Author: Bob O'Donnell

When we think about how devices and their usage are evolving, it’s tempting to talk about the rise of one versus the decline of another. But the reality is much more complex. What’s actually happening is that people are acquiring more devices, while simultaneously engaging in more activities, and then splitting those activities across their growing cadre of devices.

Things used to be simple. People created documents on PCs, made phone calls on mobile phones and watched live broadcasts on TVs. Sure, there were a few outlying examples, but even just 10 years ago (heck, 5 years ago for many people), that’s pretty much what people did.

Now, people engage in an enormous range of activities on devices, from numerous forms of communication—such as ephemeral sharing of 10-second video clips, or 140-character bursts of thought—to watching videos created by amateurs, streamed from online services, the moment they feel the urge to do so. Plus, they expect to be able to engage in any of these, and many other, activities on whatever device they happen to be holding or is located nearby.

The end result is that overall usage of devices—which I’m currently defining as PCs, tablets, smartphones and TVs of all stripes—has gone up dramatically. In fact, based on research I just completed with 2,574 online respondents across the US, UK, Brazil and China for my firm, TECHnalysis Research, activity-based usage of personal devices (not work-owned devices) averages over 9.4 hours a day. That’s a lot of screen and/or ear time (listening to music was a very popular activity).

Technically, the total device usage times were actually higher, but I compensated for simultaneous usage of multiple devices (such as browsing the web on a tablet while watching TV, or instant messaging on a smartphone while browsing the web on a PC), which is also a growing phenomenon. In fact, the average amount of multitasking across devices—that is, the percentage of time people reported using more than one device at a time—was 42%, and among those 18-24 it was over 50%. (No wonder my teenage and early 20-something children are so distracted….)[pullquote]Despite the enormous growth of the Internet and the impact of mobile devices, watching live TV was still the most popular activity across every age group, from 18 to over 75, in every country surveyed—and by a large amount.”[/pullquote]

While this is unquestionably a break from the recent past, looking at the specific activities people engage in demonstrates that some things have still not dramatically changed. Despite the enormous growth of the Internet and the impact of mobile devices, watching live TV was still the most popular activity (in terms of time spent) across every age group, from 18 to over 75, in every country surveyed—and by a large amount. In fact, average live TV viewing times across the entire respondent base were 75% higher (13.5 hours per week versus 7.8—not compensating for simultaneous device usage) than browsing the web, which was the second most popular activity in terms of time spent.

But what is very different about the current live TV viewing data is how it’s split across different devices. The chart below breaks out live TV viewing by device type and by age group and, along the right hand side, illustrates how many hours per week each age group watches live TV programming. Across the entire age spectrum, fully 30% of live TV viewing is no longer done on an actual TV. For younger age groups, a reasonable amount is done on smartphones and across nearly all the age groups, there’s double-digit usage of PCs for this application.

©2014, TECHnalysis Research

Looking at the same data by country, as the second chart below illustrates, offers an even more interesting perspective. The data clearly shows that in developing countries like China and Brazil, traditional TV watching is rapidly moving to non-TV devices. What’s also interesting about the China data is that it correlates well with TV ownership data from the survey. It turns out the average number of TVs per household in China is well below averages in the US and UK. While Chinese consumers still rank live TV watching as their most popular activity (though the absolute number of hours viewed per week is much lower than in other countries), the manner in which they engage in this activity has a profound impact on the devices they purchase for their home.

©2014, TECHnalysis Research

Moving forward, the interactions between devices and activities is likely to get even more complex and more diverse. But it’s apparent that people around the world are going to expect the ability to do whatever type of activities they want on whatever devices they have. Device vendors, app developers and service providers need to be cognizant of these demands and plan their strategies accordingly.

After having been written off as dead more times than I can remember, it seems the PC industry is staging a resurrection of sorts, driven by both businesses and consumers starting to realize that PCs are still useful devices that they’d like to have around. Not only are we starting to hear more positive news about shipments and forward-looking business from big players like Dell, HP, Lenovo, Intel, AMD and others, there’s even news around innovations and advancements within the industry.

Intel yesterday reminded the world about how it continues to drive impressive improvements in process technology and CPU architectures with announcements around its 14 nm Broadwell-based Core M CPU. The chip, which is specifically designed for 8-10 mm thick 2-in-1 and ultrabook-style PCs, is expected to offer solid improvements in performance and, more importantly, even lower power requirements for the entire system. By taking a pragmatic approach to the design process, where they started outward from the finished system and moved inward to the chip, they’re enabling super-thin, lightweight, fan-less PCs that are optimized for power at every possible level. The end result should be some very sleek, sexy designs that finally “really” deliver on full-day, everything on, everything connected PCs by this holiday season.

Another big PC-related story came via nVidia and Acer, who debuted a Tegra K1-based Chromebook for $279. Chromebooks themselves have been one of the surprise hits in the PC industry over the last year or so, particularly in the US education market. In many cases they are replacing tablets, as schools have become concerned both with the high cost of tablets and their lack of a keyboard, among other things. Plus, to see nVidia bring their new CPU architecture over to a clamshell-based design demonstrates their awareness of the new type of value they can provide in a business that has been at their core since their founding.

And just to keep things interesting, we even have a back to the future marketing campaign that just launched with Microsoft taking on Apple in a Surface Pro 3 vs. Macbook TV ad. Yes, it’s 2014 and Microsoft and Apple are still fighting over the PC business…kind of fun and kind of amazing.

The consistent theme running through all of these is familiarity, but with a new twist. After all, Intel has been trotting out new CPU designs for a very long time; Acer is known for targeting lower-end PCs; nVidia’s graphics processing prowess is widely acknowledged; and it seems, at some level, Apple and Microsoft have been battling each other forever. But in each case, there are important new twists and developments that suggest companies, and indeed an entire industry, that is working to reinvent itself for the modern mobile era. [pullquote]To be sure, we’re far from being in a new golden era for PCs. But, we’re also far from seeing an extinction of the species.”[/pullquote]

To be sure, we’re far from being in a new golden era for PCs—there are still many challenges ahead and some of the recent positive news could turn out to be somewhat short-lived. But, we’re also far from seeing an extinction of the species. Instead, we’re seeing a maturation of viewpoints, an acknowledgment of reality and, arguably, an evolution of the species. The process hasn’t always been easy or pretty, but as time passes, it seems increasingly clear that PCs, in some form, will be around for some time to come.

As I’ve demonstrated in previous columns, PCs are still being actively used by all consumer age groups; they continue to be the dominant productivity devices in businesses of all sizes and they’re still in demand by many consumers. Many in the tech press and blogosphere would have had us believe that most people were going to (or already had) suddenly abandon(ed) their PCs for tablets, and the old clunkers were never to be seen again. But the facts simply do not support this view. The change process across the majority of mainstream users usually goes much slower than those on the cutting edge expect it to, and that has clearly been the case with PCs.

In fact, given the expected boom in larger-size smartphones, pairing a convertible PC with one of those large phones could prove to be exactly the combination that many in the mainstream will start to move towards. And if they do—and I expect they will—it should continue to breathe life into PCs for the foreseeable future.

Given that it’s just before back-to-school season, it may seem a bit odd to mention year-end holidays, but throughout the offices, halls and cubicles of all our favorite vendors, the holiday product and marketing plans have been underway for some time. These companies not only know what products they’ll have in place by then, they’re already in the process of making manufacturing forecasts in order to meet the needs of eager shoppers.

Having just completed a worldwide survey of just over 2,500 consumers regarding their consumer device usage and upcoming purchase plans (some data for which was recently referenced in an article on tablets in the Wall Street Journal), I believe I have a pretty good idea of what’s going to be hot in the critical Q4 buying season. Of course, the column title kind of gives it away, but to be clear, this will be the fall and winter for large (5”+ screen size) smartphones. I also predict we’ll see a reasonable rebound for consumer-focused notebook PCs, and a resurgent interest in internet-connected smart TVs.

The survey was fielded in July of this year by my research firm, TECHnalysis Research, and consisted of 1,021 online respondents from the US, 545 from the UK, 501 from Brazil and 507 from China. Each respondent was required to own and regularly use either a PC, tablet or smartphone (I wrote about some of the US-only device usage results in my “Digital Generation Gap” column a few weeks back). Respondents ranged in age from 18-75+, with roughly 40% in the 18-34 range; 40% in the 35-54 range and 20% in the 55+ group.

Most of the survey fo cused on current devices and activities they perform with those devices , but there was one question that specifically asked what devices they planned to purchase over the next 12 months. The list of choices people could select from were:

• Notebook PC
• Desktop PC
• All-in-one desktop PC (e.g., iMac)
• 2-in-1 notebook/tablet device (e.g., Lenovo Yoga, Microsoft Surface, etc.)
• Tablet with 8” screen or smaller
• Tablet with screen larger than 8”
• Smartphone with screen less than 5”
• Smartphone with screen 5” or larger
• Flat panel TV 32” or larger
• Smart TV (with internet connection) of any size
• Wearable device, like a smart watch or fitness band
• None of the above

Of course, people’s intentions to buy are almost always a fair bit higher than what their actual purchases turn out to be, so you can’t take the responses at direct face value. However, you can make relative comparisons between the results to see what products people are actively considering.

As the chart below shows, the clear winner across the worldwide sampling, as well as in most individual countries, was the larger smartphone category. Pent up demand for the forthcoming iPhone 6 is likely a partial explanation for the results, but I don’t believe Apple will be the only winner here. In general, there’s a broad-based interest for these devices and I expect we will very strong results in this category from a number of different vendors.

©2014, TECHnalysis Research

What some people might find surprising is the strong showing for notebooks, especially in developing markets. In fact, in Brazil, expectations for notebook purchases outshone every other category—and by a good margin—and notebooks were also the most popular choice (by a small margin) for Chinese consumers. Even in more mature markets like the US and UK, the consumer notebook category ranked high. In the US, notebooks slightly edged out smart TVs as the third most popular choice and in the UK, notebooks where fourth. Clearly, consumers still show strong interest in notebooks and with the increasing acceptance of Windows 8/8.1 and the decreasing prices of touch-based notebooks, the market for these devices should see a much needed rebound this holiday season.

Interestingly, smart TVs were the third most popular choice overall and were second in the UK and exactly tied for second in Brazil. Though many had written off this category years ago, it appears consumers are just starting to come around to the concept and these devices could offer a very pleasant surprise to those vendors who can put together a compelling offering.

Looking at other categories, tablets did not fare as well, but the larger 8”+ products were fifth overall versus a ninth (out of 11) ranking for smaller tablets. Given the very strong showing for larger smartphones this may not be surprising, but it powerfully demonstrates some of the challenges that the tablet market will be facing over the next year or so. Wearables ranked even worse, at 10^th, as most consumers are still struggling to understand the value of these new devices.

The data also showed notable differences by country with clearly different priorities depending on where in the world you live. In the US, for example, “non-smart” flat panel TVs 32” or larger were actually the number two choice, while in the UK, smartphones with smaller screens (under 5”) were the number three choice. Conversely, in China, those smaller screen smartphones were the last place choice, while larger tablets came in third.

No crystal ball can be perfect, of course, but there are increasing signs that the smartphone is about to go through a size revolution, the PC market is set to rebound, the tablet market will continue to struggle, and smart TVs could finally come to life. It’s going to be fun to watch….

The growing use of smartphones in more and more activities has led me to realize that, in essence, they’ve become the primary tool through which we run our lives: a personal remote control. Like a remote control, they’re (generally) convenient to use, always nearby, and offer instant gratification—or at least, instant access to choice.

Smartphones are, of course, pocketable computers, but they’re capability is extending into so much more. They’re pocket maps, communications consoles, portable entertainment centers, infinite reference guides, wireless televisions, miniature game consoles, digital cameras, home automation controllers, remote video monitors, electronic banking devices, printer-free ticket holders, health and wellness displays, artist’s palettes, musical instruments, oh, yeah, and TV remote controls.

Moving forward, as I’ve discussed before (see “Portable Digital Identities”), I expect them to eventually become our digital identity cards as well, for legal identification (with state and federal government agencies), credit identification (for purchases and other banking transactions) and health identification (carrying all our personal health records and other critical medical data). At that point, they will really have the capabilities to allow us to remotely control our lives and all the activities in which we engage.[pullquote]I’m not really sure what could replace the word, “smartphone”, but for many, a personal life remote probably isn’t a bad start.[/pullquote]

As powerful as smartphones are and continue to be, however, they do have their limits—primarily due to their physical size. Average screen sizes are increasing, but there are still restrictions on how big they can realistically get before people balk at carrying a device that’s too large to carry with them all the time, or that’s too difficult to manage with a single hand.

That’s where smartphones tie into another aspect of being a remote control: they typically work with larger devices. Now, unlike remote controls, smartphones are obviously fully independent devices that don’t require another device to actually function or offer value. However, there is only so much that you can achieve or do on a smartphone, even one of the large-screen varieties. This is one of many reasons why I’m still reasonably optimistic about the consumer PC market.

Larger screens are still important for a lot of activities that people regularly engage in, regardless of age (as my recent survey on consumer device usage clearly pointed out—see “Digital Generation Gap” for more). In fact, I think we will continue to see even more usage of larger and higher-resolution displays along with PCs—another reason why there’s still a future for desktop PCs, by the way. Having access to computing devices with larger screens allows for extensions and enhancements to the types of activities we’re already doing on smartphones, as well as activities that really only make sense on larger screens.

But for the day-to-day stuff of life, the smartphone has really evolved into an incredibly useful tool that its somewhat limiting-sounding name doesn’t even begin to do it justice. I’m not really sure what could replace the word, “smartphone”, but for many, a personal life remote probably isn’t a bad start.

Our general obsession with all the latest technology and gadgets is a relatively natural phenomena that reflects our interest in keeping up with what’s new. Unfortunately, it also tends to imply older technology isn’t very good, with value considered to be roughly inversely proportional to the age of the device.

While in some cases that sentiment is justified, there are instances where it just isn’t true. Technology-based products have been around long enough now that I think you can make the argument for some true technology gems from the past—vintage tech that was not only cutting edge for its time, but still offers value today.

From early HP and TI calculators, to early game consoles, like the Atari 2600, there are numerous examples of digital antiques many people still find compelling, useful and/or entertaining even today (in some cases, almost 40 years later!)

For musicians, there’s an impressive number of early electronic music products that still have value and still see active use even today. In fact, there’s been a growing movement and interest in trying to find or recreate music technology products from the past 25+ or even 35+ years, because people are “rediscovering” the unique benefits of these older products.

I’m fortunate enough to own a Yamaha G10 MIDI guitar from the late 1980s and, after a long period of storage in the closet, I have started rediscovering the unique capabilities of this oddly shaped but very flexible musical instrument. Yamaha originally designed the G10 to be paired up with one of two rack-mount synthesizers from the same era: the TX802 and the TX81Z, both of which feature variations on the FM synthesis technology first made famous by Yamaha’s DX7. I had never purchased one of those potential companion devices, so I decided to fully experience in the G10 in all its original glory, I would need to pick up one of them.

I started my digital antiquing expedition, as many do, on the world’s largest flea market: eBay. Happily, I found numerous TX81Zs available for sale, in various ranges of quality at fairly wide range of prices (some of them approaching ½ of the unit’s original retail price!) [pullquote]Clearly, there are tech products that have past the test of time and have essentially become “classics.” Of course, this begs the question, which of today’s tech products will be viewed as truly valuable devices 25+ years from now?”[/pullquote]

During my research phase, I also discovered a number of active software programs that still support the TX81Z, as well as numerous companies who still sell original patches, or sounds, for the device.

The whole experience made me realize there’s a wealth of vintage tech products out there being actively used, bought and sold on a very regular basis. While some are undoubtedly looking at these older devices more from a collector’s perspective, there are also quite a few who still find these 25+ year old digital antiques to be eminently practical, even today.

Clearly, these kinds of products have past the test of time and have essentially become “classics.” Of course, this begs the question, which of today’s tech products will be viewed as truly valuable devices 25+ years from now?

Regardless of your answers to that question (and I’m sure there’s a wide range of opinions on that one), and while there’s no denying the incredible capability of today’s latest and greatest tech devices, every now and then it’s good to take a look back and evaluate where we’ve been to help us understood where we’re likely to go.

Most people who follow the technology industry have a general sense there are important differences between younger and older people when it comes to what technology products they buy and how they’re used. Heck, those of us who are parents see it every day in the activities of our children in comparison to what we typically do.

But despite that general sense, I’ve seen precious little data that actually quantifies what the differences are. I believe to truly understand the dynamics of today’s market, it’s essential to get a deeper understanding of these issues.

That was one of the key motivations for a survey my firm, TECHnalysis Research, recently began. Ultimately, the study will consist of around 2,500 respondents across four countries (roughly 1,000 in the US, 500 in the UK, 500 in Brazil and 500 in China) answering questions in an online survey about the consumer technology devices they own and the activities they engage in with those devices. The US portion of the study just finished over the weekend and, in analyzing the results across 1,020 respondents, I found a number of fascinating data points related to what I’m calling “The Digital Generation Gap”.

First, to no one’s surprise, there was a big difference in the percentage of time different age groups spent with different devices. What was somewhat surprising however, was how linear the changes were scaled by age. Survey respondents were asked to indicate which of about 25 different types of activities they engaged in on their own devices and then how they split their time in that activity across devices. The activities ranged from watching TV programs to browsing the web, reading/updating social media, casual gaming, etc., and the devices types were PCs, tablets, smartphones and TVs. So for example, people would say how many minutes/hours in a typical weekday and weekend day they surfed the web, and of that time, how much was done with a PC, tablet, etc.

The results show noticeable differences in activity participation by age, as well as device usage splits for each of those activities by age. To get a general overview, I created a weighted average of all activities by age group and device, shown in the chart below.

©2104, TECHnalysis Research

As expected, the younger you are, the more you use your smartphone. The older you are, the more you use your PC. The degree of differences between age groups and the nearly perfect tracking with age was somewhat surprising however. Of course some of this has to do with using the devices we are most comfortable with. Younger people have grown up with smartphones and older people grew up using PCs. However, there’s also a difference in the type of activities and the amount of time spent on them between the different groups. Some of the activities older people do are arguably better suited to PCs and vice versa.

A big unanswered question is, how will this chart look in 5 years? Will the 18-24 year olds maintain this split of device usage as they age into the 25-34 group (and so on), or will their likely shifting of activities as they get older adjust their device usage? (Of course, there’s also the strong possibility we’ll have more device categories to add to the mix in 5 years, but that’s a topic for another column.)

Regardless of how that question is answered, there’s no denying big differences in current usage patterns. If you look at the data, you’ll see there’s nearly a 2x difference between the percentage of PC usage for the younger and older groups and a 4x+ difference in smartphone usage. If that’s not a generation gap, I don’t know what is! No wonder we still find ourselves making arguments about which devices will “win” and which ones will “die”: depending on how old you are and your perspective on the market, you can make very good arguments either way.[pullquote]There’s nearly a 2x difference between the percentage of PC usage for the younger and older groups and a 4x+ difference in smartphone usage. If that’s not a generation gap, I don’t know what is.”[/pullquote]

Another interesting data point from this chart is the relatively modest tablet usage and its relatively consistent percentage of use across age groups. As the numbers suggest, tablets are roughly a 10% device—something most people use about 10% of the time. While that’s OK, it’s certainly not a high enough number to get people to want to upgrade them on a regular basis. Plus, it also explains why lots of people are taking a pass on purchasing a tablet—it’s a “nice-to-have” but not a “must have” for many.

I also believe these numbers could portend a difficult future for the tablet market as there isn’t a single age group that shows particularly strong usage. Plus, knowing several important large screen smartphones are on their way and given the very high usage of smartphones among younger buyers, there’s likely to be a negative impact on tablets as they get replaced by these larger smartphones. On the other hand, the strong showing for PCs clearly suggests the consumer PC category is far from dead—even among younger people—and could be due for a bit of rebound.

Finally, implicit in all of these numbers is very high levels of multi-device usage per household. Regardless of the age group and regardless of the activity, people are becoming accustomed to using multiple devices to achieve or participate in popular activities and that has significant ramifications for the future. From adding more intelligence into TVs to providing scalable services that work across many screen sizes and device types, both hardware and software/services companies need to be building their offerings with that multi-device assumption as a baseline scenario.

Timing is everything in the tech business and because of that, it’s not uncommon to see old ideas come back to life in new forms. Many important or innovative ideas just reach the market before the world is ready for them and end up having little or no impact initially. However, eventually some make their presence felt.

As a long-time follower of the thin client business, I’ve often felt this way about these devices. In case you aren’t familiar with them, thin clients are basic computing devices with limited or even zero local computing power and local storage, that rely on a network connection to a server or other computing host. Software is executed on this remote host and the results are sent back over the network connection and then displayed on the screen attached to the thin client.

Thin clients, which are arguably a rethinking of the mainframe and terminal concept, have been around in some form or other since the late 1990s. They have gone through numerous enhancements and revisions but have never really had the level of impact that many thought or expected they would. In many business environments, thin clients serve a critical function. However, their role is still more secondary and they’ve had essentially no impact on consumer devices—until recently.

In a classic case of “what’s old is new again,” we’re starting to see vendors leverage the thin client computing model in a variety of different devices, from wearables to smart TVs to connected cars. Of course none of them are calling their devices thin clients—because they don’t necessarily fit the “traditional mold” of a thin client and the term “thin client” has some baggage attached to it—but the principles behind the devices are the same.[pullquote]We’re starting to see vendors leverage the thin client computing model in a variety of different devices, from wearables to smart TVs to connected cars.”[/pullquote]

At the core of the thin client experience is the concept of virtualization, where pieces of hardware are essentially modelled in software, running in a different location, in order to make it appear that the computing is ha ppening at the thin client device. So, for example, in the case of some of the new connected car initiatives from Apple and Google, the car’s entertainment system may appear to be running software locally, when in fact, the software is running on a connected smartphone and the screen on the entertainment system is updated remotely.

Similarly, some of the applications for streaming TV from phones or tablets happens on the mobile device, and the “thin client” device connected to the TV, such as Google Chromecast or Apple TV, decodes the video signal and displays it on the TV. In the case of wearables, it’s expected that many of them will leverage the computing capability and screen of a nearby smartphone, just as thin clients require the greater computing power of a networked attached server.

In some ways, you can think of this as a new means of delivering a video signal to a display. In fact, the need for more standardization around various types of wireless video standards was the inspiration for my recent column on screenless devices (see “Screen Overload to Drive Screen-less Devices.”) But in the case of thin clients, it’s not actually just sending regular video—instead, the concept is called “screen scraping.” With screen scraping, the host device renders the video, much like a video card inside a PC, and then sends compressed packets over to the thin client, which decodes the packets and sends the signal over to an attached display.

The benefit behind the thin client concept is that you leverage the greater computing power of the host device and create a simple, low-cost client that can work alongside it. With traditional models, that host tended to be a high-cost server located in a secure data center, but in the new thin client computing models, it’s smartphones and tablets that have become the host devices. They now have sufficient computing power to drive these new types of flexible compute models and, of course, that capability will only grow over time.

Thin clients and virtualization have always been very powerful, intriguing technologies that seemed to offer the potential to radically reshape how and where computing occurs. Now that these technologies can be deployed in more mobile forms, it seems like their time really has come.

One of the many hassles of the “multi-device per person” era we now find ourselves in, is the need to constantly log-in to each of our devices and password-protected web sites/online services multiple times a day. Jumping between devices generally makes the problem even worse because—for good reason—the process of logging into a particular site or service from one device does not automatically transfer to another (think lost phone).

Some people get so fed up with the process, they turn off basic password protections, but in our increasingly insecure digital world, that’s not a particularly wise move. Instead, what we need is an über log-in (no, not the car service) that serves as an overarching identification of ourselves and our digital credentials across devices, sites and services: a portable digital identity. The idea is that you log into a device and/or service that, in turn, can automate the process of logging into other sites/services from any of your devices.[pullquote]What we need is an über log-in (no, not the car service) that serves as an overarching identification of ourselves and our digital credentials across devices, sites and services: a portable digital identity.”[/pullquote]

Of course, to achieve that nirvana, there’s quite a few steps that have to be taken. Plus, the implications of a true portable digital identity go way beyond simple device and password log-in management.

First, a genuinely trustworthy way to establish your own identity is essential.  Between multi-factor authentication schemes, biometric sensors, smartcards and other hardware-based security solutions, there are a number of technologies to help enable this now. Unfortunately, though they are improving, none of the ones I’ve tried work reliably 100% of the time.

Assuming that issue can be addressed, however, there are other concerns. Once your digital identity is established, you need to create a personal circle of trust—for all your devices and all your subscriptions/services/password-protected sites. This central repository of log-ins/credentials/password-protected sites needs to be encrypted and must offer a way for individuals to access and manage it. Ideally, the system could create complex passwords on your behalf and regularly change them across all your various services, ensuring the highest possible security.

Of course, there’s a risk there because if something were to happen to that password creation/management system, it may be impossible to get to all your accounts. In fact, concern over this issue could keep many people from even wanting to try a true digital identity service.

The security and trust factors would also be enormous issues. Needless to say, access to this type of centralized repository of personal information would be incredibly attractive to hackers and other digitally nefarious types. It’s also likely to raise questions about trust in technology and technology companies to a very different level. Let’s face it—there are some companies many people trust and others that many people don’t.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to eventually see demands for some type of certification program for portable digital identities—and I also wouldn’t be surprised to see it eventually came from the government. Now, before you dive into political discussions, in essence, what I’m describing is the digital equivalent (but much more flexible version) of a US social security number or other government ID system. Plus, despite any concerns you may have regarding government oversight of such a system—and yes, there are many—do we have any sense that most tech corporations are truly more trustworthy than government? (Obviously, that’s dependent on where one lives in the world.)

Up until now, most discussions of digital identities have been more ethereal discussions about passwords and basic tracking of activities, but as Internet-based services become an increasingly essential part of nearly everyone’s lives, doesn’t it make sense to raise the discussion up several notches? At some point in the not-to-distant future we likely will all have some type of formal digital identity, so why not start the discussion now? But I digress…

Regardless of whether digital identity services have any tie to government or not—and for the record, I expect initial efforts will happen through tech companies, for better or worse—the possibilities for them go far beyond the simple convenience of maintaining passwords.

First, there’s enormous possibilities for online and mobile commerce. Future mobile devices are likely to carry our portable digital identity buried inside them. By leveraging some type of biometric sensor, whether that be simple fingerprint or more complex possibilities that could show up in connected wearables, the whole purchase process could be simultaneously sped up, simplified and made more secure through the adoption of digital identities. The trick here, of course, is to get all the various interested parties—banks, retailers, credit card companies, etc.,–to agree on a single (or at least manageable number of) standard(s). That won’t be easy and provides yet another reason why there may need to be a government-based or sponsored clearinghouse for this information and these standards.

Portable digital identities could also be critical for digital health and the modernization of medical records and patient care. Tying digital identities to online storage and other personal cloud-like services, such as iCloud, SkyDrive, GDrive, Dropbox, Box, etc., also ensures that all our data is available to us through whatever devices we tie to our digital identity. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if we saw these types of personal cloud services turn the equation around and serve as the home base for our portable digital identities. What better way to get people tied into a service than to truly bring all their critical information together in one place?

There’s a long way to go—and numerous bumps along the way—to reach the kind of full-fledged portable digital identity I’ve described, but I believe we’re starting to see some baby steps in this direction. At both Apple’s WWDC and Google’s I/O events, we saw each of these major platform providers start talking about the ability to move seamlessly between multiple devices you own and share information seamlessly across them. Though they start from more of a device and data perspective, underlying both of these is the basic sense of a digital identity that serves as the glue which ties the experience across devices together. I expect both these companies, as well as Microsoft, to build on those ideas and start to put together services that tie devices and information together into a form of a portable digital identity—and I think we’ll see them relatively soon.

The increased digitization of our lives and the things that we do in them raises a number of interesting questions, challenges and implications. Core to these is our own sense of digital identity. Understanding what form that identity will take and what path we take to determine it is certainly far from clear, at this point, but the journey is going to be fascinating to watch.

Despite all the tremendous developments in the world of mobile devices, there’s one aspect that’s been essentially stagnant for quite some time: a user interface based on grids of application icons. Since the 2007 introduction of the iPhone, that visual representation, and variations on it, have been at the heart of virtually all the mobile devices and mobile operating systems we’ve used. Current versions of iOS, Android, Windows, Windows Phone, ChromeOS and even Firefox all basically ascribe to the app grid format and structure. It’s reached the point where mobile devices seem to be defined and, as I’ll argue shortly, confined by it.

To put it bluntly, it’s time for the icon grid to go.

Now, to be fair, the visual metaphor of the icon grid works on many levels. It’s relatively simple to understand and it helped serve the very useful purpose of driving the creation of an enormous variety of different applications—icons to fill the grid. I’d argue, in fact, part of the reason “apps” have become some such a core part of our experience with mobile devices is due in no small part to the central role they play in the icon grid representation delivered by modern mobile operating systems. The app icons aren’t just the central part of the visual organization of the UI, they are the essential element of the OS and drive the experience of how the device is intended/expected to be used. Given the UI, what else would you do but find and launch apps?

In a world where there are over a million choices of apps/icons to fill many of the grids, however, the metaphor seems woefully inadequate. At a basic level, sorting through even tens of applications can be challenging, let alone hundreds or more. Even more importantly, we’re seeing an increasing emphasis on services that are only modestly tied to applications. While I’m not quite calling for the death of mobile apps, I do believe we are seeing a de-emphasis on them and a move towards services as people look for new means of interacting with their devices.

Through these more service-oriented apps, people are starting to see their devices acting a bit more intelligently. Instead of forcing the device user to initiate all the activities—typically by launching an app—these more service-driven applications start to perform activities on behalf of the user. Apps such as Assistant from Speaktoit, for example, show where these developments are headed.

The problem is, the icon grid metaphor doesn’t really work for these types of services/apps and provides little opportunity for the device to be “intelligent”. Instead, it basically forces you to think about and engage in one specific activity at a time. Moving forward, however, I believe users are going to increasingly expect/demand this type of intelligence and that’s the primary reason why it’s time for a completely different perspective on UI.

Interestingly, and perhaps controversially, I would argue Microsoft’s recent efforts with Windows Phone 8.1 are starting to move in this new direction. The UI is still primarily icon grid-based, but there are elements of it, including Live Tiles and Siri competitor Cortana’s more proactive assistance to the device user, that start to suggest the future I’m describing.

But there’s still a long way to go. Even simple things like adjusting what applications or services are available at a given time on the home screen of devices is something that a division of the new, hardware-less Nokia has introduced in the form of a smart launcher called Z Launcher (initially available only for Android). It’s a good idea, but there’s so much more that could be done leveraging information the smartphone already has: location (based on GPS or even WiFi); speed of movement (in a car or plane, for example) based on gyroscope and other common sensors; etc.

More intelligent use of all this data could enable an entirely new type of UI as well as a set of smarter services/experiences that initiate more activities on behalf of the device user. In addition to sensor data, simply logging the activities a user regularly engages in, then analyzing that (let’s call it “small data analytics”), and applying those simple learnings to changes in the UI could also be part of a UI overhaul.[pullquote]Spending time developing more “contextual intelligence” is key to making devices that are already an important part of people’s lives even more essential.”[/pullquote]

All of these things are part of understanding where, when and how the user is engaging with the device—its context so to speak—and spending time developing more “contextual intelligence” is key to making devices that are already an important part of people’s lives even more essential.

Most of these new intelligent service-like capabilities can/will leverage sensor data in the device. This is one of the reasons why I expect we’ll see new sensors, from altimeters and barometers to pulse oximeters and more, as the key new hardware capabilities built into next generation phones. It’s also the one opportunity that gives sensor-laden wearable devices a chance to survive as intelligent smartphone peripherals. Future OSs should be able to use a phone’s built-in sensors as well as any others made available from a nearby connected device.

We already have specific applications that can leverage some of this sensor-based data, but in order to enable the leap forward I believe is necessary to improve the interaction with a device, these kinds of services need to be embedded throughout the operating system. In addition, the OS developers need to open these kinds of service APIs to others so they can further enhance the user experience with their own variations, extensions, etc. That’s the future for today’s app developers.

Location-based services and other types of simple “contextual intelligence” have been talked about and even demonstrated for a while, but now’s the time to take things to the next level and really move our mobile devices into a more proactive, more intelligent future. Can’t wait to see where we end up.

The consumer tech industry is reaching a bit of a crossroads as many companies are finding it harder and harder to create megahit products that sell in the tens or even hundreds of millions, such as Apple’s iPad, or Samsung’s Galaxy 5S. In fact, there’s increasing chatter about how we may never see those kinds of huge tech product hits again because of the growing diversity of options combined with the increasing sophistication of buyers. Some have also argued that we’ve reached a stopping point or temporary lull in innovation, at least when it comes to hardware.

I believe there may be kernels of truth in all those different arguments, but as I’ve thought through the issue a bit more, I’ve come to realize there’s another even more important factor at play: the increasing desire for customization and personalization. As technology products have moved into the mainstream and the enormous amount of time that people spend with these devices has turned them into knowledgeable users, there’s a growing awareness and appreciation for exactly what aspects people like and don’t like about their favorite tech products.

Plus, as tech devices become more commonplace, and take an increasingly important—indeed intimate—role in our lives, the desire to make them more of an extension of ourselves continues to grow. Arguably, we’ve seen aspects of this trend for quite some time. For example, the enormous variety of mobile phone cases is a small attempt at trying to personalize or customize the most ubiquitous of modern tech devices.

Though it’s not a perfect analogy, I’d argue that many tech devices are starting to become more like clothing or fashion accessories than anything else. Just as there is enormous variety in the types of clothes or jewelry or watches we all purchase and wear, so too, do I believe we will see more and more demand for that level of variety in the area of technology.

I’ve previously discussed the impact of these personalization trends on the burgeoning wearables market (see “Measuring Success in Wearables: It’s Thousands of Thousands”), but in thinking through this more, I believe it will soon be applicable for many different types of products, from smartphones and tablets to PCs and other devices. The desire to customize and personalize these devices, through a combination of physical differences, accessories and software customizations, will continue to grow, with a direct correlation between the amount of time we carry and/or use a device and our interest in making it our own. Vendors who can offer the ability to customize their devices—such as what Motorola’s been experimenting with on the Moto X line of phones—will have a distinct advantage across an increasingly large group of more sophisticated, design-conscious consumers.[pullquote]Ultimately, the goal is to drive personalization to its most extreme case and start building for markets of one.”[/pullquote]

I believe this trend also goes beyond individual devices. Part of how we now define ourselves is by the “collection” of devices we own and/or regularly use (in some cases, purchased by your employer, for example). Looking past wearables to the whole potential opportunity around the Internet of Things (IOT), it’s not at all difficult to imagine a world in the not-too-distant future where nearly everyone has a unique combination of devices within their personal collection. The challenge will be for vendors to create a variety of different options which can fit within, and work within, the set of devices a consumer already owns.

Ultimately, the goal is to drive personalization to its most extreme case and start building for markets of one. As crazy as that may sound, we’ve already started to see efforts to direct advertising messages to individuals, through the use of big data and analytics tools, so we’re arguably moving down that path. Plus, I wouldn’t be surprised to see more innovations happening in the area of customized manufacturing over the next few years. That may not drive the kinds of mass sales successes we’ve seen in the past, but it can and should drive the creation of more impactful devices that get even more intertwined into our daily lives.

As we move into an increasingly connected world, where the number of devices we own and use continues to rise and the activities we’re trying to track and control continues to expand, there’s at least one obvious challenge confronting both the industry and us. Where do we get shown the information/content we want to see?

While that may seem like of a bit of an odd or even naïve question, I think it could become a very important one. Plus, I believe the answer to it will have a number of important implications on the development of new technologies and new devices, particularly in burgeoning areas like wearables and home automation.

Of course, the obvious answer to the question would be on the screen of whatever new device we purchase for that particular tracking or controlling application. After all, screen display technologies continue to improve and expand at a rapid rate. Plus, as many modern device categories evolve, it’s often the screens themselves that are both the main hardware attraction as well as the center of our attention.

But I’m starting to wonder how far we can really take that argument. Does every new device we purchase really need to have its own dedicated screen? I’m sure my old friends and colleagues in the display industry won’t be happy to hear this, but I think we could soon reach a point of diminishing returns when it comes to adding big, beautiful displays to all our new devices.

To put it more practically, do I need to put a great display on a wearable device or a home automation gateway or any of a number of other interesting Internet of Things (IOT)-related devices that I expect we’ll see introdu ced over the next several years? My take is, no, probably not.

Of course, some might argue there’s isn’t so much a limit on the screens we need as the number of devices themselves. But as much as I would like to think that there’ll be an increasing degree of device consolidation and a desire for consumers to reduce the numbers of devices they own and use, I see absolutely no evidence to suggest that possibility. In fact, the number of devices per person just continues to increase.

So, what does this mean? I believe it means we need and will start to see more developments that leverage the incredible set of screens we already have. Between big-screen HDTVs, higher resolution PC monitors, notebooks, tablets and smartphones, a large percentage of people in the US already have access to relatively wide choice of screen sizes, most all of which have HD-level resolutions (if not higher).

The challenge is that you can’t easily connect to and/or “take over” those screens from other devices. Most people are unlikely to want to use cables from newer devices—especially ones that are likely to be small—so the only realistic option is for wireless connections. To do that, you need some kind of intelligence in both the sending and receiving devices as well as agreed upon standards.

For years, there were several different competing wireless video standards, some from the CE industry and others from the PC industry, but most of them have now fallen by the wayside. Two of the last survivors—Intel’s WiDi technology and the WiFi Consortium’s Miracast—have essentially merged into a single standard as of this time last year, allowing a wide range of devices from Windows-based PCs to Android-based smartphones and tablets to connect to a select set of Miracast or WiDi-enabled TVs. (Unfortunately, backwards capability with legacy devices, including early implementations of either Miracast or WiDi, isn’t always great.)

As with many areas, Apple has its own standard for wireless video connections called AirPlay. For iOS-based devices, in particular, AirPlay enables applications like sending video from an iPad to an AppleTV device plugged into a larger TV.

In the emerging worlds of wearables and other IOT-type applications, however, it’s not clear how connections between those devices and the likely screen targets of smartphones and tablets are going to work. Right now, many of the wearables and IOT devices function as dedicated accessories to host devices but, in several cases, the range of host OSes supported is very limited.[pullquote]If the Internet of Things is truly to take hold, the ability for screen-less devices to leverage existing displays will be a critical enabling technology.”[/pullquote]

The problem that vendors face is essentially a philosophical question about the nature of each device. If it includes a reasonable size screen, it’s a standalone device and if it doesn’t, it’s essentially an accessory. While it’s tempting to think that each device should be able to function as a standalone master device, I thin k consumers could tire of too many “masters.” Instead, accessorizing a few primary devices, particularly the smartphone, could prove to be a more fruitful path.

As vendors start to offer a wider range of devices and consumers try to integrate these new options into their existing device collections, the need for more and better adoption of screen-sharing technologies will become quickly evident. In fact, I’d argue that we could even see faster adoption of new technologies if there were easier ways to share screens because doing so will make consumers feel like the devices work with their existing equipment and that, in turn, will encourage adoption of them.

The problem now is that few vendors are spending much time or effort on screen sharing. But if the Internet of Things is truly to take hold, the ability for screen-less devices to leverage existing displays will be a critical enabling technology. So, let’s hope we start to see more screen sharing soon.

Having attended a large number of Apple events over the years—from new product introductions to WWDC keynotes—I’ve learned to expect impressive demos of new features and new products. In the long run, we often find out that some of those impressive demos turn out to be just as good, if not better, in real-world usage, while others end up, well, not quite so useful. Yesterday’s event at Moscone West in San Francisco was certainly no different.

Apple once again put on a great show, generating oohs and aahs from its developer faithful, as it showed everything from new UI enhancements and even a new system font in MacOS X Yosemite, to an iOS 8 Health app, smarter keyboards and a virtual firehose spray of news on open developer APIs (application programming interfaces), a new programming language, potential links to smart home devices and wearables, graphics engine enhancements, and much more.

In some cases, the company was playing catch-up with the competition, while in others, it was laying out a new vision of where they are driving their ecosystem and devices. For many of the developer-focused capabilities, in particular, it will probably take a while before we can really appreciate and properly evaluate their importance.

One capability that won’t take much time to evaluate, however, was the Continuity features they showed that will enable iOS8 and MacOSX Yosemite-based devices to work together in a completely seamless fashion. In my view, these were the most important capabilities Apple unveiled yesterday by far. Finally, we can start to see a world where the devices play a secondary role to the people and what it is they want to get done.[pullquote]Finally, we can start to see a world where the devices play a secondary role to the people and what it is they want to get done.”[/pullquote]

Apple showed a wide range of device-to-device handoffs (including a feature called “Handoff” that I’ll get to in a second), from taking a phone call from your iPhone on a Mac or iPad, to starting an e-mail on one Apple device and finishing it on the other, to instantly turning your iPhone into a WiFi hotspot when it’s in range of your other devices. By themselves, they may not appear as impressive as, say, opening up the TouchID API for use by 3^rd-party apps for things like mobile ecommerce, but they are very useful capabilities for regular users that provide the kind of “magic” touch that Apple does so well.

Speaking of “Handoff,” it allows certain apps, including things like Pages, Numbers, Safari, Messages, Mail, Contacts and more to seamlessly pass a document or web page or information from a MacOS X Yosemite-based device to an iOS8-based device and even continuing editing where you had left off on the previous device. It’s exactly the kind of vision that many people have been waiting for in this multi-device era and I think it’s an important portent of things to come.

Speaking of which, yet another multi-device friendly service Apple unveiled was iCloud Drive, which some have commented is like an Apple version of DropBox or Box. iCloud Drive offers numerous improvements over Apple’s previous cloud storage offering, including a Finder-like file and folder view into cloud storage, but Apple will charge users for more than 5 GB of storage. Importantly, Apple also announced they will be supporting Windows devices with iCloud Drive, but there was no mention of an Android client.

And this leads me to my potential concern around Apple’s new announcements. Essentially, Apple is creating a great reason to stick with Apple devices across all their main categories, from PCs (or Macs, in this case) to tablets and phones. While no one can fault them for this approach—they are in the business of selling devices after all—the fact is that most Apple users don’t have all Apple devices. Most people have a mixture of OS platforms—some Microsoft, some Google and some Apple. Of course, I’m sure that part of Apple’s strategy is to increase the all-Apple households (which their new Family Sharing feature should help with as well), but their vision could be made much more effective if they could somehow bring other non-Apple OS devices into the group.

To do this, Apple would have to take a more comprehensive view around multi-device services and figure out business models that enable them to benefit from people owning other devices. Given that Apple is leveraging iCloud to enable many of these seamless multi-device experiences, I would think they could create iCloud client apps for other platforms and then build a set of for-pay services that enable the kinds of experiences they demoed at WWDC but across platforms. Of course, it would be fine to make the experience better if it was on all Apple devices, but if the company could at least enable multi-device, multi-platform scenarios, I believe they would create an incredibly compelling story that would position them very well for a long time to come.

I have no doubt that the kind of simple, logical, device-to-device interactions that Apple previewed at WWDC will be the computing models of the future. But, I’m still not sure what role Apple will ultimately play.

I attended the Microsoft Surface Pro 3 launch in New York last week and it got me thinking. After spending some time with the device and contemplating its potential impact, I realized it was time to take a fresh look at 2-in-1s, hybrids, detachables or whatever name you prefer to give to these combo devices.

In many ways, the Surface Pro 3 is one of the best examples of a 2-in-1 device that I’ve seen. With a 12” high-resolution screen, a range of powerful Intel Core series CPUs, fast SSD storage and a backlit, removable keyboard with a large, comfy trackpad, it’s got all the features people want in a PC. At the same time, the screen’s 3:2 aspect ratio, multipoint touch, infinitely variable hinge and the included stylus all make it a powerful tablet.

But looking at how Microsoft has evolved the Surface from its original “let’s try to create an alternative to the iPad” strategy, the Surface Pro 3 is clearly much more PC-like than it is tablet-like. In fact, I’d argue it’s about 80-90% PC and only 10-20% tablet. Though that may not sound ideal, in actual practice that ratio works well because that’s how the vast majority of people use 2-in-1 devices anyway.

In fact, the ratio for most people who own or use these types of devices is probably in the 95% range of PC usage vs. tablet-style usage. I use Dell’s XPS12 convertible PC with the rotating screen as my main machine every day, for example, and I only occasionally use it in a tablet-like mode. It is handy to have that capability on those rare occasions when, for example, I want to flip the screen over and show a presentation to someone in front of me or some other application like that, but again, that’s not typical. In that regard, my estimate of Surface’s 10-15% tablet usage is actually much higher than most.

Even still, I highly doubt that most people who buy and use 2-in-1s no longer buy and/or use standalone tablets. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me to find that people who own 2-in-1s are more likely to own a separate standalone tablet than people with regular notebooks. The buyers for 2-in-1s are likely to be more sophisticated users who want a wide range of computing options and are willing (and able) to buy multiple devices to fit those needs.

There’s an even bigger issue at stake, however, and it has to do with how these devices are being positioned. Surface Pro 3 is being positioned primarily as a tablet—why else would they not bundle a keyboard with it?—and 2-in-1s are positioned as being half PC and half tablet. Neither of these is really accurate, though. In both cases, I believe we’re really looking at the future of the notebook PC.[pullquote]I’d argue that the Microsoft Surface Pro 3 and other 2-in-1s are really more like a 1+ device: they take the 1 device and evolve it into a better, more advanced version of itself. Or, to put it another way, they represent the future of PCs.”[/pullquote]

The problem, of course, is that nobody really wants to talk about PCs now because the market is declining and PCs are just not sexy anymore. It’s tablets that are sexy now, so somehow everything needs to be positioned in the supposed glow of the tablet aura.

That’s a big mistake from my perspective, however, because I don’t see tablets as the savior of computing. Apparently, I’m not the only one either, because growth in the tablet market has started to peak, and I suspect it won’t be long before it starts to decline a bit (or, at the very least, growth grinds to a halt).

Don’t get me wrong. I love tablets and use them all the time. However, I also recognize their limitations and continue to believe they are a great supplementary device to a PC and a smartphone.

In this light, I’d argue that the Microsoft Surface Pro 3 and other 2-in-1s are really more like a 1+ device: they take the 1 device (a PC in my argument) and evolve it into a better, more advanced version of itself. Or, to put it another way, they represent the future of PCs.