The iPhone May Foreshadow The Future of Personal Computing

In 1989, I wrote a piece in one of my internationally syndicated columns about a mobile computing concept that was very modular in nature. Back then, portable computers were pretty bulky and heavy and having to lug them with me around the world was a pain. That led me to think about what future portable computing might look like and I took a stab at this idea of a modular approach to personal computing.

In hindsight this was ridiculously wishful thinking on my part more than anything else since the technology at that time was not there then to make those current portable computers smaller and lighter let alone modular.

At the heart this vision was the idea of having a lot of screens available in my work and home lifestyle. I envisioned these screens as being “displays” that my modular computer would connect or plug into in a lot of places and locations. The most far out thing I wrote about was the idea of the back seat of every plane having a screen and the bottom side of the tray would be a keyboard. In my model, there would be someplace for my “modular brick” as I called it to connect to this screen and keyboard and instantly become my personal computer.

The key to this idea was that the brick would have my CPU, OS, my own customized UI and all of my files and data. That meant that I would always have my own personal computer with me everywhere I would go and I would just plug it into an available screen and keyboard. Of course, that meant a large infrastructure of screens, keyboards and standardized I/O ports would need to be available everywhere. In the end, this vision was too early for its time, and even today would be hard to pull off given the state of the current technology.

Interestingly, we already have modular computing of sorts today. It comes in the form of our laptops where we have our own OS, customized UI and all of our personal files and can be plugged into a screen and keyboard as part of our computing model. Indeed, when I get to my office I connect my 13 inch MacBook Air to a 27-inch screen and use a wireless mouse and wireless keyboard. In this case, my MacBook Air is kind of brick–in this model–in that it just sits there providing the CPU power, OS, UI and access to my files.

But what if we could have that same kind of modular functionality in a “brick” that fits in your pocket? A very small device that houses a powerful CPU, OS/custom UI and data files and can be docked with a multitude of screens that are accessible around the office, school, home, shopping malls, etc. As far out as this seems, I believe that this is exactly the vision Apple has for the future of the iPhone.

If you have used an iPhone in an audio docking system you may have already thought of this idea. I was recently in a rented home in Hawaii where the entire home’s audio system was hooked up to an iPod and iPad audio/out dock. And if you have ever used Apple’s Air Play, you kind of have a glimpse of how the iPhone and the iPad can use wireless technology to share images and video.

One of the key technologies Apple has created that would help facilitate part of this concept is their 28 pin connector. While it has 28 pins, only about half of them are actually used for dock syncing, audio/video out, etc. In essence they have future proofed this connector so it could be used for a lot of other high intensity driven functions in the future.

One interesting example of this would be for an iPhone or iPad to be able to someday drive very high-resolution video monitors. Today it can only power basic VGA monitors. I recently saw technology from Corning’s Fiber division that has created a fiber cable that can be twisted, knotted, and even stepped on with no loss of high-speed transmissions. And these cables can carry data at speeds well over 50 GBPS. If this can be commercialized with the proper I/O connection points in place, it would have major ramifications for computing at all levels. But it could really enable something the like iPhone to become a modular device driving full PC functionality via various docking systems tied to all kinds of available screens, even very high resolution ones. This of course is a futuristic view but the technology is there to make this happen in the very near future.

The other roadblock to making this modular concept work today is the CPU itself. Although we are making great strides in low voltage processors that still deliver great performance, we will need very high speed mobile processors with extended graphics functions to make this modular vision work. However, if you look at NVIDIA’s current Tegra 3 chip with its 5th core, you can see that they are actually heading in this direction. And of course, we expect that Apple is working on their own mobile ARM chips that map this direction too.

I suspect that within 2-4 years we will have mobile chips that could drive this modular approach with smartphones forward.

Another interesting example of this modular connection to a screen would be in a car. All the car would have to have is a basic screen and, in Apple’s case, a dock with the 28 pin connector tied directly to it. That would mean that all you need to do is dock you iPod into this car’s iDock and that screen on the dash is now your full personal computer with added functionality tied to things like hands free navigation maps, traffic info, etc. And it would have all of your apps and files if you should ever need them via this screen.

Or perhaps the screen in the refrigerator is a dumb screen and would get all of its intelligence from the iPhone. Or for that matter, the work area on your desk at home would contain only a large screen and keyboard and you just dock your iPhone to this and you instantly have a full fledged PC.

Of course, things like the iCloud will make it much easier to keep your personal UI and data available across a lot of “smart” screens, but this modular approach could be interesting for the consumer in that the iPhone could bridge that gap between local protected content and the cloud in a much more mobile fashion. And since the smartphone is always with you, you would have the equivalent of a full PC at your disposal all of the time.

Could other smart phones become modular as well? Sure, but Apple has a jump on them with their future proofed connector and this group would need to settle on new high speed I/O s and connectors that would need to be adopted in all of their smartphones to make their modular eco system work. But Apple would appear to have quite an edge on any competitors who would want to do something similar given their advanced thinking on their own I/O’s and the fact that this connector is now on all of their devices.

As far fetched as this might sound, the concept of a smartphone as a modular computer has a lot of legs. And I know of quite a few people in various industries who are thinking this concept out now. But I believe that Apple has had this idea in their sights for some time and they too are thinking about how the iPhone could serve as the heart of a future modular computing model. And given what they have already done with the iPhone and their connector eco system, they could clearly be the first to flush it out and capitalize on this idea well before their competitors can.

Why It’s All About the Digital Ecosystem

My firm, Creative Strategies, has been talking extensively about what we call the digital ecosystem for over 10 years now. As we have been analyzing the technology industry and the underlying fundamentals that make it work, we have been trying to think about this from the vantage point of ecosystems. We believe that products are better as a part of a solution and in this ecosystem view-point, products are not islands but part of a solution (or ecosystem). This view works in every segment of the market as it is universal.

So what do I mean by digital ecosystem?

Based on the Merriam-Webster definition of an ecosystem I’d like to submit this definition for a “digital ecosystem”.

“the complex of a community of digital devices and their environment functioning as a whole”

A complete digital ecosystem consists of hardware, software, and services. All play a particular role in the ecosystem in order for it to function as a whole. Based on the design of the hardware, the function of the software, and the services provided, ecosystems can target specific parts of the market or the market as a whole. Microsofts’s XBOX is an example of a hardware, software, and services solution targeted for a specific part of the market. The point is that all three components are necessary for a holistic ecosystem.

The important thing about ecosystems is that they create dependencies. These dependencies can lead to consumer loyalty. They, however, can also lead to consumer revolt. Microsoft, Google, and Apple are out to create ecosystems that drive loyalty. In my opinion, companies like Comcast create ecosystems that lead to revolt since I would prefer a better TV service and integrated solution.

Our conviction is that over the course of the next few years, consumers will consciously begin to make decisions about products based on whose ecosystems they desire to be a part of, or the ones that work better for their life or environment. The hardware, software, and services will be important but more importantly, consumers will commit to and invest in ecosystems.

As it relates to personal computing, there are three main companies who enable ecosystems today. They are Microsoft, Google, and Apple. Microsoft and Google are more horizontal, where Apple is more vertical.

The history of the technology industry informs us of a fascinating value shift. This shift begins where value is initially in hardware, then as the market matures it moves to software and then eventually to services. I would argue that this value shift is more significant with horizontal plays than with vertical plays. This is important to keep in mind as we look at each ecosystem.

Microsoft, Google and Apple all think about ecosystems differently, which is why I choose to look at them separately.

The Microsoft Ecosystem
As I pointed out in last weeks column, I believe Microsoft thinks more like an operating system company than a software company. This is not always a bad thing and in this case, thinking in terms of enabling a platform is a good thing. What is important is how that platform enables an ecosystem. Microsoft has been relatively strong as it relates to desktops and notebooks. If you are not Apple and you need to ship an OS for a desktop or notebook, Microsoft is your best choice.

Where Microsoft has been weak with regards to personal computing is in the area of services. This is not to say they don’t or can not think like a services company. In fact XBOX Live is, I believe, the best service for gamers out there hands down.

Microsoft has been strong in enabling hardware and software for PCs but needs to strengthen that strategy as it relates to smartphone and tablets. Microsoft and Google both need to invest in helping those in their hardware and software ecosystem differentiate and make money.

In this new era of truly personal computing, being led by devices like smartphones, and now tablets to a degree, Microsoft is well behind Google.

The Google Ecosystem
Google has been fascinating to watch. I believe that Google, unlike many businesses, thinks first like a services company and then works backwards. What I mean is that while Apple and Microsoft think more from a hardware and or software viewpoint first, Google thinks first and foremost like a services company.

In this mindset, it becomes pretty clear that, unlike other companies in this industry, Google exists to make money for no one else except Google. They may say this is not true but their actions prove that it is. Google wants to extract value from all hardware, while using software (like Android) only as mechanism to connect to their services, which is how they make money.

For Google’s ecosystem to strengthen, they need to figure out how to work better with hardware manufactures in order to create a unified ecosystem AND invest in helping others make money. If they do not do this, their ecosystem becomes unsustainable and could someday be void of life.

The challenge that the horizontal platform strategy brings is that it makes it harder for hardware players in the ecosystem to differentiate. Both Google and Microsoft enable what I call the “sea of sameness.”

In a world where consumer preference and choice is prevalent, a lack of differentiation is the slow kiss of death.

The Apple Ecosystem
Apple on the other hand stands out clearly from the pack due to their vertical approach. By owning and controlling all the major parts of the ecosystem, the hardware, software and services, they are in the drivers seat when it comes to emphasizing value.

I stated the historical observation earlier of how value moves through the ecosystem cycle. I believe, because Apple is vertical, they can keep value in hardware longer–or perhaps indefinitely– where other hardware players in other ecosystems can not.

Unlike Google and Microsoft, Apple doesn’t enable a hardware ecosystem for anyone other than themselves. I view this as a strength, but I know many who view this as a weakness. When it comes to software, although they own and control the OS and a few “core apps,” they do a great job enabling the software community to add value to their ecosystem.

Apple is strong in hardware and software but like Microsoft they need to get better at cloud services. This is where the true stickiness of any ecosystem will lie.

Ultimately the biggest opportunity is to create an ecosystem that is simple and convenient to be a part of. This will drive product after product loyalty and keep consumers invested. And, if people eventually choose a product based on ecosystems, then any company dealing with a product needs to make sure they can deliver true consumer value throughout the entire solution if they want to keep their customers happy.

The key to building a stable ecosystem is to create value for everyone involved.

Kindle Fire: The Most Divisive Product of 2011

A month after its launch, Amazon’s Kindle Fire continues to be an extraordinarily polarizing product. Lots of people like it and it appears to be flying off the shelves (though it would be nice if Amazon supplied some actual numbers to back up its glowing sales reports.) But a significant element of the tech world has nothing but contempt for the 7″ ereader/tablet.

Kindle Fire photo
Amazon's Kindle Fire

The split in opinion reflects an analytical division that has colored the debate since Amazon announced the Fire in September. Some folks see it as poor (if smaller and much cheaper) version of Apple’s iPad, while others view it as a more limited device dedicated to the consumption of Amazon content, particularly books.

The latest round of discussion was  triggered by a New York Times Business Day article by David Streitfield. The piece leaned heavily on criticisms by usability guru Jakob Nielsen of the Nielsen Norman Group, who declared: “I feel the Fire is going to be a failure.” But Nielsen is no great fan of the iPad  either. Though he has praised the hardware design, he has been sharply critical of both iPad apps and web sites optimized for the tablet. And his criticism of the Fire’s display of web pages in a bit odd, that pages designed for a 10″ display don’t work well on a 7″ screen. People who buy a Fire looking for a general-purposed web browser are going to be disappointed.

Streitfield’s article immediately inspired Fire defenders. In a post aptly titled “The Kindle Fire is a Kindle Killer, Not an iPad Killer–That’s Why It Works,” Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan wrote:

The Kindle Fire originally disappointed me. While it had the form factor I wanted, it was heavier than I wanted to hold. I’d also grown to love the e-paper format of the regular Kindles. But for the past two weeks, the Kindle Fire has grown to push aside my use of the other Kindles.

Why? For one, the screen is nice and being backlit, I don’t have to purchase a light to read at night. Consider that for the cheapest basic Kindle for $80, you’re going to spend another $60 for a case that integrates a light, if you want to read it at night. That’s $140 right there — getting pretty close to the Kindle Fire’s $200 price and gaining so much more.

The Kindle Fire doesn’t replace my iPad, but it sure has replaced my Kindle Keyboard. That’s the killer factor here. I think the Kindle Fire will pull more and more Kindle users into the tablet world, where for just a little more money, they get books and more — and for a lot less than buying an iPad.

At TechCrunch, John Biggs wrote:

The Kindle Fire is Amazon’s Trojan Horse. It’s made for the mass of men and women who have been looking into this whole tablet business and like what they see. But it is, first and foremost, a reading device and to fault it for not playing Angry Birds well or offering a sub-par Netflix experience is to ignore its primary goal: to inject the concept of Amazon content downloads into a consumer base that is increasingly inundated with video, audio, and ebook sources.

And Technologizer’s Harry McCracken, writing at Cnet, said:

For now, mentioning the first Kindle Fire in the same breath as the Edsel is even more of an overreaction than assuming that it was going to be an instant blockbuster. With tech products, following through on a product’s promise is at least as important as getting things right in the first place–and Amazon, unlike some of its tablet-making rivals, has a strong record when it comes to doing just that.

I’ve been using a Fire for about a month and I mostly am very happy with it. My biggest complain, shared with most users who have written about the Fire, is the relative insensitivity of the touchscreen. To the extent that is a software problem, I hope it will be addressed in an update Amazon told Streitfield to expect in a couple of weeks. Another prime candidate for an update is the rather fidgety nature of the home page that can make it hard to select one item from the ever-growing panel of favorites at the top.

Another urgent item for correction is a point made by many writers and commenters on the Amazon site. As currently configured, the fire has * no parental controls. The built-in one-click ordering lets anyone who picks it up, say your children or a total stranger, order books, videos, or music without any authentication.

The hardware is what it is and there won’t be any change until a second-generation Fire comes along, most likely in the first half of next year. But even then, don’t expect miracles. Amazon’s top priority is keeping the price low, not producing iPad-like near perfection. That means there will continue to be hardware compromises. But it also means that Amazon can continue to address a price-sensitive market  interested primarily in a media consumption tablet.

The Fire will never make folks who know and love the iPad happy. The good news is that it doesn’t have to.

*–The original version said the Fire does not offer a password lock. This was incorrect and I thank Michael Gartenberg for pointing out the error.

 

 

Why webOS Deserves Another Chance

My colleague at Tech.pinions, Steve Wildstrom, wrote a great piece last Friday that chronicles Palm’s past and suggested that webOS is at the end of the road. While he may be right, a part of me wants to think that at least Web OS could live on even if Palm as we knew it has lost most of its key staff and any talent left have been absorbed into HP.

webOS got its first chance for life inside Palm, and its second chance when HP bought Palm and made a commitment to use it as an alternative mobile OS to Android.

The key reason for HP’s decision to buy Palm, and use webOS, is that after years of being tied to Windows and then looking at the prospect of being caught up in a similar relationship with Google and Android for their mobile devices, they made the calculated decision to back webOS. And in buying it, it was supposed to assure them that at the mobile device level, they could finally control their own destiny and not be forced to back Android and all of the things Google demands associated with Google product attachments in order to use it.

Not long after Palm started development of webOS, our firm, Creative Strategies, was asked to look at this new mobile OS and work with them on mobile use cases. As a result of this project, we got to see webOS up close and through this exercise, we began to understand that this was, at the time, the best mobile OS available. Since we did that project, Android and iOS have emerged as major operating systems for mobile devices, but from our work with webOS, we still consider it better than Android and in some ways equal to iOS.

One of the things we discovered early on is that webOS is built on WebKit and as a result, software developers can use standard Web development tools to create apps. We saw this as a real advantage since it meant that Web developers as well as professional software designers could write apps and we expected a robust eco system of apps to evolve quickly.

However, HP was slow in getting an actual tablet to market with webOS and given the competitive landscape, it was pretty much DOA when it did finally ship. And as you perhaps know, Their webOS tablet was killed after only a week on the market.

Last Friday, HP’s CEO, Meg Whitman apparently said in some media interviews that HP would bring out a webOS tablet in 2013. However, I went back to HP to clarify that statement and while my sources did not refute what she said, they hinted that what they most likely will do is look for new form factors to use for supporting Web OS and that a tablet may be one of them, although that is not in stone at the moment.

For now, webOS will move into an Open Source environment and although HP will have a dedicated team of developers contributing to the further development of Web OS, now many other developers can also add to and enhance webOS as well. That means that webOS should get even better than it is today. Given that perspective, I would like to suggest that webOS could and should have a third chance at life in the mobile market.

One key reason is that webOS is really an excellent mobile OS that is built on a strong foundation and is easy to develop for. Another reason is that to date, there have been no legal or patent claims against it and as far as I can tell, it is legally the cleanest mobile OS available. And third, smartphone and tablet vendors are still interested in a third OS or more specifically an OS in which there are no strings attached.

This last item is important. Samsung recently decided to back a third OS called Tizen (formerly known as Moblin, ) as they wanted an OS that they could control on their own. But they chose Tizen because webOS was not available and at the time, Tizen was the best option available that they could choose. Many in the industry thought Samsung would actually bid for webOS after HP said the were going to drop this OS, but its price tag back the was probably over $1 billion. But now, with it going to Open Source, it would not surprise me if some of the tablet vendors, especially those on the fence when it comes to backing Windows 8 for Tablets, decide to use webOS at least for their consumer products even if they have Android products in the works. The main reason they might consider this is that with webOS they would have control of their own destiny and not be forced to adhere to and be driven by Google and Microsoft on future products.

I don’t know if webOS will gain traction, but given the fact that it is a great mobile OS that is very easy to develop for, and one that would give vendors more control of their mobile futures, it would be a shame if it does not see the light of day in some other new mobile products and form factors in the near future.

Palm: The End of a Long and Troubled Road

Palm P{ilot photo
The original Palm

I was delighted back in the spring of 2010 when Hewlett-Packard announced it was buying Palm. I’ve been a fan of Palm for 15 years, but throughout its history, the company has always been hamstrung by a lack of adequate financial resources. With mighty HP behind it,  Palm could finally reach its destiny.

I couldn’t imagine that 20 months later, after wasting more than $3 billion, HP would put Palm’s sole remaining asset, the webOS operating system, out at the curb with a “Free to a Good Home” sign around its neck. (I’m sorry, I simply cannot credit HP CEO Meg Whitman’s claim in an interview with The Verge’s Joshua Topolsky that we’d eventually see new HP tablets and smartphones powered by webOS.  If HP meant that, it  wouldn’t have let the webOS team scatter to the winds.)

But if it’s a sad end to the Palm line, it is somehow a fitting one. Palm always  was a company that couldn’t buy a break.

Palm’s  troubles started at the very beginning. Having failed to raise venture capital funding to get the original Palm Pilot manufactured and marketed, founders Donna Dubinsky, Jeff Hawkins, and Ed Colligan had to sell the company to modem maker U.S. Robotics in 1996. Almost immediately, U.S. Robotics turned around and sold itself to 3Com. It’s not clear that 3Com was more than dimly aware that Palm was part of the deal. It certainly clear that 3Com never had any idea of what to do with it.

Palm was forced to stop using the Palm Pilot brand in a trademark dispute with the Pilot Pen Co.

After founders Dubinsky, Hawkins, and Colligan left in a dispute over strategy, 3Com spun Palm into two companies, PalmOne, which made PDA hardware, and PalmSource, which owned the operating system. The goal was to license Palm software to third parties, but the only really significant licensee it signed was Handspring, the company started by Dubinsky, et. al. PalmOne (which later renamed itself Palm) struggled with constant management turmoil, while PalmSource struggled, mostly without luck, to modernize Palm’s increasingly creaky operating system.

Meanwhile, the crew at Handspring managed to turn the Palm into the first real smartphone, the Treo.  Eventually, in a bity of financial judo, Handspring merged with Palm and the company regains the right to develop its own OS, which by then had been sold to Access, a japanese software company.

Alas, it was really too late. Money was as short as ever and drastic action was needed to save the Palm OS from hopeless obsolence (by this point, Palm was becoming largely an OEM of Windows Mobile phones.)  In 2008, Palm got a $100 million infusion from Roger McNamee’s Silver Lake Partners and former  Apple hardware guru Jon Rubenstein came aboard, eventually as CEO. The new team produced webOS and got it into the Palm Pre, but the hardware never won the accolades the software earned. It was a modest success at best and the money drain continued.

The HP acquisition was supposed to change Palm’s fortunes for good, but of course we know how that turned out. But given the soap opera history, the ending should hardly be a surprise.

Open Source webOS: A Nice Gesture, but a Sad End

In the end, Hewlett-Packard could neither use webOS to gain a foothold in the smartphone and tablet market, nor could it sell the operating system it acquired as part of the $1.2 billion purchase of Palm last year. So it is giving it away, releasing the code and the application framework under an open source license. The sad truth is that we are unlikely to ever again see webOS in a commercially viable smartphone or tablet.

Sad face TouchPadFor webOS to have a real life after HP, some hardware maker would have had to snap it up. But the likeliest suspects, Samsung and HTC, already have their hands full with Android and Windows Phone, and perhaps Windows 8 too. Amazon was a rumored buyer, but it has little interest in taking on a major OS development project; it’s doing just fine with an old version of Android.

The problem is that successful mobile software has to be co-developed with the hardware it runs on. Of the current mobile players, the one pure software company, Google, is getting into hardware with the purchase of Motorola Mobility. And it continues to work intimately with its leading hardware partners on design. Microsoft gives its Windows Phone hardware partners very limited freedom in their design choices. Apple, of course, is the maestro of integrated mobile hardware and software, and it was in an attempt to emulate Apple’s success that HP bought Palm in the first place.

There’s a good reason for this. The mobile user experience depends to a huge degree on how smoothly the hardware and software work together. A huge part of Apple’s success is based on the fact that it and third-party iOS developers know every detail of the very limited variety of devices they write for. In that environment, the hardware and software become one, and this makes for happy users.

Attempts to develop mobile operating systems in isolation have a sorry history. Intel and various partners tried with Moblin, MeeGo, and Tizen and left us with nothing but a pile of odd names.  The LiMo Foundation had no greater success with its attempt to create a mobile Linux.

I’m sure open source webOS will attract a bunch of enthusiastic developers, who will succeed in getting it to run on commodity hardware. But if there were a real chance of getting a product out of this, someone would have shown interest in buying webOS for what I am sure was a bargain-basement price. Instead, they saw a pit full of Pres and TouchPads and 3 billion of HP shareholders’ dollars.

The sad end of webOS is a terrible shame. It was an extremely promising operating system that never really got a chance, hobbled as it was first by the financial weakness of Palm and then by the incompetence and lack of staying power of HP. It deserved much better.

How Microsoft Can Embrace the Post-PC Era

I truly believe Microsoft is approaching a fork in the road, where some of the decisions made in the next 6-8 months will set the stage for their long-term success or failure. Microsoft is a software company primarily, and many of the decisions that need to be made relate to their philosophy and strategy as it relates to software.

My observation with Microsoft so far is that they don’t actually think like a software company, rather they think like an operating system company.

My evidence for this observation is how Microsoft had withheld key assets from other OS platforms. A classic example of this was up until the latest release, their Office software for OSX lacked Outlook, the standard e-mail program for many businesses. One could argue Microsoft’s reasoning for this was because the Mac had very little enterprise adoption, therefore Outlook was not necessary. I believe, however, they withheld Outlook for the Mac in order to continue to make differentiate Windows and make it more attractive to corporate IT.

I am pleased Office for Mac now has Outlook. I don’t believe it is as good as Outlook on Windows but at least it is there.

Up until iOS and Android hit the market, I would have argued that thinking like an operating system company was good strategically for Microsoft. Now, however, I believe their software divisions need to begin to think about how to get all their key applications onto iOS and Android as well.

Just this week Microsoft released an iOS app for XBOX Live. A solid first step in my opinion, but one that should have taken place much sooner.

There have also been reports / rumors that Microsoft has plans to release Office applications for iOS. This again would be a great move for Microsoft and one that needs to happen sooner than later. Office brings a familiarity to many consumers and business and I believe it would be quite successful on other platforms, like iOS and Android.

One simple example of this is OneNote.    I was a heavy tablet PC user and OneNote was on of my favorite applications. This is an application that since day one of using the iPad, I believed belonged on that platform.   Even though Steve Jobs was adamant against a pen, Microsoft could have sold OneNote with a pen / stylus package that was just designed for note taking and document markup.  This could have been done very similarly to the Wacom Bamboo Pen and paper app. I personally believe Microsoft has a lot of expertise in this area that would bring incredible value to iOS and Android. I agree that a tablet computer should not require a stylus but as an accessory it could be quite valuable.

Although I believe Microsoft has many software assets to bring to iOS, they have even more to bring to Android. Android has a void of quality core applications. If Microsoft brought Office, including a renovated and elegant version of Outlook, to Android, I believe it would be extremely successful, useful, and perhaps even give Android tablets a needed boost. Given that Microsoft actually makes money on IP licensing fees on Android, it actually makes business sense for Microsoft to see Android succeed.

Microsoft needs to realize that they do not dominate the OS and software landscape like they once used to.  They may still dominate on traditional PCs but that is not where the growth is taking place.   It is key for their future that they embrace all platforms and bring the entire breadth and depth of their software expertise to every device, regardless of the OS.

This strategy or shift in thinking would, however, be entirely disruptive to Microsoft as a whole but it would follow where it appears the industry and their revenue is headed. Also in this case disruption is a good thing for Microsoft as they look to the future.

In this last quarter their business division, which makes Office and other key applications, grew 21%. Whereas the Windows 7 segment revenue was down 7% due to PCs in general trending downward.

I don’t see too much light at the end of the tunnel for the PC (non Apple) sector in 2012 either. With Windows 8 on the horizon, I expect 2012 to be a down year for PCs again as consumers wait to see what the new OS brings but also because many consumers are purchasing tablets and delaying the purchase of new notebooks or desktops.

This may very well be a continual trend, which is why it is critical that Microsoft begin to think more like a software company and bring existing application roadmaps to cross OS platform devices and create new applications and roadmaps and innovate with software in general for not just Windows but OSX, iOS, Android, and of course Windows Phone.

Again, this would require a significant change in philosophy at Microsoft. A change that would embrace a platform agnostic approach to software development. Where instead of simply trying to protect Windows, they went out and innovated and created new software experiences for every software platform.

The “app goldmine” is a massive opportunity that Microsoft has been missing out on but it is not currently in their DNA as a company. But I am convinced that the key to Microsoft’s future is to begin thinking about the role of software in a non-Windows world and begin to innovate and lead again by meeting the software needs of consumers on every platform.

My desire for Microsoft is that they create visionary software again, not just an operating system.

Part II: Best of Tech 2011 (Gizmos)

In last week’s episode we awarded “Best of 2011” honors to a bushel of Apples: The Macbook Air (portable computer), the iPhone 4S (smartphone), and the iPad 2 (best tablet). Although it wasn’t a category, Apple as a company wins the “Best Tech Company of 2011” honors. Apple doesn’t just dominate major categories in consumer technology; it sets the agenda for all the others, in almost every category it chooses to enter. The obvious question is if Apple can continue to dominate in the post-Steve Jobs era. My Tech.pinions colleague and longtime Apple observer Tim Bajarin makes a compelling case that Tim Cook-era Apple will be the No. 1 PC vendor in 2012, and Ben Bajarin writes that Apple is poised to reinvent television in 2012.

While Apple clearly earned multiple “best” title in the tech scene in 2011, and seems likely to win even more in the new year, my holiday wish for Apple is that it sets the industry agenda in even more areas: the health and welfare of the hundreds of thousands of workers who assemble its products, the environmental consciousness of its production processes and product lifecycles, and its corporate philanthropy for social and civic causes, which was moribund under Steve Jobs’s leadership. There are positive signs that Tim Cook is already beginning to make positive changes in some of these areas.

But back to gizmos and gadgets. The following is a continuation of my picks of “Best Tech Gear of 2011.”

BEST E-READER

Based on my observations on my daily Amtrak commute into the city, Amazon’s Kindle Touch is the 21st century’s best attempt yet at digitizing the paperback book. It’s not the smallest or lightest Kindle or, even at the deceptive base price of $99, the cheapest. It’s not the first tablet to have a touch-screen interface, and the 6-inch E Ink black-and-white display is not as responsive to touch as the (much more expensive) Apple iPad. It’s not much good for anything other than buying, downloading and reading books. But for buying, downloading (via WiFi or free 3G, depending on model) and reading books and articles, it’s the Goldilocks device: Not as small and cramped as a smartphone, and not as big and relatively bulky as a full-featured tablet or laptop. It can also entertain you with MP3 music and audio books. Is it the perfect e-reader? Not by a long-shot, but it wins the “best of” honor because of the combination of size, weight, functionality, price and simplicity.

BEST PORTABLE STORAGE

As a storage device, the $200 Seagate GoFlex Satellite 500-gigabyte portable hard drive is big enough to hold your entire music collection or favorite photos or a trip’s selection of videos, yet small enough to fit in your pocket. That’s cool. But then you factor in the built-in battery, the an 802.11b/g/n WiFi module and a built-in web server, and suddenly you can stream your digital library to your iOS portable device. Although it works with non-iOS devices including Android phones and tablets, it works best with iPads, iPhones and iPods. If you’re one of the folks who bought a 64GB iPhone and then agonized over which of your favorite artists and TV shows and home videos and documents to take with you, this portable cloud almost certainly solves your problem. Take them all! It runs four or five hours on a single battery charge, and there’s an AC power plug. I’ve had mixed results with Seagate hard drives in the past, but then, I’ve had mixed results with other brands of storage devices too. For now, though, this beautiful streamer is the best accompaniment for my Mac OS X and iOS portables. Let’s hope Seagate comes up with a seamless solution for Windows and Android users in 2012.

BEST AIRPLAY SPEAKERS

Normally I’m a grump when it comes to gizmos that require frequent polishing with white gloves and microfiber rags. But with the Klipsch Gallery G-17 Air, a relatively pricey ($530) soundbar speaker system that works best with Apple iDevices, the glossy black case is worth the occasional dusting. The whole assembly weighs about 8 pounds and seems built like a tank, but that results in the best sound these ears have heard from WiFi AirPlay speakers in any price range. (Caveat: Audiologists often say that it’s rare to find people with “golden ears” over the age of 40, and my ears, veterans of too many loud rock concerts back in the day, are hardly golden. Even so, the G-17s sound better to me than, say, the runner-up Bose Zeppelin Airs. Your mileage may vary.) Even cranked up to neighbor-annoying levels, the G-17 speakers didn’t rattle or buzz or distort appreciably. The ability to stream music from an iPhone to the speakers via AirPlay is thrilling.

Why Apple Had To Release Siri Half-Baked

Siri has been having a bad week. Gizmodo’s Mat Honan called Apple’s voice-response service “a lie.” Daring Fireball’s John Gruber, who rarely has bad things to say about Apple efforts, said it “isn’t up to Apple’s usual level of fit and finish, not by a long shot.”  And my colleague Patrick Moorhead tweeted that inconsistency was leading him to reduce his use ofSiri screen shot the service.

Hang in there, Pat, Siri needs you. I share the frustrations and annoyances of Siri users, but the only way she’s going to get better.

Here’s what I think is going on, with the usual caveat that Apple only shares its thinking with people it can legally keep from talking about it, leaving the rest of us free to speculate. Apple doesn’t much like public beta testing. Before a major release, Microsoft will typically make a new version of Windows or Office to tens of thousand of users for months,  allowing developers to find and fix most of the bugs. Apple limits beta testing mostly to internal users and selected developers. It can get away with this because the real-world combinations of Mac or iOS hardware and software are orders of magnitude simpler than in the Windows world.

Siri is very different. The artificial intelligence engine behind the service lacks any inherent understanding of language. It has to be trained to make connections, to extract meaning from a semantic jumble. To even get to the databases and search tools Siri uses to answer question, it first must contract a query from the free-form natural language that humans begin mastering long before they can talk, but which machines find daunting. (See Danny Sullivan’s Search Engine Land post for an excellent analysis of Siri’s struggles with queries about abortion clinics.)

The secret to machine learning is feedback. I expect that Siri carefully logs every failed query, along with what the user does next. And algorithmic analysis of those logs, combined perhaps with some human intervention, means that every mistake contributes to the process of correction. In other words, Siri learns from its errors and the more people use it, the faster it will get better. Benoit Maison has a good explanation of how this works on his blog.

The server-based learning creates a very different situation from the troubled handwriting recognition that helped doom Apple’s Newton 15 years ago (and to which some critics have compared Siri’s troubles.) Newtons were products of a preconnected age, so there was no way for the community of MessagePads to learn from each other’s mistakes. And the extremely limited processing power memory on the Newton itself made the claim that it would learn from its errors an empty promise. The Newton could never get past “egg freckles.”

Now, all of this said, Apple’s approach to Siri is a distinct departure from its usual practice of under-promising and over-delivering. It properly labeled Siri as a “beta” product. But, at the same time, it is using the half-backed feature as a major selling point for the iPhone 4S, hitting it hard in commercials. This is a disservice to customers, who have learned to expect a high polish on Apple products, and has saddled Siri with unreasonably high expectations that now are inspiring a backlash. Apple had to release Siri prematurely to let the learning process go forward. Let’s hope that Apple did not do the service permanent damage with its hype.

 

 

Let’s Stop Classifying the iPad as a PC

Last month, Canalys reported that “Apple is on track to become leading global PC vendor”. That would be a tremendous accomplishment, given that no reports had Apple in the top 5 at the end of 2010. How will Apple accomplish this? Well, according to Canalys, they will do it with iPads. You know, a “PC” without physical keyboards, trackpads, or mice. This re-classification got me thinking, what is a PC and how wide does this definition go?

I must point on very early that I am not debating here if the iPad can duplicate, replace or augment certain usage models a PC can do. I know first-hand this is true because I use my iPad now in circumstances that two years ago I would have only used my PC. A few examples are airplane trips and at Starbucks. I am not alone. Respected journalist Harry McCracken wrote a piece on Technologizer  entitled, “How the iPad 2 Became My Favorite Computer“.  That is NOT what I am asking. I am asking about the industry classification of the device.

I’d like to propose a few tests and run a few products through to see what filters out. A PC today must have or be:

  • Electronic: a PC must run off some kind of electric power, AC or DC.
  • Operating system: a PC must run something above BIOS or machine code
  • Personal: the PC is designed for one or a few people, not many. In other words, it’s not a multi-user server. (Clarification: It could serve many people, but isn’t classified as a server.)
  • Portable: a PC can be moved
  • Apps: a PC must be able to run an application above the operating system level
  • Storage: a PC must be able to store personal data, settings or content
  • Customizable: a user can change the PC’s settings
  • Input: a user can input data so that the PC will react to commands
  • Display Output: the PC will visibly show data based via some visible display technology

So, this seems fair, doesn’t it? Well, what products then are “personal computers” by with this definition?

Echo Photo

           

Is this fair? Some of the items above even have generally accepted industry designations like e-readers, consoles, watches and refrigerators. Well, so does the iPad. IDC, Gartner, and Forrester already designated the iPad a “tablet”, so it seems there’s precedence.

We all know the iPad isn’t a computer; it’s a tablet, so why do we all keep pretending? It is fun, I know, even I’m amused when writing this. So what is a PC?

I believe a PC has all the nine characteristics at the top of the page but with the following conditions:

  • display greater than 5″
  • physical keyboard
  • physical mouse or trackpad
  • light enough to be picked up by an average age adult 
  • open application environment where users can load, side-load without having to jail-break

While there will always be exceptions to the rule and definitions will evolve over time, I suggest this definition could help the industry to simplify and better educate.

Does any of this classification debate anything?  While I agree with Tech.pinions colleague Ben Bajarin when he says, “Consumers don’t care nor think about it.  They just hire products to get jobs done”, I do believe it matters a lot.  Companies, investors, developers and consumers are influenced by classifications.  Classifications get used to describe market share, which then impacts financial analysts, which then could impact the stock price of the company. This is also a factor that comes into play with technology investments. “Should I develop this piece of technology for the PC or tablet market”?

My final thoughts are on the future.  The way technology is headed in the future, calling the iPad a PC will set precedence that will only lead to even more confusion and misinformation.  I believe there’s a scenario where the smartphone has a chance to dethrone the PC.  If people change their usage models and start adopting it widely, should we re-classify the smartphone as a PC in a few years?   If the answer is “yes”, then let’s also be prepared in 2015 to announce, “Timex could become the leading PC maker in 2016″.  Let’s stop classifying the iPad as a PC, it only serves to confuse people.

I’d love hear your thoughts. Do you believe an iPad should be classified as a PC?

Also see: Who Really Needs a PC Anyway?

[thumbsup group_id=”4460″ display=”both” orderby=”date” order=”ASC” show_group_title=”0″ show_group_desc=”0″ show_item_desc=”0″ show_item_title=”1″ ]

Why Apple Will be #1 in 2012

A couple of weeks ago, market research firm Canalys made a significant prediction that by the end of 2012, Apple would be the number 1 PC vendor in the world. To get to this number, they recognized the iPad as a personal computer and pointed out that if you include iPad’s, Apple would be the #1 PC vendor as well as #1 mobile computer vendor in the market by the end of next year.

Although this prediction came from a respectable research firm, this same line of thinking was given even greater weight last week when HP’s CEO, Meg Whitman, told French reporters, when asked about the Canalys report, that she too believed that Apple is on track to replace HP as the #1 PC vendor in the world, although she hoped that HP would retake this position in 2013.

For the last 10 years, Apple has been all of the OEM’s worst nightmare. They became #1 in portable music players, and then became the #1 handset maker. And with the iPad they emerged as the #1 tablet maker. Now these OEM’s have to put up with the reality that Apple is on track to become the #1 PC vendor as well. And there is something else that Apple does that really irks them too. The fact that while they are having to live with margins of about 5-8% on almost all of their products sold, Apple is making margins well above 25% on everything they sell.

There is some controversy in the market research world about this idea of adding iPads into the overall mix of computers sold since most PC market researchers put tablets in their own category and do not count them as a PC. But that is very old line thinking and if Meg Whitman is counting them as part of the way HP judges PC market share, then the researchers who count PCs in general will need to adjust their thinking on this also.

But Whitman’s comment that they can overtake Apple in 2013 is an interesting one. For one thing, I suspect she is hoping that by that year, their ultrabook will be a big hit and help bring their market share back up in laptops. Also, I am sure she is counting on their Windows 8 tablet to be a big seller in 2013 and that they can create a branded Windows 8 tablet that businesses and consumers want. I believe this is a good goal, but one that may not be realistic.

Keep in mind, Apple’s mantra is to stay two years ahead of their competition at all times. What this means is that they are not standing still. Although we don’t know what is in the iPad 3, I have no doubt that it too will help extend their lead in tablets well into 2013. By 2013, when the first generation of Windows 8 tablets are just hitting stride, Apple will introduce the iPad 4 (or 3S) and could have significantly lower prices by then.

We are hearing that Microsoft’s fee for Windows 8 tablet version could be as high as $68. If that is true, right off the top the BOM costs of Windows 8 tablets will most likely force prices higher than Apple’s low-end iPad is today. And if Apple starts lowering their prices in 2013 as I suspect they will, Windows 8 tablets would be at premium pricing.

Also, while Microsoft and Intel and their partners are excited about ultrabooks, their current pricing is too high for consumers. The good news is that by the end of 2012, we could see some really solid ultrabooks as low as $599 (without SSDs). But the bad news is they don’t know what Apple has up their sleeves with their MacBook Air line for Q4 2012. While Apple will never try to beat the competition at pricing, they still could lower their Air prices significantly and market it to consumers as getting more bang-for-the-buck by then.

And even if Android tablets start gaining market share in consumer markets in the future, most of them are coming from non-PC vendors. The major PC vendors are winding down their Android tablet programs and all the big guys will be backing Windows 8 by the end of 2012. They must hope that Windows 8 tablet is a hit for this to give them any market share boost over Apple.

That means that all of the PC vendors will most likely lose ground to Apple next year, and knowing Apple, once they get to the top of the PC market share mountain, they just may have enough new products in their upcoming arsenal to keep them there for some time. If this happens, the big PC companies may have to get used to playing second banana to Apple in this new role of #1 PC vendor, something that they would never have dreamed would happen.

Apple Will Re-Invent Television

There is re-invigorated conversation around Apple and its Apple TV efforts in light of Steve Jobs’s comments to Walter Isaacson that he has finally cracked the TV interface. And now again with recent Wall St Analysts voicing their conviction that 2012 will be the year of Apple TV. We all know Apple wants a play in the television arena. Apple TV is still a hobby to them but at some point in time Apple TV will become a business and a healthy one at that.

Much of what is happening around the web, and with other pundits, feels very similar to the time prior to Apple launching the first iPhone and fundamentally re-inventing the smartphone. In fact my father provided the media with a quote about the first iPhone that circulated widely. Rather than call Apple’s first iPhone a smartphone he called it a “brilliant phone.” I found that quote fitting.

In the year leading up to the first launch there were mockups, hype, rumors, speculation, skepticism, optimism, and then one day it was unveiled and none of the hype could do it justice. It helped us re-imagine what a pocket computer should be and I would argue Apple continues to do so with each new iPhone.

Predicting exactly what the disruptor is proves more difficult than knowing which areas of the industry are ripe for disruption. Television is ripe for disruption and I believe Apple will be the one to do it. So rather than predict how, I would rather point out where some of the opportunities may lie.

So with all that in mind when the time is ready Apple will unveil to us their next greatest product creation and none of the current buzz will do it justice. For the simple reason that I expect nothing less from Apple.

The TV is an incredibly important “screen” in the lives of many consumers and it will become a key battleground for many companies. The TV experience has not changed much, with the exception of the DVR, since color. The TV screen itself is dying to become smarter, run software, become more personal–and even more–the television experience itself is stale and dated and in desperate need of disruption. Tim brings this out in his column stating that TV is one of the industries Apple will disrupt at some point in time.

What Apple TV Will Not Be and What it May Be
As I have read much of what is being hyped and speculated about with Apple TV, I have to point out what Apple TV will not be. It will not be just a simple streaming service that delivers content a different way than through the cable or satellite providers. It may include elements of that but it will not be focused around that. As we know the cable TV networks and service providers have an incredible amount of power, out-dated business models, and licensing agreements still in place from the 50’s. They are also completely inept when it comes to technology. We have pointed out the massive challenge working with these content companies has become.

Re-inventing the TV experience has to be more than just TV programming. Re-inventing the TV will require turning the TV into a platform to deliver rich content, new software, interactive programming and more. The opportunity is to turn the TV into a “platform” similarly the way PCs, smartphones, and tablets are platforms.

This will require new hardware, new software and a host of other things. I still remain skeptical that Apple actually wants to build and ship a piece of glass as an integrated TV set, as the only solution. If buying a new TV is required for the new Apple TV I think it would be a mistake. Consumers hold on to TVs for a 5yr average now and such a strategy would lock out a number of potential customers due to the lack of desire to buy a new TV. I find the set-top-box strategy to be a more relevant strategy and one that can keep up with the pace of innovation. As much as I am skeptical of the need for Apple to ship and build a fully Apple TV integrated TV set, the notion that current display hardware is not sufficient to realize Apple’s vision for TV is the strongest case.

That being said I fundamentally believe innovation within TV set hardware is still needed. I will give you one example.

In many R&D labs of TV manufacturers, new aspect ratios are being experimented with. One aspect ratio in particular I find interesting is 20×9. You may think to yourself why would I need a 20×9 aspect ration when the current standard is 16×9. There is an interesting answer.

20×9 brings the opportunity to use the outer edges of the display for “other” things than the video. Say for example that I wanted my Twitter feed, or sports scores, or interactive features to co-exist with what I am watching but I don’t want to see my picture in anything less than 16×9. Using the 20×9 aspect ratio would allow the viewer to still watch an unaltered video experience but use the outer areas of the display for other relevant content. Things like apps, news streams, and anything else we can come up with to complement the TV viewing experience. Of course these side bars can be turned off as needed but also usable as needed.

That is one simple way new hardware can be created that change how we experience TV today and re-shape it in an entirely new way.

John Gruber brings out some interesting thoughts and he outlines how apps are the new channels and using voice to fetch relevant data. Jean-Louise Gasse in his Monday Note builds upon Gruber’s thoughts and adds how an ever-increasing amount of people are using things like iPads to simultaneously watch TV and use their “other” smart screens like tablets and smartphones to add to their TV experience.

What makes the TV screen interesting is that it is not a personal device or screen. At least not in the same way that our smartphones and PCs and tablets are personal. The TV is more of a shared or social screen. Therefore our relationship with it is very different. Because of that it presents and interesting challenge where using our personal devices to enhance the shared TV screen experience may be very interesting.

Perhaps the future version of Apple TV will be all of these things. New innovations in the TV set using new aspect ratio’s or screen technology, combined with using other smart devices to enable a much more holistic, personal, and interactive experience.

The most important first step will be to turn the TV screen into a platform. When this happens we will see innovation come from software developers, service providers and yes the content industry. Opening the door for software developers to create compelling new experiences on the big screen, is perhaps the biggest and most disruptive opportunity.

I am hesitant to speculate knowing that whatever we come up with won’t even be close, at least I hope, to what Apple shows us–someday. Who knows when it will happen it could still be years away but I can’t wait until it is ready. In time Apple will not just show us a smart TV they will show us a brilliant TV and in the process re-invent TV.

Best Tech Gear 2011

Perhaps you skipped Black Friday because of some aversion to rampaging, drooling, pepper-spraying bargain hunters. And Cyber Monday was kind of a dud once you realized that it’s really Cyber Week, and that the best bargains for tech gear are yet to come.

But now here we are at Vague Sense of Anxiety Thursday, when, according to www.xmasclock.com, there are fewer than 1.9 million shopping seconds left until Christmas, and you still haven’t decided which products deserve your attention, or Santa’s.

Here and in this space in the coming 1.9 million seconds are some suggestions, in the form of my picks for the best tech products of 2011. We’re going to look at the basics today, before moving on to Best Gizmos of 2011, followed by Best Software and Services.

And no, I don’t get paid by Apple and no one in my family owns Apple stock.

BEST SMARTPHONE:

Q: Siri, what’s the best smartphone introduced in 2011?

Although Verizon’s tantalizing 4G LTE network remains out of its reach for now, the Apple iPhone 4S is still at least a generation ahead of a growing pack of rivals. Yes, it has a new dual-core processor, but in real world performance you’re unlikely to be dazzled. Yes, it has an improved camera, front and back, still and video, but it’s a catch-up feature, not a flashy innovation.

So much for the yes-buts. Two things pushed the iPhone 4S ahead of a pair of runners-up from Samsung, the Galaxy S II and the forthcoming Galaxy Nexus, which is expected to make its debut on the Verizon network any day now. The first is the iPhone’s new antenna configuration, which improved the connection rate and quality of calls on the two networks I tested, Sprint and AT&T. The second is Siri, the voice-control system that everyone is talking about. Siri is huge, and it’s just the beginning.

BEST LAPTOP:

I’m typing this on a 13-inch Apple Macbook Air, which got a much needed and long-awaited makeover earlier this year. My colleague Ben Bajarin has already written convincingly about its charms, so let me just add this: At least once a day I either lose the Air under papers on my desk, or panic because I think I left the office without the Air in my briefcase. A quick pat on the side of the bag reassures me that no, the Air is in the bag. Unlike the feeble chips in earlier models, the new processor has enough horsepower to run all but the most demanding applications. And yes, if you must, you can run Windows on the Air.

The keyboard is a full-size delight, but I still find the 11- and 13-inch displays a bit claustrophobic on occasion. (So, my latest secret vice is taking the Air on a trip not instead of, but rather along with, my Apple iPad 2. Then I can use the iPad as a separate display for the Air, putting email and Twitter and other distracting apps on the remote screen, and doing word processing or other tasks on the main display.) Rumor has it that Apple is cooking up a 15-inch Macbook in the Air form factor, and if so, I’ll find it hard to resist. But for now, this year, the Air is almost perfect.

Runner-up? Samsung’s Series 9.

BEST TABLET

By popular consent, 2011 was the year of the tablet. And one tablet completely dominates the rest. The new Apple iPad 2 dazzles on the hardware front, and it’s simply a delight to use. But the real strength of the iPad is the software, not just the much improved iOS 5 operating system, but also the universe of thousands upon thousands of useful and entertaining and productive apps. No other tablet has the app library that the iPad has. If you create stuff, whether for work or play, the iPad is superior to all the others. Even if you just consume stuff, including movies, TV shows, YouTube videos, music, ebooks and the like, the iPad will become your new best friend.

That said, Amazon’s Kindle Fire gets the runner-up nod on the basis of its consumer friendliness. As they say, the Fire allows Amazon to get in bed with its customers. The Fire is quirky, but it’s going to be fun to see it develop.

BEST POCKET CAMERA:

In a photo finish, the winner is Apple’s new … Just kidding! Apple’s cameras basically suck.

On a purely technology basis, I’m intrigued by the Lytro Light-Field, the first camera that allows the photographer to focus a shot after the picture has been taken. But it doesn’t qualify because it won’t be out until early 2012. And I love my Canon 5D Mark II SLR, but it was introduced before 2011, so it doesn’t qualify, either.

My problem is that the big Canon is too heavy to carry everywhere, and the camera built into my iPhone leaves a lot to be desired. So, I’m always on the lookout for a pocket-size camera that takes great pictures.

Two models from Canon share the Best Pocket Camera award: The PowerShot S100, an upgraded version of the delightful S95, and the PowerShot ELPH 300 HS.

Microsoft’s Future in Tablets: Forget Consumers, Go for the Enterprise

Only huge a company with massive cash flow can make a mistake of the magnitude of Microsoft’s error in missing the movement from PCs to smartphones and tablets and survive as a major player. Legacy cash flows allowed IBM to recover from its errors of the late 1980s and the money flowing in from Windows and Office can do the same for Microsoft. But time is growing short. With the latest version of Windows Phone and its partnership with Nokia, Microsoft is at least making a play in smartphones. But it’s a long way from even playing in the increasingly important tablet market.

Apple iPads and Amazon Kindle Fires are flying off shelves now and even the justly criticized Android tablets could become attractive in coming months with a new version of the the operating system, Microsoft is at least a year away from tablets running Windows 8 on either Intel or ARM processors. But Microsoft has to make some critical decisions right now about what these tablets are going to be.

The first thing the company should recognize is that by the fall of 2012, the consumer market is likely to be lost. Over the next year, Apple is likely to sell at least 50 million iPads, Android tablets should gain traction, and Kindles and Barnes & Noble Nook Tablets will be gobbling up the low end of the market. In consumer markets, Microsoft is shooting at a moving taget that’s not moving in a favorable direction.

The enterprise market, on the other hand, is wide open. iPads have definitely been turning up in the enterprise in large numbers. And Apple has worked hard, including some quiet cooperation with Microsoft, to make the iPad play reasonably well in an enterprise environment dominated by Microsoft back-end services such as Exchange. But enterprises need more than Exchange mail, contacts, and calendar. They require support for all of Microsoft Office, including the SharePoint collaboration and document management service on which many enterprises depend, far better document handling than today’s tablets provide, and better ways to load and maintain custom applications.

Office is the key, and it is where Microsoft faces the hardest choices. The cool kids, startups, ands tech pundits may be happy with Google Apps or perhaps OpenOffice and emacs, but the fact is that business (and government) runs on Office. Documents are written in Word, numbers are crunched in Excel, presentations are shown in in PowerPoint, mail is read, meetings are scheduled, and calendars and contact lists are kept in Outlook. And it is all tied together with Exchange and SharePoint.

There have been large-scale corporate deployments of iPads, but as ancillary tools, not really as replacement for computers. For example, airlines have given thousands of iPads to pilots as replacements for the paper documents that used to fill their weighty flight bags. Tablets will remain in enterprise niches until they can offer reasonable support for corporate Office installations. This is unlikely to happen on iPad, even if rumors about some sort of Office version for the Apple tablet are true, and even less likely on Android, where the lack of standardization and built-in security are a huge barrier to enterprise adoption.

Related post: Who Really Needs a PC anyway?
Related post: A Scenario Where Smartphones Take Down the PC

The problem is just what does Office on a tablet mean? While Microsoft has been very transparent about the development of Windows 8, an accompanying new version of Office remains nothing but a bunch of fragmented rumors. It’s clear that a dramatically new version of Office is needed for tablets; five minutes spent with Office 2010 on a Windows 7 tablet will convince you of that. Making office work on a mouseless, keyboardless touch tablet is not a matter of tweaking the user interface–the UI most be radically rethought. Menus are the essence of Office, but menus are death in tablet apps. How many of Office’s existing features–thousands of them–could be supported in a  drastically simplified interface? How many can you lose before Office ceases to be useful for enterprises? (Few consumers care or know about Word’s Track Changes feature; enterprises cannot live without it.)

More needs to be done than just fixing the UI. The current Office is a multi-gigabyte resource-sucking monster. It’s probably an order of magnitude too big to be a reasonable fit on a tablet. Microsoft promises tablets running on both Inter and ARM processors. The current Office, particularly Outlook, is a slug on Intel Atom processors and a converted version would likely be even worse on ARM. Office has to become dramatically smaller and lighter without losing its essential character, a daunting task.

Maybe Microsoft is well along in solving all these problems, but they have been uncommonly quiet about the process. For a new Office to ship together with Windows 8, I’d expect to have seen a technical release by now and a large scale beta early next year. There have been rumors of a beta being made available at the consumer Electronic show in January. I hope so, but I am dubious.

 

 

BlackBerry Mobile Fusion May Be RIM’s Future

The flood of iPhones, iPads, and Androids into corporate offices is destroying BlackBerry’s once dominant position in the enterprise. In a bold if-you-can-lick-them-join-them move, Research In Motion is striking back with BlackBerry Mobile fusion, a software and a back-office package that promises to bring BlackBerry-like security and manageability to competing hardware.

BlackBerry iPhoneThis may be an obvious move for RIM, but it is not an easy one. The company’s DNA–and the heart and soul of co-CEO Mike Lazaridis–is in hardware. Previous efforts to bring BackBerry functionality to  third-party hardware, such as BlackBerry Connect for Nokia and Windows Mobile, were half-hearted at best and went nowhere. But RIM today is threatened with irrelevance and needs a desperate move to get back into the game. And the may be a secret agenda behind Fusion: It could be the solution to bringing full BlackBerry services to the troubled Playbook tablet and the new generation of handsets based on RIM’s QNX operating system.

Fusion may offer an attractive solution to IT managers, especially in Microsoft Exchange shops,  bedeviled by  users demands that they be allowed to use the smartphone of their choice for business. Of the alternatives to BlackBerry, currently only iPhone comes close to providing full support for Exchange, including a wide range of security policies. There are third-party solutions for Android, such as Good Technologies BlackBerry-like server-based system or NitroDesk’s TouchDown app, which provides support for a variety of Exchange-based mobile device management systems.

The big advantage of Fusion, if it delivers on its promises when it is released next March, is that it runs on top of the existing BlackBerry Enterprise Server and gives IT managers a single platform they can use to manage a variety of devices: BlackBerrys, iPhones, iPad, and Android phones and tablets. All of the existing third-party offerings require some sort of multi-server infrastructure to support all devices.

There’s also a curious little note in the fusion announcement that may hint at a broader role for the software:

RIM has clearly been having a very difficult time making the QNX-driven PlayBook work properly with BlackBerry Enterprise Server, a fact that helps explain the crippling lack of native mail, contact, and calendar apps on the device. The Fusion language still doesn’t promise full BES support for the PlayBook, but is definitely moving in that direction. A similar solution might help RIM bring BlackBerry services to its forthcoming QNX handsets.

All of this, of course, is a double-edged sword for RIM, because the better Fusion is, the more damage it may do to the company’s  fading handset business. But long term, RIM’s only path to survival may be as a provider of managed services for enterprise mobility. That would be a sad comedown for a company that once dreamed of dominating the consumer smartphone business, but it may be all that’s left.

 

 

A Scenario Where Smartphones Take Down the PC

If you’ve done any long term strategic planning you know there are few absolutes but, very many scenarios. Tech history shows that even disruptive innovations take time to rollout and many scenarios existed that could have gone both ways. BlockBuster saw digital media coming and I will bet they had scenarios that showed varying levels of digital video acceptance showing what would happen to them if they didn’t lead levels of digital media leadership or lowest price. What if the publishers had stuck to their earlier guns and hastened digital rollouts? That could have given BlockBuster breathing room to develop more and they may still be around in their prior form.

There are other scenarios rolling out that are very interesting in that they could disrupt a giant, 500M unit market. That is, the scenario that has the smartphone “taking out” the personal computer.

I’d like to take a look at a few variables that could increase the likelihood of this happening. Remember, it’s not about absolutes, but about different scenarios and their chance of happening. Also, I’m not saying absolutely it will happen, but it is a viable scenario.

The New Personal
It all starts with the end user and making choices. If posed with the question, “if you had to choose between your phone of the PC, which one would you pick?” Sure, most want both, but making them choose makes them prioritize, and most would pick the phone. Why? One reason is that its so personal. People take it in the bed, bathroom, our pocket, on the dinner table. It knows where we are, what we’re doing, who we’re with, can communicate how we feel, etc. There are even reports that people would rather starve or refrain from sex rather than separate from their phone. Net-net, the phone is more personal and one variable that could, scenario speaking, accelerate the erosion and “take down” of the PC.

Good Enough Computing
Setting input and output aside for a second, the smartphone is pretty good, or good enough, for most email, web, social media, and light content creation. The web has actually “dumbed down” a but to make this possible and apps have helped almost as much Light content creation is writing email, editing photos, creating social media posts, and even taking notes. The big usage model exceptions to this are workstations and extreme PC gaming even though these are starting to be processed in the cloud. Most all else, scenario speaking, can be processed in the cloud.

Modular Designs
The iPhone 4s and the iPad 2 can already wirelessly mirror what is on the phone or tablet on the next best display. Most Android devices and even QNX can work with a full size wireless keyboard and mouse. Extrapolate that ahead three to five years with quad core general purpose processing, today’s console graphics capability, and even better wireless display technologies and it doesn’t seem, scenario speaking, that there won’t be a whole lot the user cannot do.

For “desktop” use, users will be connect to full size displays at high resolutions with full size keyboards, trackpads, and mice. Apple Siri, Microsoft Tellme and Google Voice Actions voice interfaces will be greatly enhanced in future iterations and can serve as the secondary input. Scenario-speaking, laptops could be wireless “shells” and leverage the processing power, graphics, memory, storage and wireless plans. The shells would cost a lot less than a full fledged laptop and have the convenience in that the content, apps, wireless plan is in one place.

One potential modular wild-card are flexible displays. While these have been demonstrated at every CES for over a decade, they appear to be getting very close to reality. While details are hard to come by, Samsung indicated that they will be shipping flexible displays in 2012. This could mean in phones by 2012 or shipped to OEM customers in 2012 for shipment in 2013. HP has been very active as well with their flexible display technology in alliance with ASU, the US Army, Du Pont, and E-Ink. HP is positioning their technology not only great for phones and watches, but also for larger POS displays, interactive advertising, and even on the sides of buildings. As it relates to smartphone modularity, think about “unfolding” a 10″ display from your 3″ device. That changes everything.

Potential Winners and Losers in Scenario
There are obvious winners and losers in this scenario. The big winners will be those who can monetize the smartphone or thin client and the cloud. Losers will be those who are stuck in the old model of computing, scenario speaking. If you’re one of those companies, I’d be rethinking your strategy.

Protectionism Rarely Works Over Time
Any scenario where well established and large losers exist, there will be protectionism. Over time, protecting something with such consumer benefit and such upside for other companies very rarely works. This is especially true for this scenario given the high levels of consumerism. Today, consumers have access to great info from the web and it’s amplified in the social media echo chamber. It’s hard to snow over consumers in any high value scenario.

Scenario Conclusion
The “smartphone kills the PC” scenario isn’t novel or new, but it is certainly one of the most important one of this decade. And certainly one of the most controversial as well given the 500M unit stakes with the winners and losers. How many of those will really be modular smartphones and how many will be PCs as we now it today?

Who Really Needs a PC Anyway?

James Kendrick at ZDNet wrote a post asking an interesting question: Who really needs a stinking tablet anyway? His post is well articulated but misses the bigger picture of what tablets are and more importantly what they represent. So rather than look at the world today where tablets are in their early maturity stage, I would rather look to the future, at which point my title, –Who Needs a PC Anyway?– will be a valid question.

In my TIME column today I shared some perspective on what I am calling the Great Tablet Debate. Similarly I wrote a TIME column in June on Why Tablets Represent the Future of Computing. Going back even further when the iPad was first announced and demonstrated I wrote a column (I am quite proud of) for my friends at SlashGear called From Click to Touch – iPad & The Era of Touch Computing. I reference those three articles because they represent a much more holistic view of my thinking than I can get into with one single column – although I will try.

Along those lines I also strongly encourage a read of MG Sieglers post on how Tablets are Computers too.

The key to this whole discussion is to understand the mainstream part of the consumer market and their relationship with technology. If we use the diffusion of innovators theory then we have a start at understanding how technologies move throughout the consumer adoption cycle. What that theory doesn’t deal with, however, is how each group has different demands and expectations with technology.

The innovators and early adopters bring a very different mindset to their tech products than do the early majority, late majority, and laggards to a degree. I think studying the innovators and early adopters (a group I am in) is interesting but the early and late majority are the most important because they represent the largest part of the market.

In Crossing the Chasm, Geoffrey A. Moore dives deeper into this topic by pointing out how most technology products fail to cross the “chasm” – to move from early adopters to mass audience. He also points out, in this classic book, how each market of the diffusion of innovators has very different needs.

So the key is to understand the different needs of each of these markets and especially the early and late majority. We have done research with this category and found that more than 90% of the time consumers primarily use less than 5 applications with the top two use cases being checking email and browsing the web. None of those top 5 applications used 90% of the time are CPU intensive. In fact most PCs today have significantly more processing power than a consumer regularly uses. I’d actually argue that todays PCs are overkill for the majority of tasks consumers do regularly. They simply use them because prior to tablets they had no mobile computing option.

When it comes to my firms consumer research on the topic of using a tablet or using a PC we are finding that more consumers observe they can do everything they regularly do on a PC with an iPad. The reverse is true with the innovators and the early adopters whose technology demands and expectations are very different. Most in that category still want or use a PC due to those demands. James’s observations in his column more closely represent our research with the early adopter category but not that of the mass market.

The trend we are seeing, that is quite frankly fascinating and potentially dangerous, is that we are hearing consumers buying iPad’s instead of upgrading an older desktop or notebook PC. Their logic is that the iPad will give them more portability and ease of use in the majority of tasks they do regularly, leaving their old notebook or desktop to fall back on for the small use cases where they need it.

This is fascinating because it means that for the time being iPad’s are extending the life of desktop and notebook computers. Consumers are realizing their desktop and/or notebook is good enough and are using the iPad for the new experiences in portability and lean back and lean forward modes. It is also dangerous because my intuition is that as consumers realize how the iPad (or tablets) suffice for most of their major use cases they may realize they never need a clamshell PC again. Also, after a case can you guess what the second most purchased accessory with an iPad is? If you guessed a keyboard you are correct.

Our analyst colleagues at Canalys have for the first time lumped tablets into their overall PC industry tracking. A move I applaud, because in my opinion tablets should be counted as PCs because that is what they are and more importantly that is what they represent to consumers. The tablet should simply be viewed as a form factor evolution of the PC. I expect even more form factor evolution of both the tablet and the PC in the years to come. Tim dives deeper into this in his Monday column on Tech Trends and Disruptors for 2012.

Furthermore, I strongly believe that the limitation in productivity observed by some with the iPad, is not a function of the hardware but the software. As more apps get developed to increase productivity on every front and for every vertical, I believe the industry will have its “a ha!” moment. Shockingly–or not–more and more consumers we speak to have already had this moment, I am just waiting for the tech industry to catch up.

Tech Trends and Disruptors to watch in 2012

You may not know it yet, but when we end 2012, we will look back on it and realize that it was the most disruptive year we will have had in personal computing in over a decade. In the next 12 months, the market for personal computers of all shapes and sizes will have changed dramatically and I believe we will see at least one of the top 10 PC vendors leave the PC consumer business completely.

So what will be the major disruptive forces that could re-shape the PC business starting in 2012? There are four technologies and trends in the works that I believe will force the computer industry in a new direction.

The first will be Intel and their partners huge push to make ultrabooks 40% of their laptop mix by the end of 2012. Although I don’t believe they will achieve that goal, especially if ultrabooks are priced above $899, the fact is that ultrabooks are the future of notebooks. Instead of thin and light laptops driving the market for laptops as they are now, ultrabooks, which are thinner and lighter with SSDs and longer battery life, will eventually be what all laptops will look like within 5 years. The heavier and more powerful laptops that exist now won’t go away completely as there are power users who will still need that kind of processing power. But ultrabooks will be the laptops of the future and 2012 will be the first year of its major push to change the portable computing landscape.

There is an interesting twist with ultraportables that could be even more important starting next year. This will be the introduction of ultraportables with detachable screens that turn into tablets. In the past, this hybrid as it is called, ran Windows when in laptop mode and Android when in tablet mode. But this approach was dead in the water from the start. But with Windows 8 tablets ready to hit the market next fall, you will see ultraportables with detachable screens that will run Windows 8 with the Metro UI on the laptop and Windows 8 tablet version with the Metro UI in tablet mode. This would bring a level of OS consistency across both device modes and I think that this concept is a sleeper. In fact, if done right, this alone could reshape the traditional PC market in the near term.

The second major disruptor will be the acceptance of tablets in enterprise in greater numbers in 2012. Although IT directors will still be buying laptops, there is a real push by some to add tablets to their overall business use cases. At the moment, Apple has a huge lead here with 475 of the Fortune 500 either buying iPads for deployment or pilot programs and some, like American Airlines, United Airlines and SAP have each bought 10,000+ iPads for use in their IT programs already. As for Android in IT, that boat has sailed. Google screwed up their version releases of Android and not one IT director I have talked to is willing to trust Google with their Android roadmap always being a moving target. And don’t get me started on Android’s security risks. Recent reports that 37% of all Android Apps have some sort of bogus code or malaware has pushed Android out of most IT discussions.

Instead, the option to the iPad that is really on their radar is Windows 8 for tablets, especially the version done for Intel processors. What they want is the ability to run Windows apps as is on a tablet even though they may actually write their own custom programs for Windows 8 and its Metro UI as well. But this is sort of comfort blanket to them and this Windows 8 tablet has many, especially hard-core Windows shops, waiting to see how good Windows 8 will be when it debuts in Oct of 2012 before making a final decision on what device/platform they will integrate into their IT programs over the next 5 years.

The third disruptor will be the proliferation of tablets at the “low” end of the pricing spectrum, which will give birth to the “good enough” category of tablets. There is no question that the iPad will pretty much represent the higher end or “most” desired tablet, but for many, $499 is still too steep a price for them to buy into a product category that they want to participate in. Even with this competition, Creative Strategies has still forecasted that Apple will sell north of 70 million iPads in 2012. But the Kindle at $199 and the Nook Tablet at $249 has opened up the tablet market to millions of new users who will jump on the tablet bandwagon in 2012. This will be the most explosive year for tablets yet and by the end of 2012 we estimate that well over 120 million people WW will be using a tablet of some kind for personal and business use.

The fourth disruptor that will impact the 2012 computing and mobile market is related to processors. By the end of 2012, Intel should have its latest version of Atom that will have it greatest level of processing power and low voltage efficiencies built-in. That means that for the first time, Intel can aggressively compete with the ARM processors for smartphones and in some tablets where low voltages is important. Although Intel is very late to the mobile processing party, you can’t count Intel out, as they are known as a very powerful competitor. And, being this late, they could be very aggressive in pricing to buy into this market in a big way.

The other thing related to processors is the fact that Windows 8 for ARM should debut in 2012. That means that, at least in principle, the ARM guys can start going after the ultraportable market as well. On paper this is good news for the consumer as it could help rapidly bring prices for ultrabooks down. However, Windows programs cannot run on ARM processors as is and apps will need a lot of re-written code as well as UI enhancements to work on this new device platform. But the ARM camp is pretty excited about being able to move their chips upstream and supporting Windows 8 and this dynamic alone will shake up the market in 2012.

As for a top 10 PC vendor pulling out of the consumer PC business, I think that this is inevitable. All of the PC vendors are working on 5% or lower margins for their PC’s sold and given their costs of advertising, overhead and channel support, it is really hard for any of them that do not have a major enterprise business to help bolster profits through software and services, to compete. That is why I believe that at least one of the top 10 PC vendors pull out of the consumer market by the end of 2012.

Yes, 2012 will be a most interesting year in computing. And with these disruptions in the works, it is poised to perhaps become most explosive year we have seen in some time when it comes to altering the direction of the PC market.

Black Friday and The Philosophy of a “Deal”

Let me try to define a few terms first as I flesh out this idea of the philosophy of a deal.

– A deal is when an objectively better product is offered for a limited time at a lower than normal price
– A price war is when subjectively different products compete on price

As I was reading much of the news from the past week an interesting thought occurred to me. If you follow much of what I write, I attempt to articulate how the mature consumer shopping mentality is not solely interested in the cheapest products out there. I try to articulate this because many in the media and investment community continually make a big deal of the price of certain electronics and often assume the cheapest products always win. I believe Black Friday teaches us a valuable lesson where the search or desire for a deal is more interesting to consumers than simply the cheapest product at any given time.

To dig into that deeper, the key to this understanding revolves around how different consumers perceive value. It is also key to understand how certain products, especially computing devices, add an experiential element that is an intangible yet valuable part of the product. This is fundamentally why some product categories price is what matters most and in others price is not as important.

What Black Friday should teach us is that consumers are more interested in deals than in cheap products, again especially in personal electronics. For example, today Apple is discounting the iPad 2 by $41 and the MacBook Air by $101. Both those products are among some of the hottest selling products on the market and I expect Apple to move a ton today during this black Friday deal. This is an example of a deal, there are still cheaper tablets and PCs on sale today but due to the demand and consumer desire of an iPad, $41 off is a deal.

I am convinced that price matters less in personal electronics due to the personal nature of things like notebooks, smartphones and tablets, primarily due to the experiential nature of those products. This is why something like a TV, that is less personal and the experience is much more subjective, is easier to argue the importance of lower price. This is also why an iPad competitor can undercut the iPad by $200 or more and still not sell anywhere near iPad volumes. The difference between an iPad and every other tablet is objectively better. The difference between TVs and HD picture quality is subjective. This is key to understanding the philosophy of a “deal.”

In many cases consumers have done their homework prior on all products of interest. Black Friday presents retailers with an opportunity to push a limited time deal which makes the item of interest that much desirable for a limited time. This I would argue is the more compelling lure of Black Friday.

After studying consumer psychology as an ever-present theme in my analysis over the past 11 years, I am convinced consumers don’t want cheap, they want valuable. Black Friday presents an opportunity for consumers to find valuable deals not cheap products.

Some products are fit to compete on price, generally those are ones with subjective differences. Other products are fit to compete with features of value, generally those are the products with objective differences.

I would appreciate intelligent comments on this as I am fleshing this philosophy out in mind, in public, as I go.

Lastly a small bit of perspective. Black Friday generally brings in around 10 billion dollars in one single day. For about that same numeric amount we can bring clean water to every person on the planet for a year.

Two Phones in One: An Enterprise BYOD Solution

I’m not usually terribly sympathetic to the problems of corporate IT departments. It seems that corporate employees, including senior executives, are no longer willing to accept whatever miserable handset the company designates as its official phone. At the same time, IT managers and their colleagues in legal, corporate security, and finance need secure, managed mobile platforms that can deploy custom apps and satisfy a big pile of compliance needs. Letting execs bring their own devices is popular, but can be very difficult to implement.

“If you look at what is happening with bring your own device, the IT department wants to provision, manage, and deprovision the phone over the air,” says Janet Schijns, vice president for the Verizon Wireless Business Solutions Group.  “But there’s a second lens through which to view this. People want to maintain privacy and control of their mobile environment. They don’t particularly want their employer looking at pictures of their kids, or email from their husband.”

For a long while, the BlackBerry was the solution. Providing what IT wants is part of BlackBerry’s DNA and the BlackBerry Enterprise Server and Research In Motion’s back-end network gave IT tools that were comprehensive and cost-effective. But trouble came as BlackBerry handsets began to fall further and further behind Apple and Android offerings.

Now a solution of sorts is emerging, at least for Android. Virtualiztion software can give a single handset two separate personalities. VMware Horizon creates a virtual machine that gives you a secure, managed environment for business use and a wide-open one for personal use. Enterproid Divide created a secure work environment within a sandbox on the phone. In either case, users can switch quickly and easily between the corporate and personal modes.

For now, these options exist only on Android phones, and it’s likely that’s where the VMware solution will stay for now. Creation of a full virtual machine requires low-level access to the operating system that is possible with Android but strictly prohibited by Apple for iOS or Microsoft for Windows Phone 7.

The VMware approach turns a handset into what appears to the outside world to be two separate phones, each with its own phone number. Each has its own apps, and apps on the personal side cannot access corporate data and vice versa. If necessary, the corporate phone number along with all apps and data can be wiped remotely. Verizon plans to roll out VMware Horizon as a pre-installed package on LG Android handsets before yearend and will eventually expand it to its entire Android portfolio. Verizon will, if asked,  also provide dual billing so that the employee gets billed for use of the personal side of the phone, while the corporation pays its bill directly.  Telefónica is working with LG and VMware on a similar offering in Europe.

Enterproid Divide will be offered by AT&T as a service called Toggle. Enterproid says it is working on versions of Divide for Windows Phone 7 and even iPhone, though whether it can comply with Apple’s complex and often obscure rules remains to be seen.

iPhone’s (and iPad’s) place in the enterprise would surely benefit from solutions like these, but it can probably hold its own without help. Apple has quietly worked with Microsoft for the past several years to give the iPhone the best Exchange support of any phone other than a BlackBerry Enterprise Server-backed BlackBerry. The manageability of an iPhone is not as comprehensive as what BES provides, but it is acceptable to many IT departments. The biggest problem is the deployment of corporate custom apps. (Good Technology provides BlackBerry-like server based support for iPhones, iPads, and select Android handsets.)

Windows Phone provides an interesting challenge. Its predecessor, Windows Mobile 6.5, offered extensive manageability through Microsoft Exchange Server. But the company decided to focus heavily on consumer markets when it developed Windows Phone 7 and it and its recent Mango update have very limited Exchange support. But with Microsoft looking for a bigger market, and especially with the new alliance with Nokia, a Windows Phone push into the enterprise looks inevitable. Built-in virtualization could be a nice differentiator.

 

 

The Real Reason Google Released an iOS Gmail App

Last week, Google re-released their much maligned iOS Gmail application. It includes a few features over and above the photostandard iOS email app, but nothing that is really exciting the wide swath of users if “number of stars” is any indicator. To boot, many have argued that the Gmail app actually removes features from standard iOS email platform. So the question is why did Google really launch Gmail application for iOS?  There’s a lot here beneath the surface.

Gmail App for iOS

Gmail for iOS adds the following functionality over the standard iOS email client:

  • Ability to see one entire thread on one screen
  • “Important” and “everything” distinctions similar to the Gmail.com website
  • Report SPAM
  • Full message text search
  • Labels
  • Visual addressing.  See the addressee’s avatar.

Net-net this brings it more in-line with the full desktop client.  One could say it detracts from the experience:

  • Tiny, unreadable text size depending on email source
  • Lose fast access to other email clients like Yahoo or Exchange
  • Slow initialization unless already opened

 

It’s About a Entry Point to Other Google Services

Sure, Google will improve and tweek the experience to improve the app, but why did they develop it in the first place?  First, imageit’s about Google services and getting user to them from an iOS environment……. and advertisements. Think about this… what are the four most likely places Google could derive revenue from.  And when I ask that, I mean the first entry into the revenue stream or the starting point:

  • Search
  • Maps
  • Email
  • Social media

 

Once a user reaches this entry point, then Google can “cross-sell” them into:

  • Shopping
  • Books
  • Videos
  • Music

 

It’s About Micro-Segment Profile Development

Most importantly, mail provides one of the riches data sets from which to build ad profiles.  Google indexes every email you send and receive and from it builds micro-profiles about you. The better the profile, the better the ad targeting, the IMG_0899higher the CPM and CPC.  All of this means more money for Google.  If users get lured away from Gmail, Google loses this.

Wrestling For Inside Control

Google is already the leader in search and maps and has the preferred placement on iOS, but Gmail is just one of a line listing of mail options. This becomes a problem for Google in that now Apple and iOS become the control point for users. Furthermore, what happens if users get more comfortable with iOS mail and even worse, iCloud email? None of these is good for Google and Google will keep wrestling with Apple until they can get the inside edge.

My Experience with the Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet

I’d like to start this topic off by making a point. The way most reviewers review technology products is helpful for those to whom technology is well understood and non-threatening. However, I would argue, that the way most reviewers review and compare products is not helpful for the way the average non-techie consumer processes information to make an informed buying decision. In all reality, the group that I am speaking of, the non-tech elite, most likely don’t read any of the reviews from tech sites anyway. Instead they talk to trusted friends and family and more importantly they go into stores and feel the products out for themselves.

That being said, those consumers who are interested in either the Amazon Kindle Fire or the Barnes & Noble Nook Tablet are not first and foremost shopping for a tablet (to them a tablet is an iPad). They are in fact shopping for an e-reader, that happens to have a few more bells and whistles but first and foremost a good e-reader. Clayton Christensen said it best in the Innovators Dilemma “consumers hire products to get jobs done.” Consumers interested in either the Kindle Fire or Nook Tablet are interested in hiring either of those devices to get the job done of reading electronic books, magazines, and periodicals. Therefore as point number one both devices should first be judged or “reviewed” on the basis of how good of an e-reader they are. Having the ability to play a few games, browse the web, access movies and videos, etc are all secondary features to wanting the best e-reading experience.

Related: Why Kindle Fire Reviews are All Over the Place

Instead of reviewing these two devices in the traditional sense, I wanted to focus on my experience and observations using them both side by side. To do that I decided to focus my thoughts on comparing the two devices based on the most common use cases I see the average, non-techie, non-early adopter, mass market consumers interest in these two devices to be.

Reading E-Books

Both are capable e-readers. Neither are the best pure e-readers on the market but as far as e-readers “plus” go they are both capable. I will, however, say that the Nook Tablet is the better e-reader of the two. Reading a standard book is a check box for both devices. However the differentiator as a reader for the Nook Tablet is the experience reading and interacting with many of their interactive books and magazines.

What Barnes & Noble has been doing by making magazines more interactive, with extra features and bonus multimedia content, or social sharing of reading material is the best example of what the future interactive reading experience should be with this type of content.

One of my favorite reading experience features are “enhanced” books. These are books that more and more publishers are releasing that include extra content like exclusive videos, audio, as well as other interactive content related to the chapter.

Many of the magazines on the Nook Tablet also features enhanced experiences. People magazine for example, one of the more popular magazines in the United States, has loads of bonus and interactive content built into their Nook magazine reading experience. Besides People Magazine, since I don’t read it, the one I found quite compelling was Sports Illustrated. SI includes many new interactive features not found anywhere but the Nook platform. Again many of these same interactive or enhanced magazines exist for the Nook Color but they are much snappier, crisper, and generally better on the Nook Tablet.

These enhanced magazines, books, and more are one of the reasons the Nook Color was hailed by nearly all the “tech reviewers” as the best color e-reader out there, hands down. The Nook Tablet has brought all those same features into the Nook Tablet with a better screen and more snappy experience with the content.

One final point. I was able to accomplish something that is near impossible with the iPad and the Kindle Fire on the Nook Tablet, and that was read outside in the sunlight. Despite the bright and vivid display of the Nook Color you can also easily read and use it in sunlight. It is the ONLY tablet on the market today where this is possible.

As a Media Player

If you are an Amazon Prime subscriber at $79 dollars a year then you have access to about 10,000 streaming movies and TV shows accessible on the Fire. Interestingly, the catalog offered for streaming to Prime subscribers is nearly identical to the streaming offered through Netflix’s on demand streaming service. Therefore if you are a Prime subscriber and not a Netflix subscriber than the Kindle Fire would make more sense. However if you are a Netflix subscriber the streaming catalog options are nearly the same, therefore accessible on both devices. Therefore what Prime video streaming gives you on the Fire you get on the Nook Tablet with Netflix.

A point on the Netflix experience, the Nook Tablet includes a secure silicon layer that is required for movie studios to allow movies to be played in higher resolution. Therefore in a side to side comparison of Netflix video the Nook Tablet looks better.

Truthfully I do not use Amazon’s services for music and videos so it is hard for me to qualify the value in the Fire’s access to their music and movie stores. What this brings out though is an interesting observation due to the fact that I am a heavy iTunes user and deeply entrenched into Apple’s ecosystem. In that regard the Nook Tablet actually fits better into Apple’s ecosystem than the Fire does. It is easier for me to move existing non-DRM music, movies and more to the Nook Tablet due to its larger storage capacity and easy of sync with my MacBook Air. Interestingly enough, the Kindle Fire didn’t even come with a PC sync cable, perhaps for obvious reasons.

The last thing I will say on this subject is that much of the Amazon media player experience is based on a streaming model. For that reason Amazon’s media services are good but only work when on a wi-fi network. Because the Nook Tablet has more local storage and allows me to easily move music, movies, and more to the device I can use it to consume media even when not connected to the Internet.

Running Apps and Browsing the Web

Realistically 90 percent of the apps in the Android App store are no good anyway which is why I don’t make a big deal of a lack of apps in the case of the Fire or Nook Tablet. What matters more importantly is that the right apps, or quality apps are there. Keeping in mind if a plethora of apps is your reason for buying a device there are other options. Again emphasizing my assumption that for those truly looking into the Fire or Nook Tablet a plethora of apps is a moot point. More importantly do they have the right apps?

In that regard they both have the most important app for the 7″ form factor, the web browser. Because of that both access Facebook, Twitter, and many popular services delivered through the web. In fact with the 7″ and above form factor many of the most popular apps are better in the browser. It should also be noted that the Kindle Fire does not actually have the Facebook App, what it has access to is the HTML version of the Mobile Facebook site, which look nearly identical to the Facebook app on smart phones.

Both have e-mail apps but I don’t believe e-mail is going to be in the top several jobs these devices are hired for so I didn’t set my email up on either of them. I have a smartphone and a PC for that job.

The Ecosystem

Ed Baig in USA Today said it best:

The fight between the companies largely comes down to which ecosystem you want to buy into, because books you purchase from one provider are not compatible with the other.

Which ecosystem is the right question. In my opinion, as I stated above if you are in Apple’s ecosystem, using iTunes to manage media, the Nook Tablet will fit better in that ecosystem. If you are already heavy into Amazon’s ecosystem, meaning you are a Prime member, use Unbox, and a number of other Amazon’s services then obviously the Kindle Fire is a better bet.

Barnes & Noble doesn’t have a way to get first release movies and DVD’s yet on the Nook Color where Amazon does. If renting, buying or streaming first run movies is important to you the Kindle Fire has a solution today where Barnes & Noble will most likely have one in the future.

One other point about the ecosystem I would like to point out. Barnes & Noble has created a more family and kid friendly experience with the Nook Tablet. When looking for content–like apps–for example I can actually filter my choices to look for apps that are good for kids. I can even easily pick different kids age groups and search for apps for kids within that age range. That was a very cool experience, especially since I have my kids use all my technology quite a bit. I like the family friendly approach integrated into the Nook Tablet.

Again it all comes down to which ecosystem you have bought into or want to buy into.

The Price

Many in the media have knocked the Nook Tablet for its $249 price point. It appears those people believe that cheaper is always better. I wholeheartedly disagree. I believe consumers perceive value in a number of different ways and the price tag is one of many points to consider. Because of that, if a consumer was genuinely shopping and compared the visual experience of both devices as a reader, video player, and web browser they would conclude the Nook Tablet is a better experience and thus worth the extra $50.

The faster processor, more memory, vivid screen and more make for a more pleasant experience when using the Nook Tablet over the Kindle Fire.

Conclusion

I’ll be completely honest, if I had to choose to spend my own money on the Kindle Fire or the Nook Tablet, I would choose the Nook Tablet. Based solely on using it as a reader for books, magazines, periodicals and more. The Netflix experience and my ability to move my own personal music and videos on it and the responsiveness and speed of the device present a much more elegant experience.

The big question you may be asking is now that I have used both side by side what would I recommend to friend and family to buy for this holiday season. My honest answer is this: If you are an “Amazonite” meaning you buy all your e-books from Amazon and also use their unbox services for music and video then the Kindle Fire makes the most sense. On that point however, if you are sold out to Amazon and want something that does more than be an e-reader, I strongly recommend waiting for version two of the Kindle Fire expected in the first half of next year. The Kindle Fire is “good enough” at all the things expected however it is not the best at any single experience in the e-reader “plus” category.

If you simply want the best e-reader plus for this holiday season then I recommend the Nook Tablet as it retains many of the great features of the Nook Color but is snappier and with a better display. If the $50 price tag is too hard to swallow, and again you want the best e-reader with some extra features then I strongly recommend considering the Nook Color at $199.

Where Kindle Fire Fits in My Life

Like most people in this business, I have more gadgets than I know what to do with. Those sent to me for evaluation go back to their makers in due time, but even products I’ve bought often end up collecting dust after an initial flurry of use.  The Amazon Kindle Fire is not going to be one of those losers.

Kindle Fire photo
Amazon's Kindle Fire

 

After just a day with the Fire (actually, it is a unit Amazon lent me while I’m waiting for the unit I preordered to arrive), it has already found a place in  my life. For the moment, that place is on the night table next to my bed. I do most of my book reading late at night, and a Kindle of one sort or another has lived  there since the original e-reader shipped in 2007.

But already, I find the Fire an improvement. The e-ink display of the original Kindles was always a bit hard to read in the dim bedroom light, though recently models have been a significant improvement. At least for an hour or so of pre-sleep reading, the Fire’s LCD is an improvement. (There was always the alternative of using an iPad as a Kindle reader, but it’s just too big and heavy.)

The Fire’s place as a bedside companion was boosted when I successfully installed the Sonos Android controller app. This is not currently available in the Kindle app store, so I had to side load it, not too difficult provided you have an Android device with an SD card handy (PCMag.com’s Sascha Segan has the how-to details here.) So the Fire can now also control the Sonos S5 that also lives on my night table. Its bedside utility would be complete if I could also use it to control my TV but alas, the Android version of the FiOS remote only works on phones (it requires a device phone number as part of the setup; if anyone knows a way around this, I’d be happy to hear about it.)

The still-open question is whether the Fire will find a permanent place as part of my traveling kit. I used to always travel with a Kindle, but these days it has mostly been replaced by the iPad, which is vastly more versatile and also a better reader, despite its bulk, in poorly lit airplane cabins and often stygian hotel rooms. Some times I go with just the iPad . But if I expect to do any writing, I’ll add my 13″ MacBook Air. If find even writing a simple post like this on the iPad painful, mainly because of software limitations.

I doubt there will be many trips that I can make with just the Fire. It has the bare essentials to check email, Twitter, Facebook,  and the web, but just barely. If I’m only going to take one device (in addition to a phone, which can double as a Wi-Fi hot spot), it’s going to be the Pad.

But the Fire plus the MacBook is an appealing combination, and I’m going to give it a try. If it works, the Fire might earn a permanent place in my backpack.

 

 

 

 

The Nintendo 3DS and Gaming in a New Dimension

Gaming is one of the areas where I hunt for technology and behavioral trends. I really like the category, and it is my desire to look at consumer trends holistically. That is why the new Nintendo 3DS has been on my radar. 3D is a hotly-contested topic in consumer electronics trends conversations I am involved in, and gaming is usually the common denominator where 3D value may lie.

Until now 3D gaming has been reserved for the upper end of gaming enthusiasts and technology fanatics. Nintendo looks to change that with the 3DS, and I anticipate this new handheld gaming console—at $169.99—will be particularly hot this holiday season.

The 3D Experience Works
Truthfully, the 3DS needs to be experienced in order to grasp some of the unique elements of the 3DS gaming experience. Nintendo wisely chose to make the 3DS display 3D content without the need for glasses. This technology is called auto-stereoscopic 3D. Auto-stereoscopic screens work well enough displaying 3D content, but only when you are in the correct position to view the 3D, meaning directly in front of the screen. When you view auto-stereoscopic screens from an angle, the screen gets distorted and is rough on the eyes.

This  isn’t much of a problem with the 3DS, however, because the usage model of handheld gaming is to keep the screen directly in front of you. Thus in this use case the auto-stereoscopic works quite well. The one disadvantage is that spectators find it hard to watch others play a game. This often happens with kids, at least with mine, where they like to watch each other try to pass levels.

But the hardware is only part of the story. It is the software and the game titles that take advantage of the 3D in new ways. The recently launched Super Mario 3D Land may be the title driving game that truly showcases the 3DS. I’ve been playing the game a few days now, and it is truly a new experience over past Mario titles. Again, you have to try it to really understand, but in my meager attempt to communicate the experience I’d sum it up as no longer flat. Many of Nintendo’s graphics and game experiences are very flat and mostly linear gameplay, meaning left to right. With Super Mario 3D Land, however, the world is much larger and no longer flat and left to right, but takes advantage of every axis. It really is a new and unique experience with a great title like Mario Bros.

Like all new technologies, first party titles from Nintendo have the responsibility to utilize the new hardware in new ways. So it is expected and anticipated that Nintendo would create games that take full advantage of the new technology, in this case 3D, but also to create a vision of unique gameplay for other developers. Super Mario Land 3D does just that and is truly a unique way to experience Mario.

Several of the other games I tried like Street Fighter and The Legend of Zelda, although nice in 3D, were not re-inventions of the game experience like Mario Land 3D.

The 3DS also has some very compelling Augmented Reality experiences that have me thinking about the future of augmented reality, a title for a future column.

First-Party Titles Work to Nintendo’s Advantage
Strategically, this is also key for Nintendo. In a world where it is, and will continue to be, increasingly difficult to sell proprietary first-party games, innovating with new hardware experiences slows the process. I wrote a column for SlashGear earlier in the year titled “Does Nintendo Hate Money?” I explored in that column whether or not it is time for Nintendo to take some of their great first-party titles and release games like Mario, Donkey Kong, etc. on other platforms like iOS and Android. It is an interesting business discussion that assumes we are moving to a software world and selling platform-agnostic software could be the most profitable path going forward.

Although I believe platform-agnostic software will someday be a key strategy, for the time being, Nintendo has created proprietary hardware that their proprietary software can shine on. The 3DS works in Nintendo’s favor and I am hoping that future hardware from Nintendo continues to integrate Nintendo’s unique approach and gaming ecosystem.

Will 3D Benefit Overall?
The current glasses-required 3D experience is doomed to failure. We are still five plus years away from commercializing true auto-stereoscopic 3D technology in large screen displays like TVs. The real issue with the transition from stereoscopic 3D to auto-stereoscopic 3D is that it will require new 3D content or the current 3D content to be converted. That means things like 3D Blu-Ray and all the current 3D network programming may become obsolete.

That being said, it is interesting to think about how something as small as the 3DS may impact the future of 3D overall. For one, I guarantee that more consumers will experience 3D content on the 3DS before they will on a TV with glasses. Therefore the 3DS may actually kick off the auto-stereoscopic revolution, making it easier for consumers to adopt similar technologies in the future.

The key to the adoption of any new technology is for consumers to get over the “why should I care” stage. Once they experience and accept a new technology, all future evolutions of that technology become easier to adopt going forward. I fully expect over the next few years the we will see smartphones, tablets, and PCs ship with auto-stereoscopic capabilities.

Consumers will experience some very interesting and unique 3D experiences with the 3DS. This alone is a critical first step. Right now, however, it’s all about gaming and the 3DS is a great first step in 3D gaming.

The key will be for new titles to drive new experiences in 3D gaming. Nintendo will lead this effort, but more software developers will need to follow.

Four Industries Apple Could Still Impact with iOS, iCloud and SIRI

Over the last 10 years, Apple Inc has done a rather amazing job of disrupting quite a few industries. By my account, it has dramatically impacted the PC, Tablet, CE, Telecom, Music and TV industries in a big way, and I believe that they are on the cusp of disrupting at least four more major industries in the next 3-5 years.

The first industry I believe they will shake up is the TV industry. Just about every major PC and CE Company is trying to bring out Interactive TV or ITV as it is called and be the first to “own” this market. To date, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Sony and even Apple have tried desperately to create the next big thing in TV’s and, perhaps more importantly, find a way to integrate the Internet and Internet video channels into their new vision for the TV.

In Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, Steve tells him that he has “cracked the code” for ITV and of course, everyone is wondering what this means. But the most logical answer is that his team will apply Siri’s voice comprehension technology to the TV user interface and then tie it their iCloud service and marry all of your content together for viewing on multiple screens with the TV being the one focused on entertainment. Whether it will be delivered in an Apple TV like box outside the TV or an actual TV itself is still a big question, but Apple’s attempt at creating a new approach to TV interfaces as well as linking it to unified personal content, if done right, could be revolutionary.

Imagine being able to just tell the TV, find Big Bang Theory and it goes right to all available versions on broadcast, cable, the DVR or online. Or ask it about a football player you just saw make a touchdown and on the bottom of the screen it shows you his stats. Or if you want to find out about Yosemite just ask Siri and it will find all related video and Web content available and give you exact answers to your query on the TV. But perhaps its greatest feat will most likely be to decipher instantly the plethora of Web-based video content that is online and neatly show on-screen what is available on that topic. For example, lets say you want to see something about how to roast a turkey. Siri could search its database and find out all of the best shows on TV, DVR or the Web and then post them on your screen for you to pick. And I mean any database, including anything you have bookmarked about roasting turkeys on any of your Mac’s or IOS devices that is now in the cloud and can be added to the list of available shows to watch on that topic.

As I wrote in an earlier column Siri is a voice technology that is actually a front end to multiple search engines. And more importantly, it will change the game when it comes to man-machine interfaces.
While Siri applied to the iPhone is a good start for Apple, I am convinced that they will apply Siri to all of their products in the future and on the TV it could have a dramatic effect on the way people interact with their televisions in the future. And since Apple can tie it to their iTunes and iCloud services as well, it will make it very difficult for competitors to catch up with them anytime soon.

This will be the most disruptive thing in the television industry to happen since the introduction of color and will eventually bury the remote and put the entire TV industry on a course to use voice as the new “remote.” And it will find ways to marry broadcast, cable, DVR and Internet content into manageable channels that brings all of it together in the cloud and displays it on voice demand on the TV screens throughout the home. And it looks like Apple will be the one to take the TV industry into this new century.

The second industry Apple is poised to disrupt is the auto industry. I have been searching for a new car and one of the major criteria in my search has been the ability to integrate my phone and its content into the navigation and sound system in the car. I want a Bluetooth connection as a speakerphone, but I also want it to use the content in my phone as an alternative to play music and podcasts and I want it done wirelessly.

In my search I was pleasantly surprised to see how far Microsoft’s Sync for Autos has come. And for the time being, this will be a big step for me since it also has voice prompts and commands. And to some degree their voice UI is pretty sophisticated. But it is no Siri.

Now, imagine if Apple began working with the auto companies directly and in extreme circumstances perhaps was able to get a 7-inch iPad with IOS into these cars. (This would be the equivalent of Apple doing a full Apple TV) In this case, it could have a 3G chip inside and be able to get a direct connection to the Internet. And of course, it would have Siri’s smart voice UI and voice comprehension technology. While most of its greatest features, such as searching for the closest bank or cleaners or pizza place would be restricted to parking mode, many other voice driven features could be part of the UI and service. It could get and respond to email via voice, and do text via voice, and more importantly, it would be tied to Apples iTunes and iCloud services. That means you would always have access to your content no matter what it is and could call it up on your cars display on demand.

But another way to do this would be to make the iPhone or iPad the host and the cars navigation screen the video terminal that just displays what is on these devices. If you have used an iPad with Airplay today you already understand the potential. Using Apple TV, I literally mirror the content on my iPad on my big screen TV. And if I use my iPhone 4S, I already have the Siri voice UI at least for my content. Now imagine having that type of voice UI and content connection in your car. Sure there would be restrictions while driving, but having that on the car’s screen running IOS and Siri could make the car’s information system even more relevant. Again, Apple could be the big disruptor that brings the auto industry into an information driven century in which information and personalized media becomes a key part of the auto traveling experience and force every one to follow in one-way or another.

The third industry Apple could turn upside down is the watch industry. For centuries, watches have been, for a lack of a better term, dumb watches. Only in the last 30 years have they gotten smarter with the introduction of things like calculator watches and more recently, chronograph and satellite watches tied to the atomic clock. But Apple has stumbled on something interesting with the Nano. Many people have started to use it as a watch. And a whole side industry has popped up that is creating watchbands for iPod Nano’s. I don’t believe Apple ever dreamed of the Nano as a watch but it has become a happy new application for their smallest iPod.

Interestingly, Microsoft took a crack at this idea a few years back with a product called the SPOT Watch. Its data link, which delivered news blurbs, weather and sports bulletins, was tied to an FM radio link. And Microsoft even partnered with Sunto and Swatch to create these watches to try to bring them to a high-end and low-end watch buyer. But unfortunately the SPOT watch never really took off. In 2008, Microsoft killed the product.

But, Apple could do some very interesting things with the Nano with just some simple tweaking. What if they put a Bluetooth radio inside and allowed it to become a mirrored display to my iPhone? I normally carry my iPhone in my pocket so when an alert comes up I have to pull it out to see it. But what if that alert showed up on my Nano Watch? Or what if they add a Siri Interface and tie the Nano display to the iPhone? I could just ask my watch to show me the last message or email I received through iMessage and it pops up on the Nano screen? And with voice feedback, Apple could perhaps tie it to the iPhones GPS and when walking, tell a person to turn right here or head north, to get to that coffee shop you just asked Siri about. Of course, they could put a WIFI radio on it as well and let it get a direct link to data when connected. But it would make more sense for it to use a Bluetooth connection and tie the Nano to the iPhones 3G radio so that it would be connected all the time. But as long as it is mirroring my iPhone, especially when it comes to receiving news, weather, sports and messages, the Nano could become one of those hot items that iPhone buyers would flock to and become another halo product that could drive people to buy iPhones.

And the fourth industry Apple could potentially impact is the appliance industry. In 1997, I did a speech at the Agenda conference where I envisioned a refrigerator of the future that would have a screen on it and it would be tied to the Internet. I suggested that it would have a bar code reader on it and that as I put items in the fridge, it would automatically put them in inventory. And as I took them out, and they did not return to the fridge, it would automatically put them on a shopping list on the screen. I even suggested that if I called up a recipe from the Internet, it would be smart enough to see what the ingredients were and pop them onto the shopping list and if programmed properly, it could even dial Safeway.com and all of it could be on my doorstep when I came home from work.

Of course, today we do have a couple of refrigerators with screens on them connected to the Internet, but that is all they are-Internet terminals.
If Apple applied their IOS operating system and married it to the iCloud, they could turn pretty much any screen integrated into things like a refrigerator, oven, or even cabinets into smart screens and make them application specific. They could all have access to the Internet and IOS apps, which could be tailored for their integrated locations. For example, what if I had an IOS screen embedded into the mirror in my bathroom. As I am preparing for work, it could be programmed to fetch weather reports, updated news items and info related to my commute. It could read out my daily appointment schedules and search my iCloud account for anything I want, including playing back music, podcasts or YouTube video as I prepare for the day.

You get the idea. I have no doubt that we will have many screens in our home and digital lifestyles and if Apple can make them all smart and unify them behind IOS, its Apps and iCloud eco-system, all of them could have quite an impact on the appliance industry of the future. And believe me, the appliance industry is interested. Besides embedding a screen on a refrigerator, they have also added internet connections to ovens, microwaves, lighting and air conditioning and heating systems to try to make them smart devices connected to an Internet eco system. But today, most of them are acting like terminals. For them to reach their potential, they need to have an OS that is tied to a broader eco system that could deliver even greater functionality through connectivity and IOS, Apple’s App’s and the iCloud could play in important role in helping this industry deliver smart homes and smart appliances.

But keep in mind, all of this could happen because Apple has created a fundamental unified platform that is tied to an OS, Apps and cloud eco system that is consistent across screens and can be made to be “application” specific depending on where that screen might be. So it is not too far a stretch to see how this platform, when applied to a TV, automobile, watch or appliances could benefit from something like this that would give it digital intelligence and make it smart.

I suppose if we think hard enough we could probably come up with some other industries Apple could impact with this platform. But I believe that the TV, auto, watch and appliance industries could be next on Apple’s “disruption” agenda.