Author: Carolina Milanesi

Last Thursday evening, Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he tried to explain “The Facts About Facebook” focusing specifically on the advertising and data privacy aspect of the business.

There is a lot I found patronizing and self-serving in what Zuckerberg wrote starting with his choice of having his piece aimed at clarifying things for the general public published behind a pay-wall. It seems to me this was more aimed at Washington than Mr. or Mrs. Smith trying to figure out where those ads for an air-fryer are coming from.

Many of the points Zuckerberg makes have been heard before either during his Washington visit in front of Congress or on his apology and commitment posts on his Facebook page. I will only touch on the ones that to me, as a Facebook user, are the most aggravating ones.

“I was not trying to build a global company”

I do not doubt for a minute, that when Zuckerberg started Facebook in his college dorm, he had no plans to turn it into a global company. I do think, however, that he wanted for it to be successful which means he knew it would need scale and because of that some thoughts on future influence might have been advisable. I also think that what Zuckerberg set out to achieve has little relevance when the reality of today is that Facebook is a global company. More importantly, Facebook is a worldwide platform with enormous influence on how people see the world and connect, and this is what Zuckerberg and its leadership team must address.

With success comes responsibility and accountability. Zuckerberg is responsible for what happens on his platform, and he must be held accountable. We heard apologies, but we have seen little evidence that the vast impact Facebook has on its users’ lives is calling its leaders to change their modus operandi.

“Everybody should have a voice and be able to connect”

Facebook is free because everybody should have a voice and a way to connect. Well, first of all, I would say that Facebook is as free as inkjet printers are cheap. You do not pay for Facebook the same way you do not pay much for inkjet printers, but boy those cartridges cost a pretty penny.

With Facebook, the currency is our data. Data that Facebook does not sell, Zuckerberg made that very clear and I am confident people understand that. But they also know that the data is at the core of Facebook’s business model and they are unclear of the extent that information is used. Zuckerberg claims that this data is a price that most of us are willing to pay to have more targeted ads. This seemed a bit of a stretch when most of the 1000 Americans consumers we, at Creative Strategies, interviewed at the time of the Cambridge Analytica incident were either very concerned (36%) or somewhat concerned (41%) about Facebook’s privacy practice.

The reality is that there are other ways to effectively target ads than to collect so much personal information about a user. Yet, switching the current model to a subscription service to rely less on advertising is too much of a gamble. Our data showed that only 2% of the panel was interested in paying and another 5% would do so if monthly payments were less than $5. And this was in the US where average income level if high compared to some of the emerging markets where Facebook is extremely popular like India or Brazil.

“Transparency, choice and control”

“You have control over what information we use to show you ads, and you can block any advertiser from reaching you.” This is the second part of Zuckerberg’s argument that I find condescending. We want better ads, but if we do not, we are in charge of the data tap and can turn it off when we want.

I find fascinating how Zuckerberg flips the accountability on us freeing himself. The fact that finding all the knobs and levers to turn to change setting is impossible coupled by the fact that an understanding of the complex business model Facebook operates are two points that never come up. I would also add that making the service free allows it to reach users who might just be not tech savvy enough to understand all the knobs and levers.

Transparency, choice, and control are all smoke and mirrors. The recent announcement of a plan to integrate the three messaging services – WhatsApp, Instagram, and Messenger – will only create more undefined boundaries despite the initial promise of an encrypted service.

Not a Charity Business

Zuckerberg concludes his op-ed with this:

“For us, technology has always been about putting power in the hands of as many people as possible. If you believe in a world where everyone gets an opportunity to use their voice and an equal chance to be heard, where anyone can start a business from scratch, then it’s important to build technology that serves everyone. That’s the world we’re building for every day, and our business model makes it possible.”

You really would think Facebook’s business model should be preserved as the best philanthropic exercise ever where equal voice and opportunity are at the core. But when both good and evil have a voice and equal opportunity, it is hard to see how things could just run smoothly. Repeating the same story over and over will not make it turn true, and users have started to show their patience is running thin.

Zuckerberg could have admitted that Facebook got too big for its own good, he could have also recognized that the leadership needed time to figure out a course of action and he could have broken things down to truly put us in the driving seat. Instead one of the first things Zuckerberg did when governments around the world started scrutinizing his business was to hire a new Head of Comms, UK politician Nick Clegg, to do damage control. Not a move that fills me with confidence on Facebook’s intention to seriously reevaluating their business model and the platform shortfalls. The recent discovery by TechCrunch that Facebook through a third part has been paying teenagers to access their phone data bypassing iOS rules by using an enterprise certificate for the VPN shows how hungry Facebook is for your data. The fact that these are teenagers is even more disturbing.

Well, ignoring women, in general, is a mistake, no matter whether you are in product planning, marketing, politics or just living with one!

Over the past few years, many marketing experts have been talking about the growing power of female consumers, and a quick search finds plenty of services aimed at upping brands’ game when it comes to selling to them.

It is estimated that in the US, women drive roughly 70-80% of consumer spending with their purchasing power and influence. They also identify themselves as the primary shoppers for their households influencing as much as 91% of purchases according to some recent studies. The vast majority of women also think that most marketing messages show a lack of understanding of what drives their purchase decision.

All of this is not news, especially if you are a woman,  but what makes it particularly relevant for tech brands today is that technology is broadening its reach into domains like home, car, beauty, education, shopping where technology will be part of a product and not necessarily be seen as one. Because of that, women will be even more likely to be the primary decision maker or a strong influencer in the purchasing process. So if tech becomes the core product differentiator either because of hardware features, or software or AI, brands better learn how to include female buyers in their thinking.

Targeting Women and Including Women in Your Audience is not the Same

It is fascinating how often tech brands will look at new geographies or adjacent segments to their core as a way to expand their revenue opportunity ignoring something as simple as addressing a part of the consumer base that just does not look like their CEO and head of engineering. Or deciding without any due diligence that a segment that has been ignored in the past should always be ignored. Sadly, female consumers fall often into either one of these categories.

Some of the companies that do not ignore the increased purchasing power women have been displaying, still believe that all it takes to planning and marketing products that speak to women is the old “paint it pink, and they will buy it.” But catering to women, I can’t believe I am writing this, takes more than a pink version of your product!

It certainly helps if your process from product conception, to design, to marketing have women involved. This tends to happen when a product is specifically targeted at women but rarely occurs in tech where, unless you are talking about a connected bra or a smart mirror, women are often an afterthought addressed with small tweaks in design (pink!) or marketing.

I spent my time at CES this year looking for tech aimed at women mostly because I wanted to see how bad it was. I have to admit I did not find much, good or bad, outside of some connection fashion, motherhood and beauty products. What was amazing to me was how pitch after pitch it was clear I was not the intended buyer. Whether I was meeting someone over a connected car concept or a connected pet gadget a man had already been given the buyer leading role, and I was merely a supporting actress if I was considered at all. At times women might be the final users but not the buyer. At the FoldiMate demo, I lost count of the times I heard “you can buy for your wife” as if there are no wives out there who have the purchasing power of buying it for themselves if they needed one.

Women First, Consumers Second

While I warn about the danger of stereotyping, some characteristics tend to be true for women in different countries, and you can see this more clearly today than you ever did thanks to social media.

Women are caregivers which means that whether they are looking after a child, a parent, a partner or a pet they are making decisions that involve others and purchasing tech is no different.

Women are also multi-taskers which means that we appreciate simplicity – not because we cannot handle complex but because we do not want to spend our energy on that if we do not need to.

Women are influencers, big influencers to other women more so than men are to men. Millennial women and Gen Zers have a growing voice in many domains including tech. Just take a look at the increasing number of female tech reporters, female gamers, but also women that are in critical roles such as teachers and educators.

Women care a lot about ethics, privacy, and security all critical topics in today’s tech world. This means that the tech product you are designing might come under higher scrutiny especially when brought into the home. It also means that who you are as a brand and what you stand for will likely play a role in the decision process.

We see good customer service not as a differentiator but as a basic requirement.

We tend to be more practical, which results in a higher appreciation for products that set realistic expectations rather than products that over promise and under deliver.

The list can go on, but you get my point that we are a complex buyer that needs proper attention and consideration. There is always a significant risk when talking about designing and marketing products for a segment whether defined by gender, age or ethnicity. Generalizations and stereotyping creeps in when you are talking about a group as a whole rather than acknowledge all the different individuals that while united by some attributes, remain different and unique. So dear tech brands, you might not always get it right, but you will undoubtedly have a higher chance to do so if you start to acknowledge that not all your buyers are bros.

Every year I go into CES with a list of what I hope to see, and I walk away with sore feet, some excitement and a couple of unexpected trends that have little to do with technology and a lot to do with poor marketing. And man, those trends bug me! Two years ago, it was AI washing, and this year it seems that tech companies got out of their way to portray the connected home like a magical space where everything that is connected and smart will also be self-sufficient when it comes to initiating complex business transactions. In the connected home of a not-so-distant future, appliances will order supplies like detergent, self-diagnose issues and call for a repair service and more. As I listened to the pitches and watched the beautiful videos, I could not help but think of today’s reality and how much will have to change before what those tech companies are selling becomes true.

My Reality

Here is a bit of a reality check on my home. Just before Christmas our fridge started tripping the breaker every time we used the water dispenser. We had noticed that the floor around it looked swollen and we feared a leak. My not so smart fridge had not told me anything other than that cry for help by tripping the circuit. The steps I took to solve the situation were many and not straightforward ones:

• I first contacted my home insurance to check on coverage, but the insurance would not say anything until an assessment was made. They advised calling a repair person to establish the cause of the possible leak
• I then yelped an appliance repair person
• I made the appointment
• The repair person found the fridge was leaking which meant that the insurance was not stepping in, so I had to close my claim
• The pipe that takes water from the filter to the water dispenser was compromised, so the repair person took it out and ordered one
• A week later the repair person came back, but the pipe that was ordered did not fit, and a new order had to be placed
• Three days later the new and correct pipe arrived and was fitted but a second pipe was compromised
• So, two new pipes were ordered as to be on the safe side we swapped them all out
• Three days after that the pipes arrived and were fitted.

As you can imagine I would have welcomed AI with open arms if it meant to have my fridge functioning sooner. But the reality is that AI would have only helped to ease part of my pain.

AI Does not Account for Business Models

There is no question that self-diagnose would have helped catch my fridge issue earlier as well as order the right pipe. But the rest of the process involved was quite complex and one that would be solved more by business agreements than technology. How would my fridge know if the repair is covered by insurance? Actually, how does the fridge know I have insurance at all? Do I trust my fridge to call the best repairman for the job?

It seems to me that brands painting this idyllic picture of a home that is basically self-supporting is so far away from reality not because of the technology needed to make it happen but because all the business ties that would bring that picture to market are just not in place. Because of all this background work, but also country-specific requirements related to privacy we will also have a vision that will not be the same across markets. What a brand might be able to deliver in the US, is likely to be very different when taken to European markets or Asia.

Brands understand the need to build these alliances mostly in the e-commerce and payment space. Last year at CES, Samsung announced its partnership with Mastercard and FreshDirect and ShopRite for its Smart Hub Fridge so users can buy groceries directly from their connected fridge when they are running low on some items. Providing integrated solutions able to replicate what the Amazon Dash button does for washing powder or detergent also seems an easy enough answer for connected appliances of today.

Yet, the vision depicted by LG during their press conference was one of pure magic that required not only business relationships but also a great deal of information from the user. Another significant neglect in this idyllic portrait is to recognize that today much of the relationship consumers have with their appliances is through a third party and not directly with the brand that was purchased. Whether that relationship is with BestBuy or another Big Box Retailer or with a home appliance insurance, chances are the brand we bought is the last player we think we will ever interact with. So, the question is: would we trust it?

The Disservice of Painting the Big Picture

While painting the nirvana of the connected home is very tempting, I think that ultimately this picture does a big disservice to the opportunity the connected home has to offer. An opportunity that has a lot of value in the short term in just providing me, as the homeowner, with a lot of information. Going back to my real life example. All I needed my fridge to do was to provide me with information about the leak and the correct pipe number to purchase. That would have been a huge help in saving time and money.

While maybe not as grandiose as the picture these brands want to paint there is plenty of value that can be delivered today that will drive sales and loyalty as well as confidence in the future bigger picture. It might not be as sexy for early tech buyers, but it is certainly much more approachable to the mass market buyers.

Baby steps will also allow these brands to be ready to support customers and most importantly to make sure they are not seen as the weakest link when something does not go according to plan in a chain of events that are out of the brand’s control. I would be expected to blame brand X for a fridge that breaks down but is it fair I blame them for a poor repair service? Well if the fridge initiated that repair and I had no voice in choosing the provider, of course, it is fair. Are brands ready for the extra pain?

My daughter is almost eleven, and she is yet to get her own phone. She really does not need one as she is homeschooled and we are the ones taking her to most of her activities. For work and play, she has both a Surface Laptop and an iPad. But last week was different as I was attending the Qualcomm Snapdragon Summit in Maui and she came with me. I let her borrow an iPhone XR so she could keep me posted of her and my mom’s whereabouts over iMessage.

Electronics at home are an “earned privilege.” Most days we trade electronics time for reading, focus during homeschool time or outstanding behavior. Of course on holiday with grandma, while mom was busy in meetings, that earning factor went out the window and there was access to an iPad in the room and an iPhone outside.

Not that I planned on it, but this “experiment” of mine came on the back of the 60 minutes special on-screen addiction, which provided a lot of information of the impact of screen-time on young brains. If you watched that or just read through the summary here, you will think I am crazy to think that after a week try-out I still plan to give my child a phone. The core reason behind my decision is that I saw how the phone in the big-wide-world for her was a tool even more so than any electronics she uses at home.

Personalization, Mobility, and Camera

Despite knowing that the phone was a week loaner, my daughter took great care in making it hers. After using her Apple ID to log in and restore from her iPad backup, she changed her locked screen, her background, chose her screen brightness and sound – which to my surprise was not mute as it has been for me for years now. You could clearly see that personalizing the phone was a way to express herself.

It was also evident that the increased mobility of the phone form factor over her iPad got her to use it more across the board but also a little differently. This meant taking advantage of different features like maps to navigate our outings, nature apps to recognize local flowers and fish, and a translation app from English to Hawaiian.

The camera that at home is mostly used to have fun with stickers and silly videos became a tool to record fun moments with a friend or document local wild-life not for posting on social media but merely to make memories. Thankfully, aside from what mom posts, my kid has no social media presence, which for some parents, I know, is too much already!

Different Gaming

Seeing how my daughter can turn into a “gremlin fed after midnight” when at home she has to stop gaming, I was concerned that a phone would just make things worse. I was amazed to see that she was playing different games to what she usually plays on her iPad. Minecraft, Fortnite, and Roblox were put aside for Sonic, puzzle games, and brain training games.

It seemed as though, her iPad is her proper gaming device while the phone was indeed a mobile gaming device used more as gap filler with simpler games. The proper gaming session would return in the evening when the phone turned into her music player, and the iPad resurfaced for gaming.

While we have consoles at home, the time spent on them is somewhat limited mostly because my child is a touchscreen gamer by nature and the controllers, to this day, feel a little foreign to her. I do wonder if the success of the Nintendo Switch – which is on her Santa’s list – is due, in part, to its ability to bridge the console and tablet experience so well.

Obsession vs. Addiction

What transpired from the week was also the difference between obsession and addiction. There is no doubt that some games lead to behaviors that closely resemble addiction. For my kid Fortnite, Minecraft and Roblox certainly show the dark side of her. Yet, what drives her is a little different for each game. With Fortnite it is about team play and not letting the team down in the game, Minecraft is about accomplishment and in Roblox is more about the social aspect of it, players are friends from school we talk to!

Outside of gaming though I feel that it is more about little obsessions rather than addiction. This is no different than discovering a book series and wanting to read the whole set in one go, or watch a movie like “Black Panther” enough times to know almost the entire script!

So in the week with her phone, I saw the current Avengers craze moving from the TV screen and comics to memes, a new vehicle for her obsession enabled by the internet. I am sure that in a few months we would move on to something else in the same way we liked pizza for the past six months and now we hate it!

My main issue with studies that look at screen time as a generic thing is that things are not as simple as that. So I do not dispute science. I am sure young brains are affected by what kids do on these devices, but it is precisely what they do that we need to look into. One data point mentioned in the program was that toddlers asked to return an iPad used to play an instrument in a game did so 45% if the time while toddlers who played a real instrument did so 60% of the time.  The key here is not the screen, but the app and the gratification the app gave through different stimuli. I am sure if you tested kids doing math with pen and paper and kids doing the math on an iPad they would stop at the same rate when asked!

My Key Takeaway

So what did we learn?

For my daughter, after a week in Paradise, the biggest sadness came not from leaving sunshine, pools, and turtles but rather from returning the phone to me.

For me, this week was key to understand that learning how my child uses technology is no different than figuring out what sports she wants to engage with, what movies are appropriate for her and to some extent what kind of human being she should be. Like anything else, kids need guidance on what is right for them and what it is not, but this has much more to do with how they engage with the screen than screen time per se. In other words, not all activities done through a screen are created equal, and it is up to me as a parent to guide her to those that enrich her life. Of course, guidance alone is not going to be enough, if you are a parent you know that, so having tools that help you monitor, set the right access and making sure your child is not taken advantage of are indispensable. Pandora’s box does not have to be ripped wide open!

Millions of people rely on their smartphone every day for their on the go computing needs. For many, especially in younger demographics smartphones are their sole or main computing device. Whether it is email, social media or gaming consumers across the world have become highly dependent on their phones so much so that the whole tech industry has started to address screen addiction. Considering how much time users spend on these devices, we at Creative Strategies wanted to understand how smartphones fit in people’s workflows and to do so we conducted an online study at the end of November across 1000 US consumers.

The first interesting data point we found is that it 34% of our panel has both a work PC/Mac and a personal one while only 15% relies solely on a work PC for both work and personal computing needs. Forty-three percent of our panel only has a personal PC/Mac. This landscape is fascinating as it points at the opportunity there still is to reach consumers and not just IT departments when it comes to PC sales. While engagement on PCs might have dropped when smartphones first hit the market, it is clear that PCs and Macs still have a place in our homes.

That said, just the fact that 56% of users on our panel do not have a Windows PC with a touchscreen points to an installed base that is ready for an upgrade. This is even more obvious when we see that 61% of the PC users on our panel said their PC has no support for pen.

A Reality Check on How People Work

Before getting into what users want for their PCs, I think it is interesting to look at how they are currently using them as this will provide excellent insight into how to market their next upgrade. Among the people who are currently working 47% said they are usually working from their office desk and another 30% work at their home office desk making mobility not a high priority among our panelists.

Work and life balance is still a struggle for most as we seem to rely on our phones to keep us on top of things without being dragged into work more than necessary. And so 40% of our working panelists check their email, calendar and social media every morning before leaving for work. Twenty-seven percent keep an eye on things on their phone in the evening trying not to open their PC while 11% are always on their phone in the evening but uses their PCs to either binge watch or game. Only 17 percent of our working panelists never start or finish their working day at home which makes me feel somewhat better about my work/life struggle!

When it comes to how people work across devices, there was much less consensus than we had for where work takes place. Our working panelists are quite varied in their habits of working on one machine or multiple ones. Seventeen percent never work on multiple devices, 12% often start working on a work device to end on a personal one at home, 23% only use their work device while 25% pick up a phone or a tablet for a quick edit. Twenty-three percent work seamlessly across devices depending on convenience. What is interesting is that this number only grows to 29% among early tech adopters pointing to the fact that working across devices does not necessarily require tech expertise these days, especially when the multiple device mix includes a phone.

Top Asks from PC users

With the phone being the most used device by many people it is no surprise that there are features that users will want to see on their PCs too. This is not about being able to do the same things they do on their phones, but rather it is about benefitting from some critical enablers of the experience their phones can deliver. It was evident among our panelists that voice calls, messaging, and social media are best dealt on a phone than a PC.

So when we asked consumers which features their smartphone has that they would want to see on their PC the wishlist reflected all the key qualities of a smartphone. First on the list is long battery life (36%) Instant-on (29%) and cellular connectivity (25%).

Interestingly, the second highest feature was face-authentication at 30%. This reflects my previous comment that the PCs owned by our panelists seem to be on the older side and of course, it also demonstrates the lack of FaceID support on the Mac. Considering about 40% of our panelists had the newest Apple and Samsung’s smartphones which support face authentication this ask is not a big surprise and as more phone manufacturers embrace face authentication the need to support it on the PC/Mac will grow. For PC makers this is already an option as Windows supports Windows Hello, but it will be interesting to see what Google and Apple will do going forward.

Pain Points Are Not Always a Driver

In technology, I often find myself pushing service providers or hardware manufacturers to look at solving real-life problems to drive uptake of services or hardware refresh.

It is interesting how, when it comes to connectivity, consumers do not see it as a pain point, but they still want it. We asked our panelists how easy they feel it is to find an internet connection for their PC/Mac/Chromebook when they need it: 31% said it is very easy because they only use a computer at home on WiFi and 17% do the same at their office/campus. Twenty percent said it is not a problem as they mostly work from their desk where their computer is connected. Eighteen percent uses their smartphone as a hotspot and only 5% who are highly mobile users admit that finding connectivity is a constant challenge.

If this were the issue Always-on and Always-connected PCs aimed to solve it seems that the pitch to deliver the kind connectivity that only 6% of our panelists experience with their connected PCs would not lead to much of an uptake. Yet, it is clear to me from the fact that 25% said they would want a cellular connection that when we talk about connectivity, it is not a question of solving a problem but rather delivering a level of convenience we have got accustomed to with our phones.

If I am right, what PC makers, Qualcomm, and carriers will be able to offer in terms of plan activation and compelling data pricing will be the key to the success of the Always-on, Always-connected PC. Offering that convenience for a free trial period will get users to never want to give it up, setting the bar for what the next computing experience should be like.

I make no secret that I love to shop. I like buying things rather than the actual process of shopping. Before I get out the door, I know which stores I will go to and have a clear idea of what I need or want to buy. While my outing might still take a couple of hours, it is a targeted and organized operation, despite what my husband and kid might say.

As I take pleasure in buying not shopping, I do a fair amount online. Amazon is my friend, but so is a long list of websites that carry my favorite brands, accept Apple Pay or Paypal and offer free shipping.

When big sales days come around, like Black Friday, I prioritize online shopping, but I will go to some physical stores mostly for clothes and accessories. This year I found going to the local mall an excruciating process, more so than it usually is, and mostly because I saw all the different ways tech could have made it better but didn’t.

AI and Big Data

Let’s start with how stupid the shopping process still in. Both online and in-store there is little or no intelligence used by retailers to make your experience less painful and more rewarding for you and them.

This lack of intelligence starts from home where you are inundated by ads leading up to the big day that more often than not poorly reflect your buying habits. This is particularly ironic this year when both tech and politics have spent several months discussing privacy and how much information internet giants should have access to. Well, right now they, as well as most of the retailers I shop from, have access to a lot of information, but the targeted advertising I receive is still pretty dumb. The foot crumbs I leave as I go from site to site follow me with very generic suggestions but one has to wonder why those sites I trust, and I shop from more often do not have a profile for me.

Let’s take Amazon as an example of an online retailer as I shop with them consistently and I purchase a vast range of items for myself, my family, pets, and home. Amazon has the list of all my orders as well as everything I browsed and how many times I looked at an article without clicking “buy.” Why don’t I get an email with suggestions from the deal of the day that match my buying patterns? For instance, why don’t I get prompted for an item I looked at but did not buy? Chances are I did not do so based on price, so an offer might get me to finally purchase. Or again, why don’t I get offers on products upgrades? Say I bought a Ring doorbell two years ago and the latest model is now on sale. Why not send me offers for complementary products like what I might want to add to my smart home after buying several Echo products, a doorbell, and some bulbs?

Much of the same could be said for those brands I shop from on a regular basis and even more so those where I am part of a reward program. If I have a reward card in my digital wallet that pops up to tell me I am close to a specific store why doesn’t that retailer push it a step forward and send me relevant offers on what is available in store? Why aren’t traditional apparel retailer offering an in-store version of stitch-fix where based on your previous purchases and your body type they put together a number of outfits that on a specific date and time will be ready for you in a store changing room. You would walk in straight to the changing room you were notified on your phone as you entered the store, you try everything on, tap the RIFD tag of what you want to keep before you put it in a bag and walk out while your credit card is automatically charged. I give you that such a system might not be viable on a heavy traffic day, but hard to believe it would not work any other day.

I understand that much of the sales occurring on Black Friday end up being for items you had not planned to buy, but intelligent shopping does not mean that impulse shopping must die. It would actually mean you end up being more exposed to items you are likely to respond positively to resulting in more revenue for the retailer but also a much higher satisfaction on your part. At the end of the day, there isn’t much that is more satisfying than a successful shopping spree.

Mobility

Black Friday is such a big shopping day that stores have been opening earlier and earlier with some stores now starting their sales on Thanksgiving Day. I have gotten up earlier in the past mostly to avoid the crowds, but this year was not one of those times, and I had to make three attempts to reach the mall. That’s right only on Sunday I was able to get to the parking structure of the Westfield Mall in Santa Clara and park my car!! The first two times it was impossible to even get to the parking structure due to the high volume of cars.

So this begs the question: where were Lyft and Uber? In the land that invented ride-share and scooters, it seems to me that talking about the death of cars ownership was immensely premature. I understand of course that scooters might not be the safest choice when you are holding shopping bags, but why are people not relying on Uber and Lyft to avoid the pain of parking? I would guess that a lot has to do with how many of these malls treat rideshare services as second-class transportation providers and relegate them to drop off and pick up from locations that are less than ideal for both passengers and drivers. In my case a Lyft driver would either get stuck in the same traffic I was trapped in for over an hour or would have to drop me off miles away from the entrance.

Why are malls not keeping pace with what their customers want and offer preferential lanes and temporary parking spots for rideshare companies? Airports have adapted to this and while some airports still make you walk miles to get to a ride-share pickup location things are changing fairly quickly. Malls should learn from it especially in the US where parking is free. I can see other countries like the UK, where most shopping centers charge a fair bit to park, resisting such change as it would result in a loss of revenue.

What ruined my Black Friday could have been solved by technology today, not in some distant future. As I have often said though, technology might be ready, but business models and humans are not. Data and AI have the power to make my shopping much more tailored to my needs and ultimately more effective. This coupled with a pain-free rideshare trip to and from my favorite stores could have delivered a “shopping like a star”experience. But if the big parking structure that is being built next to the mall is a good indication of how quickly things will change I am sad to say it will be a while before retail catches up with what technology can already enable.

Consumers are very familiar with the Dolby brand. Whether you often visit a Dolby Cinema or you have a TV or computer that supports Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision you know Dolby delivers one of the best entertainment experiences that allow you to lose yourself in the content you are consuming.

At a time when delivering an experience has more and more to do with the combination of hardware, software and AI, Dolby brings to market its first consumer device: a set of wireless headphones called Dolby Dimension.

Making Hardware Does not Make You a Hardware Maker

It is always easy when a brand brings to market a product in a category they had not been present before to think of it as “entering the market.” Of course, technically this is what they are doing. But there are different reasons why a brand decides to get into a new space. Potential revenue is mostly at the core of such a move, but even then how that revenue is generated differs. Sometimes revenue comes directly from the new product. Other times, the revenue upside comes from how the product is able to boost brand perception in areas the name was already present.

When Dolby spoke to me about Dolby Dimension, I thought about how well it fits their history and DNA as well as delivering on a market need. To understand why Dolby is taking this step one should take a quick look at how home entertainment is changing.

In a recent study across 2044 consumers by the Hollywood Reporter it is clear that in the US, binge-watching is becoming the norm and not just for millennials. While 76% of TV watchers aged 18 to 29 said, they preferred bingeing, older age brackets are not far behind with 65% of viewers ages 30 to 44, and 50% of 44 to 54 who prefer binging. And it is not just about how many people binge-watch it is also how often they do so. Across the national sample of the October study, 15% say that they binge-watch on a daily basis. Another 28% say they binge several times per week.

Many will argue that the wireless headphones market is already super competitive and that Bose fully controls the high-end of the market, so Dolby should have thought about it twice before entering this space. But see, this is where the “entering this space” debate starts. From how I look at it, Dolby was looking to expand the way their technology and experience can be experienced. This took the form of a set of headphones that bring value to a specific set of consumers who appreciate high-quality sound, spend hours watching content on whatever screen is most convenient in their home and see the $599 price tag as an investment in a superior experience that allows them to binge smarter.

It is when you look at the technology packed inside Dolby Dimension and the specific use cases that Dolby has in mind that you understand why this is not a simple branding exercise. The initial limited availability to the US market and distribution focused on dolby.com confirm to me that Dolby is not interested in a broader consumer hardware play, which I am sure will leave hardware partners to exhale a sigh of relief.

Not Just Another Set of Wireless Headphones

Most wireless headphones are designed today for users on the go. They help you being immersed in your content or your work by isolating you from the world around you thanks to noise canceling.

There are some models in the market, the latest one being the Surface Headphones, that allow you to adjust your voice canceling feature to let some of the world in if you need to. This is however done manually.

Dolby Dimension is designed with home use in mind which means that a few things are different. First, the new Dolby LifeMix technology allows you to dynamically adjust how much of the outside world you can let it. Settings, activated through touch controls, will enable you to find what Dolby calls the “perfect blend” between your entertainment and your world as well as entirely shutting down the outside world through Active Noise Cancelling. If you, like me, binge-watch in bed at night you might appreciate being able to choose between being fully immersed in your content when your other half falls asleep before you and snoring gets in the way. Other times, you might want to be able to hear your daughter giggling away next door because she decided to ignore your multiple lights off requests!

Over the days I had to play with Dolby Dimension what most impressed is how it really gives you the feeling of sitting in a theatre. This is especially striking when you are watching content on a small screen like a phone or a tablet. The sound, which of course Dolby will tell you is half the experience, really brings that little screen to life letting you enjoy content at its best. I felt so immersed in what I was watching that I am pretty sure I got to experience the kind of “mom’s voice canceling” my kid has naturally built into her when she is watching any of the Avengers movies, or she is gaming!

There are a few more details that highlight what Dolby had in mind with these headphones. Dolby Dimension can be paired with up to eight devices, and you can quickly toggle between your favorite three with dedicated hardware keys on the right ear cup. When you pick your device, hitting the key associated to it will take you straight to your entertainment app of choice like Netflix or Hulu, not just your device.

Battery life reflects a best-sound approach by delivering up to 10 hours with LifeMix and Virtualization turned on and up to 15 hours with low power mode. So whether you, like 28% of the study sample, binge-watch two to three episode per session or like another 21% you watch four episodes at once you will be left with plenty of power. While we might be tempted to think about a long flight or a day at the office, this is not what Dolby Dimension was designed for and to be honest if those are your primary use cases Dolby Dimension is not really for you.

Headphones are Key to the Experience

It is fascinating how over the past year, or so, headphones have become a talking point in tech. I think the last time that was the case was when Bluetooth was introduced and we got excited about being able to have a conversation on the phone without holding the phone.

When we are discussing the lack of the audio jack from our devices or which digital assistant is supported (assistant that you can summon with Dolby Dimension) we are pointing to the fact that headphones have become an essential part of our experience. Considering how much time we spend in front of one screen or another, both at home or on the go, being able to enjoy both visual and audio content is growing in importance. As intelligence gets embedded in more and more devices and smaller and smaller devices benefit from higher processing power, headphones can become a device in their own right rather than being viewed merely as an accessory.

While I don’t believe Dolby is interested in becoming a consumer hardware company, I am convinced they will continue to innovate and look at how consumers habits are changing when it comes to consuming content. As we move from physical screens to augmented reality experiences and eventually virtual ones, Dolby might continue to take us on a sensory journey through technology and if needed hardware.

As we are reaching the end of the year, we will soon see coverage summarizing the tech trends of 2018. When it comes to smartphones, no doubt, edge-to-edge displays, AI, ML, cameras will all make the top ten list and so will phone addiction.

Over the past 12 months we have seen vendors playing in the smartphone market, both at an OS or hardware level, come up with solutions to help us monitor and manage the time we spend on these devices. More recently, we have seen a couple of vendors pitch smaller form-factors with a more limited set of features. These new phones are positioned as a companion to your main smartphone for those times when you want to disconnect a little and be more in the moment.

As a concept, this is not at all different from what we experienced at the start of the smartphone market when people would still have a featurephone to use over the weekend. What is different though is the reason behind the trend. Back then smartphones were really more of a work thing, which meant having them with you all the time meant you were on email all the time and therefore on the clock 24/7. Getting that featurephone for the weekend was much more about taking a break from work than taking a break from technology. The promise these new devices are making is to allow you to free yourself from the grip of your smartphone which consumes too much of your time. But is it as simple as wanting to spend time on these screens?

Phones Do So Much, How Can We not Love Them?

I am not going to argue the relationship with our phones is a healthy one, but I will argue most of us do not really want any help. The point is that these phones do a lot for us today. They have come to replace so many other devices in our lives that it makes sense we spend more time on them: listening to music, taking pictures, watching TV shows…We can also do many of the tasks we used to do only on a PC: search, shop, email, game… So our time staring at the little screen has grown.

For many people, smartphones have become a productivity as well as an entertainment center. I took a quick look at my usage over the past seven days, and apparently, I picked up my phone on average 94 times, I receive on average 240 notification per day and my usage when I am not traveling is at least 40% lower than when I am away from a computer. Some of these notifications are from the doorbell or our home security cameras so not something that necessarily requires interaction on my part, but something that asks for attention nevertheless. When we dig a little deeper, however, it is fascinating to see how much of what we can do with the phone today we used to do not just with a different device but with a non-tech tool altogether. Over the past seven days, for instance, I spent 21 minutes using my phone as a wallet, 38 minutes using it as a camera, I also used it for one hour to navigate my way around the world, 39 minutes talking to someone over Facetime, 21 minutes filing my expenses, 19 minutes booking flights, 15 minutes shopping on Amazon and one hour and 52 minutes doing email. I don’t really feel sorry about any of this as I see the phone just as a tool consolidation effort. Had I done all those things with different devices there would have been no reason to say I was addicted to something.

We Do What We Want Not What We Should

The problem starts, at least for me, when I see that over the past week I spent over 8 hours on social media. Now part of it is work, part of it is information, but truth be told a lot of it is boredom. For me, and many others, the smartphone is no different to the TV. We used to watch TV or have the TV on to fill our time even when nothing was interesting to watch. The smartphone is like having access to that TV whenever and wherever you want to tune into the reality show that is social media or gaming or anything else that helps you fill a void.

This is where the addiction is, in that filler role that smartphones play. And it is hard to let go without experiencing some level of FOMO. Like any addiction, self-discipline is not always enough. I know too much chocolate is bad for me, and I can try and limit myself to one square, but it is so much easier when I do not buy any at all. This is the premise of these new phones like the Palm. They are the equivalent of you not buying the chocolate. One could set up limits for all the apps and tools available on the phone through one of the new features like Apple’s Screen Time. But that would be the equivalent of limiting yourself to one square knowing you have a whole bar of chocolate in the cupboard.

It might be sufficient for some, as long as you first admit you have a problem of course. But what happens when you get back to your main smartphones? Are you going to binge use it to make up for the lost time?

Smartwatches Give Me All the Help I Need

This is why learning to control your use, in my view, will have more long-term effects and in my case, smartwatches have really helped. Yes, I know given the numbers I just shared you are scared to think what my usage was like before!

Smartwatches allow me to take a break from my phone by preventing me from being sucked into the phone for longer than I need to be. Continuing the chocolate metaphor wearables are the equivalent of someone breaking up a square and giving it to me while hiding the rest of the chocolate.

All those notifications I receive are not always essential. The important ones like a text from my daughter, a call from my colleague or a flight change will come to my wrist, but an Instagram like, a Facebook post or a non-work email will not. Being able to prioritize what is time sensitive and what is not is a great help in cutting back on the number of times you unlock your phone. Getting the urgent stuff to your wrist also makes sure you do not live in eternal fear of missing something, which leads to picking up the phone more often than you need.

Of course, smartwatches are not a magic wand. Users need to spend some time deciding what they want to prioritize so that the watch does not duplicate the phone. I might be wrong, but using a smartwatch to tame phone usage requires an investment in understanding where the problem is. With the simpler phone, the risk of changing behavior to fit the new device is as strong as relapsing on the smartphone that is still in my pocket. In other words, if I switch my social media time to texting time because my simpler phone does not support apps, I am just changing my addiction not controlling it.

This week I have been in London for the launch of the Huawei Mate 20, Mate 20 Pro and Mate 20 X ( you can find a great review here ) and as I played with the devices and listened to Huawei dive into their silicon and artificial intelligence as well as watch an AR Panda deliver Kung Fu kicks on stage, I realized that these were yet more phones US consumers would not be able to buy.

Some American consumers keeping up with tech news over the past few months might have concluded they do not want to buy phones by Chinese brands as they believe that Chinese vendors would be installing spyware on their devices. While I am happy to be proven wrong, I do think much of the recent debate in the US over Chinese manufacturers has much more to do with politics than technology. I am sure many of you have much more exciting lives than mine but even so, are they really interesting enough for a foreign government to spy on you?

For the majority of buyers who follow tech and look at the success of Huawei internationally, this concern is not top of mind and they would prefer to be able to have access to their phones through a carrier than jump through hoops to get it at full price from a third party not even optimised for some US cellular bands. Google’s presence on stage with Huawei in London adding the latest Mate 20 and Mate 20 Pro to their Android Enterprise Recommended Program should help with some of the doubts people have.

More Limited Competition

So what if this political environment will result in US consumers having less choice? The US market has always been a very hard market to get into. American carriers have always been quite demanding and over the years we have seen brands that were strong in other markets, like Nokia and Sony, fail or struggle to grow in the US. Huawei had of course tried to enter the US market before, both under the Honor brand and the Huawei brand, but sales were limited. Right when the Chinese maker was close to signing with a leading carrier, last year,  the US government started talking about the danger posed by Chinese branded hardware.

One could argue, of course, that even if Huawei had a fair opportunity to get into the US market, they would find it as difficult as other brands have before them and they would fail. My argument here, though, is not about how successful Huawei would be, but rather how consumers would not have to miss out. Buyers would actually be the ones deciding Huawei’s success.

The Dynamic Nature of the European Mobile Market

In my days in London I was reminded about how much more dynamic the European mobile market is. This is due in part to the fact that it is of course made of many individual countries sharing many commonalities where vendors can enter and build their success story one country at the time. Huawei, like Samsung before them, saw its first success story in Italy and expanded from there finally reaching the UK too, a market that has been very much dominated by Samsung and Apple.

Carriers plans in Europe are more diversified than in the US with a prepay market that remains stronger than in the US and this drives different needs in terms of price points which in turn drives a more diverse supply mix. I also think that the mobile market has always been a bit more vibrant in Europe even before Asian manufacturers moved in. Back then it was about local players like Siemens in Germany or Sagem in France to name just two.

The US, on the other hand, has always been a more monolithic market where the gap between the top three or two brands and the rest of market players was way too big to be filled. Today some new names have entered the US market either online of through carriers but their volumes remain quite small. Some of these brands have their headquarters in China like OnePlus and TCL and one might wonder how long it might take for the political debate on China to impact them as well.

Getting back to the many faces of the Huawei Mate 20

What I think is interesting with the latest Huawei’s smartphones is that the company seems more comfortable talking about their advancements in silicon, particularly as it relates to artificial intelligence. Their capabilities have grown from  two years ago at CES where I accused them of AI washing. Their camera technology shows the ability the phone has to detect not just what you are taking a picture of, similar to what Samsung, LG and others can do, but also to pick which one of the three cameras will take the best shot for you and offer that solution to you. The LG V40 that sports three rear cameras as well does not offer this option despite selling under the ThinQ brand which denotes AI capabilities.

It was a shame that during the launch event CEO Richard Yu felt the need to compare Huawei’s innovation to that of the iPhone so many times. Even when you are comparing yourself to what is perceived to be the best in the market you are doing yourself a disservice by limiting yourself to be judge by the parameters set in place by the one you are comparing yourself to.

The smartphone camera remains a big purchase driver for consumers and talking about AI in relation to the camera is easier as a “show and tell,” it is also compelling and maybe more importantly it is less scary for consumers than drawing attention to AI being able to text a reply for you or spot a robot call like we recently heard from Google on the Pixel 3.

Design, which has always been a strong point for Huawei, continues to serve them well as they try new colors and finishes and even iconic camera designs on the back. Huawei also started to deliver technology firsts like under screen fingerprint on a world-wide product or the reverse changing functionality both available in the Mate 20 Pro.

Huawei’s weakest link remains software in my opinion. And this is not because I would prefer that their phones shipped with vanilla Android rather than the Huawei EMUI, but because with some features they are more focused on delivering features for the sake of it than actually delivering value. Think for instance at the ability they displayed on stage to change any light in a given photo into a heart shaped light. Calling that AI belittles what AI really does in a product like the Mate 20 Pro.

I also believe that Huawei is well aware of this weaker software play and they lack confidence in taking ownership of the things they do well. Adding features because the market demands them even when other vendors offer them does not mean copying your competitors. Yet, if your delivery mimics those vendors then you do run the risk to be labelled as someone that copies competition. Samsung went through the same self discovery process and they are closer than they have ever been to define who they are and how they want to drive success going forward.

Delivery is also important when you want developers to take advantage of your features both hardware and silicone ones. Showing what looks like an app like the 3D calorie calculator when you are in reality only showing a concept of what is possible is disingenuous and does not help grow confidence in your brand. It was a real shame that Huawei did not take the opportunity that this week’s launch offered to tell its story and bring the audience on a journey of growth, not in market share,but in capabilities and ambitions.

The complexity of the Chinese market will continue to drive Chinese makers to move fast. For some players that might mean to be a fast follower but I feel there is more and more originality coming from vendors like Huawei, Xiaomi and OnePlus. Some players might be limited on what they can do internationally due to IP, some might be limited due to a lack of understanding of international consumers but it is a shame to think that protectionism might prevent some innovation to get to US buyers.

When I first saw the new Apple Watch presented at the Steve Jobs’ Theater I immediately said it would drive a strong upgrade cycle, and now we, at Creative Strategies, have brand new data from a study we conducted across 366 current Apple Watch owners in the US the week leading up to in store availability. The study was an international one that cut across several geographies touching a total of 557 consumers. For this article, I will focus on the US data only.

Our panelists were self-proclaimed early adopters of technology with 64% of them owning an iPhone X. Eighty-Four percent of the people who answered our online questionnaire were men, very much in line with the average composition of the early tech adopter profile.

Apple Watch Served its Base Well from the Get-go

Our panel owned a good mix of models: 41% has an Apple Watch Series 3 with Cellular, another 13% owns an Apple Watch Series 3 Wi-Fi only, and 15% has a Series 2. What was a surprise, considering how early tech this base is, was to see that 30% still owned an original Apple Watch.

One might argue that maybe the reason why these users are still on the original Apple Watch is that they are not very engaged with it. The data, however, says otherwise. While they are not as engaged as Apple Watch Series 3 owners they share their love for the same tasks: decline calls, check messages and check heart rate. The most significant gap with owners of more recent Apple Watch models is in the use of Apple Watch as a workout tracker. Here original Watch owners lag Watch Series 3 owners: 62% to 76%.

Satisfaction among original Apple Watch users is also strong with 93% of the users saying they were satisfied with the product. While 93% is a lower satisfaction number than Watch Series 3 with cellular at 99%, we need to be reminded that the original Apple Watch was introduced in 2014. Satisfaction at 93% for a four-year-old product is quite impressive.

When we reached out to a few panelists to ask why they did not feel compelled to upgrade so far, they mentioned that software updates and battery life kept them happy and that it would be a change in design and compelling features that will drive them to look at a new model. In other words, the original Apple Watch was still serving them well.

Strong Intention to Upgrade

Apple Watch Series 4 seems to hit both upgrade requirements for original Apple Watch owners as 76% say they plan to upgrade with 41% who have already pre-ordered while another 32% plan to do so in the next three months. When asked to select the most compelling new features that made them interested in upgrading and the faster processor was mentioned by 80% of the original Watch owners. This was followed by the bigger screen (75%) and the ECG (61%).

Apple Watch Series 3 owners are the same but with different priorities. The larger screen is the most important driver, followed by the faster processor and the ECG. The intention to upgrade is also more cautious with 29% saying they are planning to upgrade (54% already having preordered) with some users being concerned about using the old bands on the new model and some uncertainty on which size they would prefer.

Early Tech Users find Gifting Difficult

We have discussed before that early tech users seem to find gifting new tech hard and Apple Watch owners on our panel are precisely like that. When we asked if they were planning to buy the new Apple Watch Series 4 as a gift only 26 percent said they were. This is despite Apple Watch commanding a Net Promoter Score of 72 among panelists. Among the users who are planning on gifting Apple Watch, 51% will give one to their wife, and another 16% will give one to a parent. When asked which features are motivating the purchase for someone else, four stood way above everything else: larger screen (49%), ECG (45%), and faster performance and fall detection (both at 39%).

Among those intending to gift, 22% already preordered and 48% plan to buy within the next three months.

The Apple Watch User Base is Deep into the Ecosystem

Probably the most fascinating finding of this study is to see how entrenched in the ecosystem Apple Watch users are. While many could see Apple Watch as an accessory, I firmly believe that users who are looking at it as an essential tool to manage their day and their ecosystem of devices and services are the ones who get the most return on investment. Not surprisingly, multi device ownership across the panel is quite high: 88% owned an Apple TV, 75% owned Air Pods, 71% owned a MacBook Pro, 67% owned an iPad Pro, 44% owned an HomePod.

Early tech users are a window into the future, which is why it is so valuable to study them. While the time to turn from early adopters to mainstream users might vary, I think this ownership data best illustrate what Apple is working on when it comes to its user base. I have been saying for years that Apple cares more about selling more products to the same users than just expanding its overall market share in one area. As Apple moves more into services, it will be the combination of products that are present in a household that will drive engagement and loyalty and build an audience for life.

Apple has hbeen demonstrating over the years that it has its customers’ best interest at heart when it comes to privacy and security. Apple’s business model, which directly monetizes from hardware and services, makes such a prioritization much easier. Customers’ trust in the brand is inherited.

This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple’s desire to keep its content family friendly had caused delays in the production of a show on Dr. Dre as well as of a drama based on a morning news show starring Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon.

The idea that Apple wants to stay true to its squeaky-clean image has been circulating as long as rumors of the TV service have been around. Many point to Apple’s history of care for privacy and security to explain why this would be the stand Apple will take.

Despite Apple’s investment in content production, we have yet to get any confirmation of the video service itself, let alone whether Apple will say no to any adult content.

The Content Offered Today

If we look at the content offered today across Apple services, adult content is easily found. Apple Music has songs that contain swear words and sexually suggestive lyrics. Books offers stories of romance, horror, violence. The App Store includes violent games while staying clear of pornography. Of course one could argue that the App Store does allow apps like Tumbler where pornographic material can easily be found.

Consumers navigate what is available across Apple’s services in the same way they would do on Spotify, in a book or video game store. Regulating content, while important, cannot be equated to assuring privacy and security. What Apple has in place for all the current content are ways to clearly label the content that is only intended for a mature audience. From apps to books and explicit music you can easily find settings that help you navigate content and avoid what you feel is not appropriate for you or your children. Music, for instance, has a simple setting that when turned on can exclude all music with explicit language and offers alternative versions when available.

Apple Does not Need to Be Disney

When one starts thinking of content that limits violence, nudity, and bad language, one tends to think of Disney. While you could be tempted to look at Disney and believe that they have been successful, the numbers show that over the past two years the Mouse House has been under quite a bit of pressure. A pressure that eventually had them look at acquiring Fox Entertainment only to lose the bid to Comcast.

While part of the pressure was coming by its parks finances rather than content, it is also true that Disney was starting to fight for its audience. Amazon, Netflix, and Hulu, all offered strong competition with their productions. Apple will face that same competition once it launches its video service which would indicate that not only Apple will have to spend big money but also that it will have to make its service as broadly appealing as possible.

More, importantly, however, I would argue that Apple does not need to be Disney when it comes to content as its audience does not expect them to be. Looking at Apple’s base, there is no doubt families are a big part of it. Users have grown older since their first iPhone, and we know how big iPads are with kids, so Apple offering family friendly content will serve them very well. That said, Apple is also appealing to millennials and the older segment of Gen Z whose interests, according to a bunch of “most viewed shows lists” range from “Everything Sucks” to “Modern Family” to “The Big Bang Theory” and “The End of the F*** World.” So, for a service to appeal to the vast majority of the base, Apple really has to address themes that matter to that audience as well as speak a language they understand.

Brand and Content

There is a difference, in my mind, between airing content and producing the content you are distributing. While both demand some accountability, the latter will be held to a higher standard.

I also believe the audience is quite able to decouple the brand from the show. In other words, I might object to some of the themes in Game of Thrones and decide not to watch it but that does not have me stop watching all shows on HBO.

Interestingly, I feel that while content I might not like will not impact how I think about a brand content I love will undoubtedly grow my affinity with the brand. This is particularly true for stories that cover topics dear to my heart or productions that support women or diversity or other “causes” that might be important to me.

Of course, Apple has yet to outline their vision for content, but I would expect them to focus more on the key value propositions associated with their brand.

Focus on Quality and Management

When I think of Apple, I think of quality and a consumer first approach. I would expect the same from their video service as well. Quality that will avoid cheap use of nudity, violence, and language. This does not mean that I expect Apple to focus on family friendly content only.

Once the quality of content is taken care of, I expect Apple to go beyond the standard classification of content by making it easy for users to assess whether the content is right for them or their family members and manage access of such content accordingly.

If you think about it, this approach would be no different from what Apple is doing with “the big bad internet” where Apple is not censoring behavior, but they are helping me monitor and manage when websites are trying to track me or my information. The approach would also align quite nicely with Apple News where Apple is focusing on delivering quality content and helping users avoid “fake news.”

Time will tell if my hunch of the type of service Apple wants to deliver is correct but I am quite confident that Apple is aware that to win in this game reaching a large audience is key. To quote The Greatest Showman: “ Nobody draws a crowd quite like a crowd.”