PC market. First, the smartphone share of the total mobile phone market in countries like the US and parts of Western Europe is extremely high—nearly 90% in the case of the US. That means the market is nearly saturated in these countries and depends almost completely on replacements—people exchanging one smartphone for another. Of course that’s a popular exercise here in the US—and one that the carriers are trying to encourage as much as possible—but it doesn’t drive nearly as many sales as that of first-time smartphone buyers. Plus, as the pace of smartphone improvements inevitably starts to slow—something that you could easily argue has already started to occur and will increasingly be the case once we see a wider array of phablet-sized phones (iPhone 6, anyone?)—the desire and impetus to upgrade is also likely to decrease as well.

The bottom line? New smartphone purchasers in developing markets will quickly become the most important consumers for smartphone vendors to target. Of course, many of those buyers will be upgrading as well—but it will be from small-screened feature phones, many of which carry the Nokia brand. As a result, I believe that if Microsoft and Nokia focus the proper attention on a solid step-up strategy for these types of customers with smarter versions of the popular Asha line of Nokia phones and embed a Windows Phone 8-like UI, there could be a very real chance for the pair to become a solid number three choice in the mobile phone platform world. In addition, while there has been almost no measurable success to date, I believe it’s too early to completely write off Firefox OS, Tizen and other efforts targeted at creating an alternative mobile OS environment for the low end. While Android clearly has a huge advantage, ongoing concerns about splintering and the uncertainty surrounding how Google intends to merge Android and Chrome (details of which are likely to emerge in 2014) could create opportunities for new, smaller players.

PREDICTION 4: WEARABLE ANNOUNCEMENTS COULD OUTNUMBER SHIPMENTS

The hype around “smart wearable” devices, particularly smart watches and smart glasses has hit the kind of absurd level that one often associates with fads and other “bubble”-type developments. So, while there will certainly be no shortage of announcements coming out of the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas in January and Mobile World Congress in Barcelona in February, the actual shipments of the devices will almost certainly have less impact than all the stories they will inevitably generate.

Admittedly, the headline to this prediction is more than a bit hyperbolic in the opposite direction, but the truth is that early results from smart wearables have been disappointing and reflect the more “experimental” nature of this category’s first offerings. Smart glasses suffer not only from the basic pricing and “fashion” concerns of such a device, but from a level of privacy and security concerns that could easily lead to restrictive legislative action in countries all over the world. In fact, I would not be shocked if 2014 was the year when devices such as Google Glass were legally banned in some types of establishments and/or some states or countries.

Smart watches should avoid those kinds of hassles, but have unique challenges of their own. Because of basic physics and mechanics, none of these devices are likely to include a wireless broadband (3G/4G) radio—or the battery necessary to support it—anytime soon. As a result, they will be stuck functioning as expensive accessories to mobile phones, with limited differentiation and perceived value by most consumers: not a strong recipe for success. But, if vendors can come up with the right kinds of clever applications that take clear advantage of the new form factor, then there’s always the possibility of a game-changing product. Right now, however, I’m not holding my breath….

PREDICTION 5: MULTI-DEVICE, MULTI-PLATFORM “COMPANION APPS” WILL BECOME AN IMPORTANT NEW CATEGORY

As people continue to add to their collections of smart connected devices, a few important revelations start to become clear. First, though, they’re theoretically designed to make our lives easier, it seems the more devices we own, the harder it is to get everything working together. Part of this may be due to the related axiom that the likelihood of having all your devices on a single platform decreases with every new device you acquire. Second, and somewhat paradoxically to the first point, the more devices you own, the more interest you develop in getting them to work together.

As a result of these observations, I would argue that the market is in desperate need of more applications and services that allow multiple devices running multiple platforms to work together as a coherent whole. I call this category “companion apps” and I believe it is poised to become an important new opportunity in 2014. The concept here is for combinations like a Windows PC and an Android Tablet or a Chromebook and an iPhone, or a smart TV, a Windows Phone and an iPad to all work together in helping to complete a task, provide some information or simply serve as a source of entertainment. This is not simply a case of duplicating functionality across all the devices, but of actually using each device at the elements of a task for which it is best suited. So, for example, to use the last combination, the act of watching TV could be greatly enhanced if the Windows Phone could function as the smart remote control for the TV, while the TV relays supplementary content (e.g., character background, sports statistics, etc.) to the iPad’s screen. To be sure, there are many different ways to achieve the scenario I described (as well as many other potential combinations—see my previous “Multi-Device, Multi-Platform Companion Apps” column here on Techpinions for a few more companion app examples). But the important point is that these kinds of combinations could give end users a great sense of satisfaction, as well as the perspective that each of their devices was now even more powerful and more useful.

Of course, talking about these kinds of ideal device-to-device communications situations and actually achieving them are two very different things. But with developments like Qualcomm’s AllPlay protocol starting to gain traction, I believe 2014 will be year when these types of multi-device applications become important.

I’ve been trying to figure out a better way to articulate what is happening in the multi-screen era we have shifted to. I say shifting because there are many markets where one screen still dominates most consumers connected experiences. What is fascinating about those markets is that it is a mobile device which is the primary computing device not a PC with a mouse and keyboard designed to be used in a fixed or stationary setting. But in many western markets growing numbers of consumers are using multiple screens in collaboration with each other.

I’ve never liked the term “post-PC.” Primarily because in many western markets the mouse and keyboard PC is still being used in conduction with other connected devices. The term post-PC gets has carried with it a tone which de-emphasizes the role of the PC more than it should. The other term we have used, which I no longer like, is the PC plus era. This term emphasized that the mouse and keyboard PC was still relevant but also puts too much emphasis back on the mouse and keyboard PC for my liking.

The best way to understand what the computing shift which is happening is that the PC has been decentralized. Prior to our smartphones and tablets, the PC was the center of our computing universe. I vividly remember Macworld in 2001 where Steve Jobs eloquently positioned the Mac as the center of consumers digital lives. For nearly a decade this was true for many computer users. Everything revolved around the PC and was an accessory to the PC.

This is no longer the case. Think about the last time you physically–with a wire–connected your smartphone or tablet to your PC? I honestly think its been at least a year since I plugged in my iPhone, iPad, or even my DSLR with physical wire to my PC.

The decentralization of the PC has become even more evident to me in the past few years. Being that I’m the most technical person in my immediate and extended family I’m generally the person who fixes PCs for family members. For the better part of the past decade I can’t remember a family gathering around the holidays at someone else’s house where I wasn’t asked to take a look at what was wrong with someones Windows PC. Yet over the past few years, I’ve noticed those requests have shifted from fixing Windows notebooks or desktops to showing tips or tricks of things to do with their iOS or Android devices.

What is key to internalize about this shift and the decentralizing of the PC is that it is being led by mobility. We have noticed this shift with every advance in computing. Notebooks overtook desktops as the dominant computing form factor and now smartphones and tablets are overtaking Notebooks as primary compute devices as a percentage of computing time for many (especially if we take a worldwide view of the market). ((In fact, more people are actively online with mobile devices that PCs on a worldwide level.))

The center is now mobile. The mobile market is bigger than the PC market. The mobile Internet is bigger than the desktop Internet. The mobile Internet is the first class citizen and the desktop Internet is secondary to it. ((Yes I include tablets in the mobile Internet discussion.)) The world is already mobile. The PC will still live on and sell hundreds of millions of units annually while mobile devices will grow and sell billions of devices annually. Each plays a role as a part of a computing solution. The cloud will keep all our devices in sync, allowing us to choose any number of screen size and form factor combinations as a part of any individual computing solution.

Mobile computing devices will become more powerful and more capable. This reality will continually challenge legacy devices that require a consumer be stationary to get the full value of the product. The share of compute time is already shifting from fixed to mobile devices and this reality is upon us. The PC has been decentralized and mobile is the new center.

What is interesting to ponder is if there is still a shift to happen that can decentralize the smartphone.

Next Tuesday, New Year’s Eve, will mark the end of one of the most important journalistic tech industry web sites, Dow-Jones’ All Things Digital. Those of you who have been following this drama in recent months know that its disappearance will only be momentary.  Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher, who have run the site and associated conferences as an independent unit (but with no equity stake) are parting company with News Corp. after failing to reach agreement on a new contract.

The site, with its crack team intact, will re-emerge with a new name and new corporate investors, including NBC Universal, at the start of the new year. But the end of its six-year run is worth a moment of reflection. (Walt and Kara seem to agree; ATD is offering a series of posts (here’s the first) with summaries of and links to some highlights.

Many of the ATD crew has been friends, colleagues, and competitors, some for more years than any of us want to admit. But when ATD started in 2007, it brought to the web  the journalistic standards of The Wall Street Journal with the timeliness, aggressiveness, and attitude that befitted a post-print publication. It quickly became the go-to site for, among many other things, Kara’s exhaustive (and occasionally exhausting) coverage the decline and, maybe, rebirth of Yahoo, Peter Kafka on media, Ina Fried on mobile, and Arik Hesseldahl on the enterprise.

It will be very interesting to watch what changes and what remains the same in the new ATD. Equally interesting will be what Dow-Jones plans to do to fill the giant hole left by the departures. It clearly has major plans, and has been hiring a lot of staff.

(So long and thanks for all the fish. The picture of  the dolphins, originally from icanhascheezburger.com, is from the allthingsd.com home page.)

During this holiday week, we wanted to re-showcase some of the most read columns of 2013. Whether you read them before or are seeing them for the first time, enjoy some of the most read columns of our site from the past year.

Most tech pundits are confused about the Tablet computer. They compare the abilities of the PC (traditional notebook and desktop computers) to those of the Tablet and find the Tablet wanting. They can’t understand how the Tablet can be so dog gone popular when it makes for such a terrible PC.

What they don’t understand is that the tablet isn’t trying to be a PC (unless it’s the Microsoft Surface). Tablet sales are exploding because the Tablet is competing against…nothing. The Tablet is going where the PC is weak and where the PC is absent. There’s virtually nothing standing in the tablet’s way.

Comparing the PC to the tablet is like comparing the Titanic to the iceberg that sank it. It wasn’t the one-ninth of the iceberg protruding above the waterline that sank the Titanic. It was the eight-ninths of the iceberg that lurked beneath the surface of the waters. Similarly, it isn’t the few overlapping tasks that the PC and the Tablet can both do well that matters most. It is the tasks that the Tablet excels at – and which the PC does poorly or not at all – that will ultimately reduce the PC to niche status and turn the Tablet into the preeminent computing device of our time.

ABOVE THE WATERLINE
The PC and the Tablet – like the Titanic and the tip of that fateful iceberg – do compete on rare occasions. Companies like SAP and IBM have ordered tens of thousands of Tablets and some of those Tablets have replaced traditional PCs, especially in those instance where the PC was overkill for the task it was originally assigned to do.

But let’s be real. The PC is a better PC than the tablet is, or ever will be. The number of Tablets that will directly replace PCs will never amount to great numbers. Accordingly, we should no more fear the Tablet replacing the PC than the lookouts on the Titantic should have feared the the damage that could have been caused by protruding tip of the Iceberg. They knew, and we should know, that that’s not where the real danger lies.

AT THE WATERLINE
There are millions upon millions of Tablets that are supplementing, rather than replacing, the PC. These Tablets are being used by Lawyers and Financiers, by CEOs and Presenters, by Presidents and Prime Ministers, by Queens and by Parliaments. The Tablet frees the owner from the constraints of their PCs. They can use the PC when they are at their desks and use the tablet to take their data with them wherever they may go.

These tablets will not sink the PC because they complement the PC. However, they may well extend the life of the PC, thus slowing the PC’s upgrade – and sales – cycles.

BELOW THE WATERLINE
The bulk of the iceberg that destroyed the Titanic lay beneath the surface of the waters, beneath the vision of the lookouts, beneath the ship’s waterline. Similarly, the bulk of the tasks that the Tablet excels at, lies beneath the PC’s level of awareness, beneath the PC’s contemptuous gaze, beneath the PC’s areas of expertise and far, far below it’s area of competence. The PC will not lose in a fair fight, anymore than the Titanic lost in a fair fight. Instead, the Tablet will hit the PC where the PC is weakest – below it’s metaphorical “waterline”.

• STANDING:

Tablets excel at working while you are standing. Tasks done by matre d’s, inventory takers, tour guides, concierges, face-to-face service providers and order takers of every kind, benefit from the use of the tablet.

Can the PC adequately compete with the tablet as a stand-while-you-work device? No, it cannot.

• ROOM TO ROOM, DOOR TO DOOR AND REMOTE LOCATIONS:

Tablets excel at working when one has to move and stop and move yet again. Car Dealerships, like Mercedes Benz, are giving tablets to their salespeople. European doctors are rapidly taking to the tablet. Service Technicians at Siemens Energy are using tablets while servicing power installations. Scientists are using tablets during field research. Nurses, Realtors, Journalists, Park Rangers, Medical Technicians…the list of users and uses is nearly endless.

Can the PC adequately compete with the tablet as a work-and-move, and work-and-move-aagin, device? No, it cannot.

• SALES:

If you’re in Sales, you’re into Tablets. Whether you’re traveling or standing or presenting or taking an order and acquiring a signature – Tablets are a salesperson’s best friend.

Salesforce purchased 1,300 tablets and Boston Scientific purchased 4,500 tablet for their respective sales forces. And just this week, NBA Star, Deron Williams, signed a $98 million dollar contract…on a tablet.

Can the PC adequately compete with the tablet as a sales computing assistant? No, it cannot.

• KIOSKS:

While the PC makes for a terrible Kiosk, the tablet is almost ideally suited to the task. Tablets as Kiosks are making their presence known in places as diverse as malls, taxi cabs, hospitals, the Louisiana Department of Motor Vehicles, and the FastPass lanes at Disney World.

In the coming years there will be millions of Kiosks converted to Tablets and millions more in new Kiosks created from Tablets.

Can the PC adequately compete with the Tablet as a Kiosk? No, it cannot.

• POINT OF SALE:

Today there are millions upon millions of antiquated PCs being used as some form of cash register or point of sale device. Let me put this as diplomatically as I can – they suck.

They’re going to be replaced by Tablets, almost overnight. And tens of millions of new Tablets are going to be used as cash registers and point of sale devices in all sorts of new and unexpected places.

Can the PC adequately compete with the tablet as a Cash Register? No it cannot.

• PAPER REPLACERS:

I’ve been hearing about the “paperless office” since the 1970’s. Yet every year, the PC generates ever more, not less, paper. But that was yesterday. Today the Tablet may finally be able to fulfill the promise that the PC so carelessly made – and broke – those many years ago.

Airlines such as United and Alaska are replacing their in-flight maps with Tablets. The United States Air Force is replacing their manuals with Tablets.

Construction companies are replacing their on-site blueprints with Tablets.

Governmental bodies of every shape and size are reducing paperwork through the use of Tablets. City councils and municipalities have jumped on the bandwagon. The Polish Parliament and the Dutch Senate have substituted Tablets for paper printouts of the documents read by their members. The British Parliament just replaced 650 of their computers with Tablets. And the President of the United States and the Queen and Prime Minister of England have all used Tablets in their briefings.

Twelve NFL teams, including the Denver Broncos, Miami Dolphins and Baltimore Ravens have replaced their paper playbooks with tablets. In Major League Baseball, the Cincinatti Reds have done the same. And at Ohio State, all the athletic programs are replacing their playbooks with tablets. Can there be any doubt that this trend will extend ever outward and ever downward to every professional team, every college team, every high school team and even, eventually, perhaps to amateur sports teams?

Can the PC adequately compete with the tablet as a paper replacement? No it cannot.

• LOANERS:

Tablets are starting to show up as “loaners” that are lent out as entertainment devices. They’re being purchased by libraries. Airplanes run by Singapore Airlines and Qantas use them as in-flight entertainment devices. Airports like New York’s LaGuardia, Minneapolis-St. Paul International and Toronto Pearson International, lend them out to waiting passengers. The Tablet is ideally suited for the task. It is light, it is portable, it is versatile, it displays content beautifully and it is sublimely easy to use.

Can the PC adequately compete with the tablet as a Loaner? No, it cannot.

• EDUCATION:

PCs in schools are mostly relegated to teachers and computer labs. Tablets live in the classroom and they reside in the hands of the students. No one wants to learn HOW to use computers anymore. Students simply want to use computers to help them learn.

The Tablet is starting to take educational institutions by storm. It acts as an electronic blackboard, as a digital textbook and as an interactive textbook.

It’s at the K-12 level (the San Diego School district just ordered 26,000) and at the Universities (Adams Center for Teaching and Learning at Abilene Christian University, George Fox University, North Carolina State University in Raleigh). Tablets are even finding their way into the top-tier high schools in China.

Some schools have even reported a 10% improvement in the exam scores of students who use Tablets in lieu or paper books.

Can the PC adequately compete with the tablet in education? No, it cannot.

• NEW USERS:

The tablet excels at creating new computer users. This might seem a bit controversial, but it shouldn’t be. Just think of anyone who says that they hate computers – they’re a candidate for a Tablet. Just think of anyone who is too young or too old or too infirm or too disabled to use a PC – someone like a 3 year old or a 93 year old or a recovering cancer patient or an autistic child or someone with learning disabilities. They’re all perfect candidates for the Tablet. The tablet will create a whole new class of computer users – people who have never used a computer before.

Can the PC adequately compete with the tablet as no-fuss, no-muss computing device? No it cannot.

• NEW USES:

What makes the Tablet so very exciting is that we haven’t even begun to touch on it’s full potential yet. With desktops, we were desk bound. With notebooks, we were surface bound. The Tablet allows us to do new tasks in new places and in new ways.

And it’s virtually impossible to say what these tasks will be. We’re limited by our experience and the scope of our imaginations. Tablets are going to be used in ways that we haven’t even begun to think of yet.

SUMMING UP

Can the PC compete with the Tablet while standing, while moving, in sales, as Kiosks, as Point of Sale devices, as paper replacers, as loaners, in education, with wholly new users in wholly new uses? No, it cannot.

It is in these areas – the areas that are below the PC’s level of competence, below the PC’s level of contempt – that the Tablet will establish its empire. And there is simply nothing that the PC can do to stop it.

Like Captain Edward Smith of the Titanic, the Captains of Dell, HP, Google, Microsoft and many other computing companies, have failed to adequately grasp the true significance of the danger they are facing. They looked at the Tablet and thought: “What the hey, I can avoid that dinky little tablet floating there on top of the waters. It’s no bigger than an ice cube! It’s no threat to me and my business at all!” But what they forgot, is that most of the tablet’s strength lies hidden beneath the optimal level of the PC, i.e., beneath the PC’s “water line”. THAT is where the real danger to the PC lies.

LESSONS LEARNED AND LESSONS YET TO BE LEARNED

So, what should all of this be telling us?

Is the PC really the Titanic?

Sure, why not. The PC may sink beneath the waves like the Titanic did…but it will leave hundreds of very large “life boats” in it wake. Anywhere that the PC is weak and the Tablet is strong, the PC will cease to exist. And that’s a LOT of places. But the PC will continue to exist – just in a much diminished state.

It is not so much that the PC market will grow smaller (which it will) that matters. It’s much more a matter of the Tablet market growing larger. Much, much larger. Soon the ships that are the PC will be floating atop a sea of Tablets. And what was once a “Titanic” PC industry, will merely be just one component of a much larger, and much more diversified, personal computing industry.

Is the Tablet Really an Iceberg?

Sure, let’s go with that. The important thing to note is that the portion of the Tablet market that everyone is focused on – the portion directly challenging the PC – that portion is, by far, the smallest and the least dangerous portion of the Tablet market.

Tablets will not so much reduce the number of PCs we use as they will simply outgrow the total number of PCs in use. Tablets are additive. They will replace a few PCs but mostly they will replace millions upon millions of tasks that never before were done with the assistance of computers. While everyone is bemoaning the fact that PC sales are flat or diminishing, the reality is that the actual sales of personal computers are currently exploding. True, the PC market is shrinking. But mostly, the Tablet market is growing, and it is growing so fast that it will soon overtake the PC market.

Like the iceberg, it is the rest of the Tablet market – the part that has not yet been fully discovered – that will overwhelm the PC. There will be far more Tablets than PCs simply because there are far more tasks that the Tablet can do, and do well, than tasks that the PC can do, and do well.

This is a novel concept for most. We tend to think of computing only in terms of the tasks that the PC is capable of doing today. We define those tasks that computers are currently doing as the only tasks that could possibly require a computer.

But the number of tasks being done WITHOUT the assistance of a computer dwarfs those that are currently being done WITH the assistance of a computer. And while the PC has pretty much maxed out the number of tasks that it can do, the limits to the number of tasks that the Tablet can do are undefined – and nearly endless.

During this holiday week, we wanted to re-showcase some of the most read columns of 2013. Whether you read them before or are seeing them for the first time, enjoy some of the most read columns of our site from the past year.

As I was reflecting on my first experience with the new iPad and its retina display I was intrigued with a thought. There has always been something about the iPhone’s retina display and now with the iPad’s display that has me mesmerized. When I first saw the new iPad and the screen at Apple’s event I couldn’t stop looking at it. Even today I sometimes just turn it on to look at it and shake my head in disbelief.

The thought that I was intrigued by is how the visual appeal of Apple’s devices, and in this case of the screen, causes us to be so emotionally attached to them. Even this NY Times article in September of last year points out that consumers do actually love their iPhones. I believe this affect however as everything to do with the visually appealing experience with Apple products.

In a TIME column I wrote last year, I pointed out that Apple’s desire to create products that are at the intersection of liberal arts and technology drives them to create technology products that are in essence art. Apple turns technology into art we can use. Apple exhibits an unparalleled focus in the technology industry to design some of the most visually appealing hardware in all of computing. This focus of creating objects of desire is one part of many that encompass the Apple experience. That experience, the visual and emotional experience tied to Apple products creates an emotional response in consumers of Apple products that create as much passion around a brand as I have ever seen.

The Most Passionate Community

I would challenge you to find a more passionate community anywhere in computing. I have attended many industry conferences and trade shows and the Macworld’s where Steve Jobs spoke had a level of energy associated with them that I am yet to encounter anywhere else in this industry.

The experience around Apple products is what I think many who compete with Apple take for granted and simply don’t understand. I’ve said often at industry talks I have given that consumers don’t buy products they buy experiences and that is what Apple delivers.

Consumers in droves are discovering what the hard core long time Apple community has known since the beginning and are converting in droves buying iPads, iPhones, and even Macs. It all leads with the visual experience and beautiful and attractive hardware. Believe it or not, however, beautifully designed things are easier to use.

What is Beautiful is Usable

In 2000 a scientist from Israel named Noam Tractinsky, wrote a book called “What is Beautiful is Usable.” He started with a theory and built the scientific evidence to back it up. To quote his report on the subject:

two Japanese researchers, Masaaki Kurosu and Kaori Kashimura1, claimed just that. They developed two forms of automated teller machines, the ATM machines that allow us to get money and do simple banking tasks any time of the day or night. Both forms were identical in function, the number of buttons, and how they worked, but one had the buttons and screens arranged attractively, the other unattractively. Surprise! The Japanese found that the attractive ones were easier to use.

Noam himself then wanting to test this theory with the Israeli culture so he duplicated the experiment. He thought that aesthetic preferences may be culturally dependent. His observation was that the Israeli culture is more action oriented and they care less about beauty and more about function. However when he duplicated the results with an Israeli group of people the conclusion was the same. In fact in his research the sentiment was stronger with the Israeli sample size. So much so that in his research report he remarked in his paper that beauty and function “were not expected to correlate” — He was so surprised that he put that phrase “were not expected” in italics.

It appears that Apple has been on to something from the beginning. Perhaps Steve Jobs absolute resolve to make technology products beautiful carried with it inherent user experience paradigms that simply made products easier to use and that theme is continued today all throughout Apple. This in my opinion is truly what is setting Apple apart in the market place. They create objects of desire and out of that focus comes a visually and easy to use user experience paradigm that drives emotional responses in consumers of their products.

We know humans are visual beings, especially men, and interestingly enough a great deal of science exists today linking beautiful things to ease of use. There are companies who can design objects of desire and easy to use products and there are those who can’t. Apple’s advantage in this area is that they create the hardware and the software with this technology and software as art philosophy. We see this in their hardware and their software and will eventually see it more in their services.

Noam Tractinsky is right and his book title highlights a profound truth. What is beautiful is usable and this philosophical truth carries over into computing and human interaction with computing.

Right now there is only one company who I think truly understands it.

References:
– Don Norman, Why We Love (or Hate) everyday things, Feb 4th 2003
– Tractinsky, N., Adi, S.-K., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is Beautiful is Usable. Interacting with Computers, 13 (2), 127-145.
– Tractinsky, N. (1997). Aesthetics and Apparent Usability: Empirically Assessing Cultural and Methodological Issues. CHI 97 Electronic Publications: Papers

We would like to personally thank our readers for helping make 2013 the best year on record for Tech.pinions in every category. We truly have the best readers and the best commenters of any technology publication. We have encouraged our columnists to take this week off to get rejuvenated and get the minds ready for an ambitious and exciting 2014.

Each day this week we will re-feature one of the most read articles of the year. So enjoy re-reading, re-discovering, or even discovering for the first time some of the most popular and most read Tech.pinions columns from 2013.

Happy Holiday from all the columnists.

– The Tech.pinions Team

It’s that time of year when everyone likes to compile a “Best Of” list. Having sat through so many meetings here in the center of the universe known as “Silicon Valley”, I’m offering my Top 10 Silicon Valley Business Memes That Must End for 2013. It is my fervent hope we can squash these sometime during 2014.

1. Compute terminology can substitute for normal words…
We do not “reboot” businesses, plans, conversations, or strategies. Difficult fellow human beings are not “no-ops”. Butting in and asking for attention is not a “priority interrupt”. I can keep going and so can you. In the name of decent, normal conversation, I’m asking that we please stop trying to de-humanize human things. Contrary to popular belief, employing this meme does not make us look “technical”. Using the word “meme” however is still cool.

2. Silicon Valley works well because it is a meritocracy…
No it’s not. We all enjoy telling each other this one out here because it makes us feel as if we are making rational business decisions on something other than influence and connection. Silicon Valley depends on networking. It concentrates a lot of skill and talent in a fairly small area and leavens the entire mixture with liberal amounts of cash. We seem to feel that it is a dirty secret that it is not what you know but who you know. That’s not a bad thing or even wrong, it just is.

3. Outrage Expressed on social media is action…
Unbelievably, despite whatever outrage we are feeling about whatever subject expressing it on social media is not going to fix it. Just because it has been expressed in a semi-public forum is not the action-equivalent of doing something. Yes, we linked to an article that proves our point, yes, my hand-picked friends might even be outraged right along with me. That is why they’re my friends after all! No, I didn’t actually “do” anything in this process. In 2014 if we are outraged, let’s actually do something about it in more than 140 characters or “like” buttons.

4. We’re getting a 10x return on our investment!
Come on, we know we’re not! All us bright people out here chasing 10x’s on our initial investment–statistically we know there aren’t that many to be had. In fact the actual number of companies that get this return are vanishingly small. Our limited partners are actually going to be much more impressed with actual returns when an exit occurs rather than excuses about why that hopeful 10x flamed out. If you’re an entrepreneur and you have tried to figure out how to make your pitch look like 10x you know the drill. Please stop. Let’s make 2014 the year we build great businesses with lasting value that further the common good. Let’s have that be enough.

5. Employee Buses
All the haters voting against tax increases to support mass transit, showing up to hate buses for the elite “knowledge worker” to get to work and unclog our highways a little bit, please check your irony meter at the door. Bus drivers parking where you don’t belong: please make those knowledge workers walk a little further. BART administrators and workers: repeated strikes are not only not helping, but there is a real danger of a “pox on both your houses” becoming the way we all feel. Can’t we all just get along? Traffic’s bad enough.

6. SoMoLo
Yes there is some obtuse linkage between Social, Mobile and Local, but not as an investment category. There is no unicorn here. While everyone tries to come up with some kind of grand unification theory around the so-called category, time is wasting for hundreds of little companies with great ideas. Big kudos to the person who dreamed up the name though–it actually makes it look like there’s a grand strategy in there somewhere.

7. We can hide the poor, or at least teach them how to code…
There seems to be a persistent belief that the poor should not be seen or heard and that means they don’t exist. Or that “teaching them to fish” means developing and iPhone app. Please see meme #3 and spare us the Darwinian (Malthusian?) social theories. Why not just do the right thing in 2014 instead? Let’s head over to Glide Memorial and put on an apron; refrain from taking pictures when we’re there, and post absolutely nothing to Twitter about the experience. No one will even know we did it! The poor (whom we will always have with us) will be fed and that’s all that really matters.

8. Food is rational investment thesis…
No it’s not. Call any Bay Area CPA and ask them the silly ways smart people waste good money. Right after they tell you “open a winery” they’ll probably add: “start a restaurant”. Yet we all do after some point and most, if not all of us, lose our shirts in the process. Just because we have come up with some way to tie a smartphone app to our kitchen does not make this venture capital worthy. Let’s make a New Year’s resolution to not make a business plan around food.

9. “Lean” anything must mean it is good for a business…
I love this one for its creativity. It combines humanity’s love of dieting fads with how to run a business. We business people just eat this stuff up (see how easy this is?). Waste looks like fat, and cutting down trims our waste-line (get it?). Lean-ness leaves us with muscle and bone and we are strong and growing. Sure, sure, we get it, but enough already. In 2014 I’m going to start my own meme called “healthy fat”. You see, startups are really like babies and babies actually need a lot of healthy fat to grow quickly… hey wait! If I turn this into a restaurant and add an iPhone app… instant funding!

10. Personal Branding
I don’t know if this started out here in San Francisco or not, but it sure feels like it did. Humans are not brands, nor should they ever be. It’s bad enough that half the clothing I wear has to show some type of logo, but now I have to make myself into a brand too? This is what we’re teaching our next generation of entrepreneurs? Be your own brand? Really? How about we focus on making ourselves into better people and leave the branding to companies and cattle in 2014?

Every year I try to write my holiday gift guide before the holidays. This year I completely missed Hannukah, but there are still a few days left before Christmas and New Years, so if you’re still looking for a gift or two – or are trying to figure out what to do with cash or gift cards you received – this guide is for you. I have personally tested every product listed here, along with dozens of others that did not make the cut. With the exception of the Chromecast, all products were provided for review at no charge; no consideration was given to Current Analysis clients.

Tablets

I don’t usually recommend tablets in my gift guide because I can’t add much value – it’s not like you didn’t know that there’s this thing called an iPad. However, this year I felt compelled to talk about three devices that are worthy of stronger consideration based on their successful completion of radical weight loss programs. Apple’s iPad Air ($499 – $929) is compatible with over 500,000 iPad-specific apps and the full breadth of iTunes media, making it an incredibly powerful tool for content creation and consumption alike. It is thinner and lighter than before. This is not news to anyone. However, if you haven’t held an iPad Air yourself, you really ought to; the thinner profile and significant weight difference make what was the leading tablet so much more enticing to pick up and use.

Amazon’s Kindle Fire HDX 8.9 ($389 – $594) is even lighter than the iPad Air, and while it does not have the breadth of Apple’s apps, its light weight, gorgeous display, and access to Amazon’s store makes it superb for content consumption. Just be warned – Amazon will let you download full HD content to view on that display, and if you choose the highest resolution, file sizes can be so large that you may only be able to fit a single movie on the 16GB model. As Amazon does not offer expandable storage, it pays to spend more on the higher capacity variants.

Finally, for book readers, Barnes & Noble’s Nook Glowlight ($119) is so light it feels hollow, making it easier than ever to get lost in a book without arm fatigue. The backlight and battery life have been improved over previous models as well, but the real difference – like with the iPad Air and Kindle Fire HDX 8.9 – is the weight loss.

Accessories

The iPad Air’s shape and size is so different from its predecessors that covers and accessories for the old iPads won’t work. I wish Apple would come out with its own keyboard covers for the Air – or better yet, Microsoft, whose TouchType keyboards for the Surface are fantastic – but until then, you should look to Logitech for iPad keyboard accessories. I was a big fan of Logitech’s Ultrathin Keyboard Cover for iPad, and the new version for the iPad Air ($99) is my recommendation for the new model.

However, for those seeking a cover that protects the front and rear of the iPad, Logitech’s Keyboard Fabricskin Folio ($119) is now a good option. The old version was simply too thick once the iPad was included – it felt like holding a notebook, not a tablet. The iPad Air’s new dimensions make the whole package work.

A year after Apple upended its accessories ecosystem by abandoning the 30 pin connector for the equally proprietary – but completely different – Lightning connector, there still aren’t enough products with Lightning connectors built in. So I was intrigued when iHome announced the iDL100 ($149), a clock/radio/docking station with two Lightning connectors – one for an iPhone, and one for an iPad. iHome also throws in a USB port to power a different phone or tablet, and a 3.5mm input jack to handle anything else you might want to connect. Sound quality is good – it’s loud and clean, with more bass than I was expecting. (The Sonos Play:1 is better still, but that’s a dedicated speaker and it costs $50 more.) The display can be dimmed or turned off entirely. The iDL100’s neatest trick is that it sets the time automatically from your docked iPhone. It also has battery backup for power outages, and FM radio with 6 presets. You’ll want to download the pair of free companion apps to make settings easier, as the buttons are not as intuitive as they could be. But if you’ve got the manual, you won’t need an iPhone – the clock, both alarms and the FM radio work whether you have an iDevice docked or not. There are some limitations to the free companion app – if you want it to control the alarm, it needs to be in the foreground. My biggest wish is an AM radio; AM isn’t relevant in most global markets, but it’s still the premier urban news/weather/talk source in the U.S., where iHome is located, and it would cost next to nothing to add it. For the Apple fan who has upgraded their phone and tablet but not their alarm clock or docking station, the iDL100 is perfect, and given its capabilities and sound quality, it’s not outrageously priced, either.

You can never have too many charging solutions. There are a million USB car chargers and third party cables, but the ones that stood out for me this year were from Ventev. The Dashport R1200 ($19.99) is small enough to be left in the cigarette lighter all the time, and powerful enough to charge tablets. Chargesync cables ($24.99) come in both microUSB and Apple Lightning connector versions, and the bright colors are ideal for differentiating between the two. The flat and chunky design of the cable itself ensures that it never gets tangled.

Steve Jobs said, “if you see a stylus, they did it wrong,” but that’s really a matter of opinion. Today’s styli add to a tablet’s capabilities, especially for drafting, illustrating, and painting, without forcing the user to navigate everything with the pen. Samsung’s S-Pen uses extremely precise Wacom technology but only works on Samsung’s Note line of phones and tablets.

Wacom itself came out with the Intuos Creative Stylus ($99) for iPads; I love the thick barrel, pressure sensitivity, and palm rejection (you can lay your hand on the screen without it registering as a brush stroke), but wished the tip was smaller and less rubbery. Still, it beat using a finger or a cheap capacitive stylus.

For one specialized use case – digital painting – I just loved sensu’s brush stylus ($39.99). It’s a capacitive stylus made of fibers that feels just like a horse hair brush. It doesn’t offer pressure sensitivity, palm rejection, or even that much fine control – but that’s the point. It feels like a brush. For an artist accustomed to real world water colors, guache, or oil paints, this could be the tool that gets them to expand their medium to pixels.

Gaming

Nobody needs an NVIDIA Shield ($249), a handheld Android game system, which is a lot of fun to play, but is rather bulky and fairly expensive. Likewise, nobody needs a Parrot AR.Drone ($279), which is a quad-rotor helicopter with cameras facing forward and down. However, when you combine the two products, you get something sort of magical. The Shield’s joysticks act as the perfect controller, while its unobstructed display can be switched among either camera live, while it simultaneously records. Sure, you could use this combination for good (checking your gutters), but it is far more fun to dive-bomb your six year old and instantly send the results to YouTube. Is this worth over $500? Only you can decide.

One of the other uses for the Shield by itself is streaming PC games around the house – assuming you have a fairly specific, relatively high end Nvidia graphics card in the PC. I’ve tried this scenario, and it works most of the time, allowing the gamer to sociably ignore everyone while sitting on the couch and playing Borderlands 2 instead of anti-socially retreating to the computer room. Setup can be finicky, however, and you may still need access to the PC at times – so if the PC is in the room with a sleeping baby, this still might not work.

Did someone on your list just buy a PlayStation 4? Sony also has an in-home streaming solution for the PlayStation 4 ($399) using the PlayStation Vita ($199) handheld system. In this case, the Vita essentially becomes the PS4 – the implementation is completely seamless, which makes it perfect for playing endless rounds of Resogun while some else is monopolizing the TV that the PS4 is attached to. There are plenty of good games for the Vita itself, too, so it’s a good time to reconsider portable PlayStation gaming.

I’ve been using both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 since before launch and like different aspects of each, but at this point they have tremendous unmet promise than polished perfection. As we get close to Christmas I’ve actually seen it get easier to find these consoles at retail than when they first launched in November, but if you can’t find one easily, don’t despair. Saving money on these now is not a bad strategy; they’ll be much better next year when there is more unique software for them and some of the system limitations have been worked out.

Wireless Bluetooth Speakers

This year was the year of the Bluetooth speaker. I must have had hundreds of public relations people pestering me to test their variant on the theme. Most of them are indistinguishable from each other. Two are worth calling out: if you must buy a cheap Bluetooth speaker, you could do worse – a lot worse – than HDMX Audio’s JAM Classic ($34) speaker. It’s not high fidelity, but it does play louder and cleaner than your smartphone’s puny speakers or anything else in its price range.

My favorite Bluetooth speaker this year was Logitech’s UE Boom ($179): a waterproof, weatherproof, colorful cylindrical speaker that provides deep, rich audio at the same price point as other good quality options that are not as versatile or nice to look at. The packaging is also a work of art.

For roughly the same price ($199), if you don’t need portability and weather resistance, Sonos’ Play:1 offers better sound and is still quite compact (it uses its own WiFi-based network, not Bluetooth). However, I must warn you: the Play:1 is a gateway drug to a whole-house Sonos system. Once your giftee has one Sonos speaker, they will feel compelled to add addition speakers in additional rooms, all controlled by iOS or Android devices, with each room coordinated with the others or playing its own tracks.

Stocking Stuffers

No matter how convenient a tablet or eReader may be, there is still something to be said for printed books, especially when they are filled with photographs and left invitingly for everyone to browse on your coffee table. No Starch Press has a rich line of books chronicling the adult LEGO community, and this year’s Beautiful LEGO ($29.95) has been rightfully highlighted on Wired and other tech and geek culture sites. You can use the book to learn different building techniques or simply marvel at the time, talent, and money that goes into them. This is simply a stunning collection of sculpture built one brick at a time.

Google has made several attempts at taking over your television, and all of them flopped. Rather than try again with another version of Google TV that tries to cram search and apps and overlays and guides and PLAY services, etc. into a $200 box you don’t want to buy and need a PhD to install, Google finally just gave up. Instead, it tried to solve a simple problem: how do you get YouTube or other video from your laptop or Android device onto your TV as simply and inexpensively as possible? The Chromecast ($35) is the answer. While it also streams Netflix and Google PLAY content, if all you ever use it for is the occasional YouTube video, the price and simple setup make it worthwhile.

This is my last article before the holidays, so I thought I’d use it to regale you with some holiday “Neverisms” — things that you should never ortter do. Here’s hoping they’l help you have a happy, healthy holiday.

Holiday Etiquette

HOLIDAY PREPARATIONS

Never hire a cleaning lady named Dusty. ~ David Corrado

HOLIDAY GIFT BUYING

[pullquote]If thine enemy wrong thee, buy each of his children a drum. ~ Chinese proverb[/pullquote]

Never purchase beauty products in a hardware store. ~ Addison Mizner

Never buy a pit bull from a one-armed man. ~ Dave Barry

Never buy a parachute marked: “For Sale: Only used once, never opened, small stain.”

HOLIDAY ATTIRE

Never wear a hat that has more character than you do. ~ Michael Harris, former owner of Paul’s Hat Works in San Francisco

Never wear anything that panics the cat. ~ P. J. O’Rourke

HOLIDAY DRIVING

Never drive faster than your guardian angel can fly. ~ Bumper sticker

HOLIDAY EATING

Never feel compelled to finish everything on your plate.

Never inhale through your nose when eating a powdered doughnut. ~ Dave Barry

Never (consume) food in excess of your body weight. ~ Erma Bombeck

HOLIDAY DINNER CONVERSATION

The rule in carving holds good as to criticism; never cut with a knife what you can cut with a spoon. ~ Charles Buxton

Never argue at the dinner table, for the one who is not hungry always gets the best of the argument. ~ Richard Whately

Never try to tell everything you know. It may take too short a time. ~ Norman Ford

GRACIOUS GIFT RECEIVING

Technically, this isn’t a “Neverism.” However, it’s likely that some of us may receive a gift (or two) that we really don’t care for. If that should happen to you, try to be as gracious as the bald man who received the the comb as a present, and simply say, as he did:

“Thank you very much. I’ll never part with it.”

THE GOOD HOLIDAY GUEST

Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go. ~ Oscar Wilde

Strive always to be the former, never the latter.

For Your Consideration: A Dozen Neverism New Year’s Resolutions

1. Never let a computer know you’re in a hurry.
2. Never kick a cow chip on a hot day. ~ Cowboy Proverb
3. Never let a fool kiss you or a kiss fool you. ~ Joey Adams
4. Never have children, only grandchildren. ~ Gore Vidal
5. Never moon a werewolf. ~ Mike Binder
6. Never say “bite me” to a vampire. ~ Dave Barry
7. Never play leapfrog with a unicorn. ~ Anonymous
8. Never raise your hand to your children…it leaves your midsection unprotected. ~ Robert Orben
9. Never use a big word when a little filthy one will do. ~ Johnny Carson
10. Never hit a man with glasses; hit him with something bigger and heavier. ~ Dave Barry
11. Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night. ~ Dave Barry

Two Thoughts For You To Reflect Upon This Upcoming Holiday…

It’s never too late to have a happy childhood. ~ Berke Breathed

It’s never too late to be what you might have been. ~ Mary Ann Evans (under the pen name, ‘George Eliot’)

Happy Holidays to you and yours, and a joyous New Year!

Every strategic plan is an opportunity to kill our company and have it be born anew. This is a necessary thing and a good thing, but of course it does not come without fear. Do not miss the opportunity to kill your company or division or team or idea. I mean it. Look to kill your company as soon as you can. You can thank me later.

When I was younger and fresh out of school working for a big firm, the single task I dreaded the most was the once yearly “five year strategic plan”. Every year we had to review our business and fill out forms and compile data and turn in a plan that looked cautiously, five years into the future. I was never sure exactly what these plans did because I never saw any change that was directly connected to the planning we were doing. After several years of this routine a few friends and I made The Bet. We were older, more jaded and had loftier positions. By that time we were assembling the inputs from our respective teams and placing the plans into special sealed envelopes destined for headquarters. Now, in a bar somewhere in New York, we had convinced ourselves pint by steady pint that, unbelievably, no one was actually reading our opus magnums. Such was the foundation of The Bet.

The Bet

Each of us was to take a $20 bill and staple the greenback to the fifth page of our plan. Our idea was that if someone from headquarters asked about the money stapled to page five, we’d at least have some confirmation that a human being had read that far into our plan. Weeks later when I had not heard anything, curiosity got the better of me and I called my buddies from the night in the bar and checked in with them. True to form, I was the only one who had actually gone through with it. I spent the next several weeks scared to death that our stupid joke had likely torpedoed my bright future, and then promptly forgot about the whole thing. Some three years or so later I remembered and finagled my way into the room where the strategic plans were archived. There was my $20 as crisp as it was the day I sent it.

At many businesses people are engaged in the act of “strategic planning” because that is what it is: an act, a fiction. The strategic plan is the function that gets performed in the third calendar quarter of every year whereby we act like we are strategizing. But we miss the key point and value of the exercise when it is more a plan and less a strategy. The word “strategy” comes from the greek word “strategia” meaning office or command of a General–a leader commanding armies.

Perhaps we forget that death is a necessary part of any strategic planning because it seems to go against the grain of what we think a business should actually be doing. Dying? Businesses should be growing, vibrant, healthy places! Shouldn’t all our curves go up and to the right? Each quarter’s revenues are supposed to be higher than the last! Shouldn’t every powerpoint slide show some kind of slope rising to infinity? There is no room for death when all that gets rewarded is growth. And that is the problem. Intuitively we know that no curve in real life always goes “up and to the right”. Intuitively we know that real death is actually stalking our business every moment of every day either through complacency or a more aggressive competitor. [pullquote]Every great stride made by your fellow humans had death at its heels and this is acknowledged as a good thing[/pullquote]

No great General ever considered a war plan without also considering casualties. Certainly no General who loved and respected an army ever did a strategic plan that did not make the necessary deaths for the outcome actually worth something. Go further for moment though and try to think of any living process on planet earth that does not include death as part of its “strategic plan”. Foundational to Darwin’s theory on evolution is the necessary part death must play. Can you think of any serious, world changing human endeavor that does not include the possibility of death? Every great stride made by your fellow humans had death at its heels and this is acknowledged as a good thing. Why then would we ever consider any strategic plan that did not also include dying?

Death has not been altogether missed by the most successful businesses; they just don’t use the term “death”, instead preferring to use much more acceptable words like “fast failure” or “learn from our mistakes” or “cannibalization” or “planned obsolescence” or “transition plan”, or “succession planning”. The hot word these days is “pivot” meaning “our old plan wasn’t working so we have a new one”. This is all insecure justification for the reality: an old plan was killed and a new one was born. There are hundreds of ways of saying that something must die for success to occur, but perhaps it is our own human innate fear of death that prevents us from embracing “death” and facing it without fear.

Apple has death down to a science and has turned it into the world’s most successful business. Steve Jobs once said, “If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will”. Cannibalization is the essence of death bringing new life in a business context. In Apple’s thinking, it is far better to kill and eat its own products with its own products than to have someone else do the killing to them. Their very survival is based on planned death.

Andy Grove, the former CEO of Intel is famous for making the decision that would kill a very profitable memory business in favor of an unproven semiconductor device called a microprocessor. He oversaw one of the largest increases in share price of a publicly traded company on the “death” of Intel’s cash cow memory products business. Perhaps it is not at all surprising that a Jewish boy growing up in a Nazi occupied Hungary, and surviving to watch dictators and regimes come and go would be so familiar with death that the death of a mere product line would seem a small thing. That experience led him to Intel and he likely saved one of America’s greatest companies as a result. Death is an excellent teacher.

Behind every great company like Intel or Apple there is a death and rebirth story, if not for the whole enterprise then a key division or product. It is a simple fact and it is not talked about enough. We have to wonder why. Why when everyone is looking for an edge, are we not looking at the only edge that matters?

Lessons Learned

Having been a part of so many deaths during my business career, I am sometimes privileged to be present when someone learns the lesson themselves. Which is how I came to share an iced tea in a cafe in Palo Alto with a good man embarking on a new business. Having recently left his job as much by suggestion as by choice, he had decided to strike out and build his own business. So pervasive was his fear regarding this decision, it was hard to think of anything else. In an entrepreneurial sense he was naked in the town square. He was betting his farm. He was pledging his reputation. He was in fact thinking a lot about things that felt like dying one way or another. I knew that no words from me were going to prepare him for the feeling of really owning his payroll, or worrying about growing a business with a wife at home and two kids in college. I could not have been happier for him though, so I asked him the only question that really mattered at the time: “Are you scared to death?”

I saw him rub some of the beads of condensation off his drink as he thought intently. I watched him die a little bit then and thought that dying should always be a difficult thing to share with someone else. I waited.

“I think so,” he said. “It’s hard to tell.”

“It’ll be okay,” I said. “You’ll be terrified and then you’ll get over it, because that’s what we do. You’ll probably be scared to death two or three more times before it works out the way it’s supposed to. You’ll be okay.”

Still staring at his glass, he asked, “You really think so?”

“Cross my heart and hope to die.”

That gave us both a good chuckle.