Month: June 2012

Was Winning on SOPA Bad for Tech?

I’ve spent a very interesting day at the Tech Policy Summit in Napa, but based on what I’ve heard, I’m beginning to think that the industry’s quick victory in killing the Stop Online Piracy Act this spring may be a long-term impediment to the industry’s agenda in Washington.

The problem is a lack of understanding of why tech won on SOPA or a sense that it was, in many ways, shooting fish in a barrel. The backers of SOPA made ridiculous mistakes. The bill was taken up after a single House committee hearing from which opponents of the bill were effectively excluded (one witness from Google was used as a sacrificial lamb.) Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) did not really understand his own bill and tried to force it through on a fast track, a move that served only to roil the opposition. On the opponents quickly seized on a line of attack that the bill would “break the internet.” This wasn ‘t exactly true, but supporters generally lacked the technical expertise to refute it.

These conditions will be very difficult to recreate. And getting things  you want passed is orders of magnitude harder than stopping things you oppose. It is going to take sustained struggle, not a SOPA-like quick hit, to win passage of important agenda items such as visa reform.

It’s entirely understandable that entrepreneurs are quickly disgusted by the stupidity and partisan pettiness of Washington politics. But their opponents have long since learned to put up with it, day in and day out. Until the leaders of tech can such it up for the long strugggle, they are going to wait a long time for another SOPA victory.

It’s Time To Kill Off Broadcast TV

No TVIt’s time to take over-the-air television out and shoot it.

You may have noticed that there’s a war over wireless airwaves. Electromagnetic spectrum is a finite resource and those that have want to keep, but many who have also want more. The pressure is particularly intense to expand the spectrum available for mobile data.

I’m going to sidestep the arguments about just how quickly the demand for wireless data is growing and whether carriers’ claims of a looming crisis are real or a ploy designed to lock up bandwidth and freeze out competitors. One way or another we’re going to need more spectrum over time and the question is where it is going to come from.

All the usable spectrum that exists is assigned to someone and all of it is jealously guarded. A great deal of it is controlled by government and we don’t know how, or even if, some of it is used. But prying it loose will be very, very difficult.

The richest block of spectrum available is being used for over-the-air television broadcasts.  The more than 200 MHz of prime bandwidth assigned to broadcast TV should and be put to a better use.

A half-measure is now underway to recover unused bits of the TV spectrum. Congress last year authorized “incentive auctions,” in which licensees can voluntarily give up unused spectrum and share in the proceeds when the government auctions it off for mobile data use. Even though broadcasters are being allowed to sell something they don’t actually own–channels were originally given to licensees to act as stewards of the “public convenience and necessity”—they have shown no great enthusiasm for the process. It’s far from clear how much spectrum will be freed through the process.

One thing we do know is that it is going to take a very long time. TV channels are assigned in 6 MHz slices and to make the freed spectrum more useful for data, the plan is to “repack” the surviving channels to create bigger contiguous blocks of bandwidth to be sold. But this means that some channels will have to be reassigned to new frequencies, a tedious business. The National Assn. of Broadcasters has never been very enthusiastic about the incentive auctions and is doing its best to delay the process.

Then whole process is too much trouble for too little gain. The better question is why we are dedicating any  spectrum to over-the-air TV. The fact is that relatively few people watch it. While there is some dispute over the numbers, it appears that about three-quarters  of Americans get their television primarily or exclusively by cable or satellite, whether as traditional scheduled programming or content delivered over-the-top on the internet. Cable or satellite service is available to virtually all of U.S. households, and the relatively few exceptions are most likely out of broadcast range as well. Dedicating so much bandwidth to serve and ever-shrinking audience seems foolish.

Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll see the end will come for over-the-air TV any time in the foreseeable future. The deck is too heavily stacked against it. Broadcasters, of course, hate the idea and they remain very powerful in Washington, less because of their campaign contributions than because they control the free exposure on local TV that candidates for Congress depend on. The Federal Communications Commission doesn’t like the idea either because without over-the-air broadcasts the commission would effectively lose all power to regulate television, and regulators do like to regulate. Some will object that free television is a basic right that must be preserved. If so, it is a right that fewer and fewer people seem to care about. If we decide as a matter of public policy that free or very low cost TV should be provided for the poor, it would not be hard to devise something like the (increasingly pointless) lifeline basic landline telephone service. The government could easily afford to pay for it out of the many billions of dollars that auctioning TV spectru would yield.

You need not be a very astute observer of th Washington scene to know that the fact that something should happen is no reason whatever to believe that it will. Still reusing all that underused TV spectrum is something worth dreaming about.

 

 

Google, Quickoffice and Productivity Beyond X86

In an interesting move today, just weeks before Google I/O, Google has announced via their blog that they have acquired Quickoffice, a productivity suite of software, and team. This move has a number of interesting implications.

First and foremost I believe this move again signals Google’s intent to go vertical. Acquiring Quickoffice certainly gives them a differentiator for their own hardware when it comes to productivity software, should they choose to use it that way. Of course on the surface and in the short term I would expect them to bundle this productivity suite on all Android devices. This move on the outset is designed to go right after Windows on ARM (Windows RT) and the inclusion of Microsoft Office on all Windows RT devices out of the gate.

This move is largely focused on tablets. It is no industry secret that Google is in the weakest position when it comes to tablets. The iPad has continued to dominate, and most likely will for the foreseeable future, but the lack of industry confidence in Android tablets has been astounding. In fact many analysts, our firm included, have more optimism for Windows 8 based tablets which are not even in the market yet over Android tablets which have been in the market for 2 years. It is not everyday that professional forecasters and industry observers will give an advantage to an unproven and unreleased platform, yet that is exactly what has happened. This again just re-enforces the lack of confidence in Android tablets to break into the mass market.

Google will obviously seek to change all of this with their acquisition of Quickoffice. This demonstrates, to this analyst at least, that Google may be starting to understand tablets and that tablets are a viable platform for productivity. I have been of the opinion that Google had not been interested in tablet productivity and in particular tablets (or Android for that matter) in a business setting. Most of Google’s moves and posture toward this market has been focused on consumers. Just look at the renaming of their store as an example. The Google Play Store doesn’t make me think I should go purchase productivity software or applications.

The other interesting observation I would throw out is that the myth that X86 (or Intel and AMD Silicon) is the platform of choice for productivity is certainly busted. I believe I could make an extremely strong case of this point simply doing an analysis of the iPad but with Microsoft Office on Windows RT and now Quickoffice as a standard for Android, we certainly have enough evidence that ARM platforms will be fully sufficient not only computing platforms but productivity platforms.

Ultrabooks: Progress a Year Later?

One year ago almost to the day at Computex 2011, Intel introduced Ultrabooks to the world.  The first generation of Ultrabooks was nice, but they were also homogeneous (exception Dell XPS 13) and very expensive, limiting  access to many demographics. So are things any different a year later? After seeing what Intel’s Ultrabook partners launched so far at Computex, it’s only fair to characterize it as impressive. Design wins and choice don’t guarantee sales, but you cannot have sales without it.  OEMs at Computex launched some serious innovation with new form factors and usage models while lowering price points which I think deserves a deeper look.  It also gives us a good indication how far Intel has come and where this is all going.

Display Size

First generation Ultrabooks came with 13” displays.  Display size is one of the most important purchase criteria and the fact is, consumers like varying display sizes to match their primary use case.  Generally speaking, those who want to travel prefer smaller displays and those who want to replace desktops or do more content creation prefer the larger screens.    Here are a few examples:

  • HP ENVY 6t– 15.6” display, .78” thick and up to 9 hours battery life
  • Gigabyte U2440– 14″ display, 22mm thick
  • Dell XPS 13– 13″ display in a 12″ chassis, 18mm, up to 9 hours battery life
  • Sony Vaio T– 11.6” display, .71” thick, and up to 7.5 hours battery life

Display Resolution

Most Gen 1 Ultrabooks came with a 13″ display with 1,366 x 768 display resolutions.  That is still the case today on average, but if consumers want more, they can get HD resolutions.  As a reference, the highest supported MacBook Air resolution is 1,440 x 900, 48% less detail than full HD.

Weight

Even though the first Ultrabooks were light, OEMs are even challenging each other on weight.  This is a good thing because in the future because when Windows 8 and convertibles arrive, these systems need to be a lot lighter as to operate as decent tablets.  Here is the lightest, or at least the lightest claimed:

  • Gigabyte X11– at 34.3 oz. with an 11.6″ display, claim to be the lightest (10% lighter than 11.6″ MacBook Air)
  • NEC LaVie Z- 35.2 oz., with a 13.3″ display (26% lighter than 13.3″ MacBook Air)

New Materials

Machined aluminum is nice, but it also exactly what Apple uses.  That’s not necessarily a bad thing because it looks upscale, but in some ways unoriginal and also expensive and heavy.  OEMs have gone out of their way to be different in this with chassis materials.  Here are just a few that I think deserve highlighting:

Touch Interfaces and Convertibles

Touch didn’t make a lot of sense with Windows 7, but Windows 8 changes all this.  As I am an avid tablet + dock user, I am constantly trying to touch my Ultrabook display.  As long as the display doesn’t push back as it is being touched, I think it will work well.  Even better will be convertible designs.

  • Acer Aspire S7– the 11.6″ or 13.1″ display folds back 180 degrees
  • ASUS Transformer Book– the 11.6″, 13″, or 14″ display detaches from the keyboard to use as a tablet
  • Lenovo IdeaPad YOGA– the 13.1″ 1,600 x 900 display bends back 360 degrees to use as a tablet
While manufacturers aren’t indicating these are officially Ultrabooks, they are very exciting:
  • ASUS TAICHI– dual sided HD display in 11.6″ and 13″ form factors.  Open the clamshell and it’s a notebook.  Close it and it’s a tablet.

Discrete Graphics

Original Ultrabooks came with Intel HD 3000 graphics.  Second generation Ultrabooks come with HD 4000 graphics which, while improved, just won’t cut it for everyone.  Discrete graphics attach rates in Western Europe, China, and Russia are all above 50%, so the need is there, and the new Ultrabooks deliver.  With Nvidia launching the GeForce GTX 680M yesterday, things will be getting even more interesting.  Discrete graphics are not available on the Apple MacBoook Air.  Here’s what consumers can order today:

Target Audience

First generation Ultrabooks were 100% consumer-focused.  As we are one year into the Ultrabook initiative, commercial and even enterprise-grade solutions are available:

  • Dell XPS 13– supports TPM security chip, custom factory integration, and worldwide Dell ProSupport
  • HP EliteBook Folio– supports TPM security chip, smart card reader, and worldwide commercial services
  • Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon–  supports 3G connectivity, worldwide service and support

Price Points

Premium price points aren’t necessarily a bad thing; just look at Apple.  BUT, if you don’t have Apple’s brand, then as an OEM in the short-term you will need to live with lower volumes.  Generally, the opening price point for the first gen Ultrabooks was $999 and for second generation, this will be much lower.  Intel and their partners invested in alternative chassis designs, hybrid hard drives, display technology and the inclusion of Core i3 processors to lower opening price points. One important point to keep in mind is that these same, lower-priced Ultrabooks still provide the minimum acceptable bar of experience on vectors like battery life, responsiveness, fast resume, and built-in security features. Here are just a few:

  • Lenovo U310 – starting at $749 with 13.3″ display,  500GB hybrid hard drive, 3rd Gen Intel Core i3 Processors, unknown case material (42% less than MacBook Air)
  • Sony VAIO T– starting at $769 with 13.3″ display,  3rd Gen Intel Core i5 processor, 320GB hybrid hard drive, magnesium/aluminum case, (41% less than MacBook Air)

Wrapping Up

So have Intel and its partners come a long way in a year?  Absolutely. In one year everything has changed; from design diversity and differentiation, user interfaces, improved usage models and price points.  These are all good future indicators for solid sales, because in the end, this is exactly what consumers really want. To be clear, design wins don’t guarantee sales but you cannot have sales without them.  The traditional notebook market will continue to grow but I believe many consumers will choose to pay a bit more for an Ultrabook as they are looking at a better experience for a $100-200 increased investment. In many regions and demographics, that isn’t a lot to ask for, but in many, it’s not.  For those who need a new notebook, want a tablet, but cannot afford both, I believe many more will choose an Ultrabook than ever before.   As touch and convertibles become more pervasive and more affordable given many of the huge Intel touch investments, even more consumers who want it all will choose a touch Ultrabook.  This will be an interesting 12 months, that’s for sure.

 

Touch Computing and The Re-Birth of the Software Industry

It seems like you can’t go anywhere in Silicon Valley without hearing about someone who’s making an app. Apps are all the rage these days and software engineering is one of the hottest jobs all over the world. But in the not too distant past, there wasn’t this much excitement around software.

In fact, I have heard from many executives who have been around a while that the excitement around software and apps today reminds them of the same excitement around software when personal computers were first gaining steam.

Although there are some similarities between the industry today and the PC software industry when it was first getting started, the excitement around software today is taking place on an entirely different kind of computer. The excitement around software today is entirely focused on touch computers like smartphones and tablets.

Smartphones are contributing and are the device that began this new app economy but tablets are where the next real software innovations will be focused on in my opinion. I say this because I am a big believer in the tablets ability to take significant time away from the traditional PC. Our research indicates that consumers are comfortable doing the vast majority of tasks they used traditional PCs for in the past on their tablet. Because of that point we feel the tablet represents one of the most exciting platforms which will lead a new software revolution.

Starting Over

I think a strong case could be made that much of the focus of the software industry over the past few decades has been on professionals and the workplace. In my opinion, only in the last five years have we had what I would consider a pure, mature consumer market. The maturity of the consumer market for personal computers is the foundation that has led to the rebirth of the software industry. If the first phase of the software industry was focused largely on businesses, then the next phase will be largely based on consumers.

Although we can articulate what is happening by proclaiming that the software industry is being reborn, in all actuality it’s starting over. The first software phase was all about creating software for desktops and then eventually laptop computers. Both were driven primarily by mouse and keyboard input mechanisms. The software generating all the excitement today is fully around touch as an input mechanism. Given the drastic differences between touch computing and mouse and keyboard computing, software developers are reinventing or at the very least re-imagining their software around touch computing. It is this reinventing and re-imagining of the software industry — brought about by touch computing — that leads me to believe it’s almost like it’s starting over more than it’s being reborn.

New Hardware Is Driving New Software

This rebirth of the software industry is being driven primarily because of new hardware that’s selling like hotcakes to the masses. Although it’s easy to get excited about all the shiny new smartphone and tablet hardware, it’s important to remember that hardware is only as good as the software it runs. I could own the most amazing and elegant piece of hardware, but if it runs poor software, it’s no better than a paperweight.

When I speak with software developers who are driving this new phase of software, they’re largely focused on the iPad and the iPhone. These two platforms are giving software developers valuable experience in gaining expertise, making the next generation of touch software much more personal. This is important because new platforms incorporating touch are on the horizon based on Windows 8.

Windows 8 presents a radical departure from the normal desktop/notebook operating system that Microsoft usually churns out. Windows 8 will be the first OS to combine a touch-based operating system (called Metro) with a mouse-and-keyboard operating system and a familiar Windows interface. These two experiences combined together will lead to a new generation of notebooks, desktops, and tablet-notebook hybrids, all with touch interfaces.

Regardless of your opinion about Microsoft’s approach with Windows 8, the reality is that over the next few years, touch computing is coming to a wide range of laptops and desktops.

What’s Next?

That’s a great question, and my answer may surprise you. I believe the next big software craze will be around television. I know it may seem crazy to think about running apps on your TV, but that’s what I think is next. Google is already going down this path with Google TV, letting software developers make apps for the big screen; Samsung is also doing this with its line of Smart TVs. And there’s speculation that Apple has big plans for the TV industry — if that’s true, I believe apps will be a part of the strategy.

Even though there are products on the market that let you run apps on your TV, those developers have yet to re-imagine their apps on the big screen. Just as software developers are having to re-imagine their software for touch computing, they will have to do the same thing for the TV.

We live in extremely exciting times and things will get even more exciting. I firmly believe we will see more fascinating innovations centered around personal computing hardware and software over the next 10 years than we ever saw in the past 30 years of the PC of the industry, and I’m glad that we’ll get a chance to observe them firsthand.

The Case for More Choice in the iPhone Line of Products

There is much to be said for Apple’s current iPhone and iPad strategy being very focused and very limited in terms of product line diversity. Of course you can make the argument that Apple already offers a line of products being the 3GS, iPhone 4, and the iPhone 4S. What I want to explore is why I think it makes sense, or will make sense in the future, for Apple to offer a more comprehensive lineup of current generation iPhones.

There used to be a time 10+ years ago when I was in the minority of computing users who used, loved, and passionately defended my usage of Apple products. Back in the day being an Apple consumer made you feel like you were going against the flow, like you were unique. I used to show up to Industry Analyst meetings or go into the press room of events (before the time of bloggers) and be the only one with a Mac. Now it seems everywhere you go you see as many Mac’s as Windows products and in some locations, businesses, departments, etc., Windows client hardware is entirely extinct.

To be honest I sometimes miss those days where I feel like I was in the computing minority. Where I had the feeling like I had discovered a secret that no one else knew about and I was better off because of it. I know those days are gone and there is simply no going back. I am also extremely happy that millions upon millions of new consumers are coming into the Apple ecosystem and discovering the secret we Apple loyalists have knows for years. But like I said, I still miss those days when I was in the minority. I know there are folks out there who can relate to this.

I have racked my brain on how some glimpse of those days can exist again and the only thing I have come up with is a more robust line of products. Perhaps ones for the super high end, ones for the middle and ones for the low end. Again I see this as similar to cars where a brand like Mercedes-Benz would have their luxury lines that only few would dare go after and aspire to acquire. But Mercedes-Benz also has lines like their E-Class which is more middle of the road when it comes to their price points and the C-Class for entry level customers. The key to the Mercedes brand and the C-Class is that it isn’t the cheapest car on the road in its class but there are those who will aspire to pay a little more because of the Mercedes brand and experience.

I could see Apple doing something like this where they have some designs that truly push the envelope in design and engineering and cater this iPhone and or iPad to the upper end of the customer class. This line could cater to those who want to be in the minority and use these products as status symbols. I am fully aware of the vanity I am promoting but again I am thinking out loud here.

This would ultimately offer existing and new Apple customers slightly more choice than currently available. I know this goes up against conventional wisdom of a simplified line of products but I believe the simplified line works best when a market is maturing but more choice is desirable once a market is mature. The market for smartphones is still maturing as many consumers are still experiencing their first or second smartphone. Consumers needs to be on at least purchase number three or four before their tastes are refined and they start knowing what they want, why they want it, and shopping with those specific needs, wants, and desire in mind. It is when consumers reach this point that I feel they would desire more variation in form and function related to the iPhone.

The key however is to vary the design not the experience or the software. I am simply advocating for some variation in hardware design related to a specific line. It will be key that the software experience remain consistent while the hardware design be free to appeal to different tastes of consumers. This is not uncommon in other Apple products where they offer different screen sizes, colors as in the iPod Nano and Shuffle, and even varying capabilities.

In fact if you think of the progression of products from the first iPod all the way up to today you would find that the varying degree of choice started off limited but then expanded as the market matured. In fact the iPod from 2001 to date, is the example I hope Apple continues to follow. Even as there was no competition and Apple utterly dominated the portable MP3 market, they continued to innovate, differentiate, and never became complacent but rather continued to make the best products year after year–again, all without any competition. (Thanks John Kirk for mentioning this to me)

This is why I think the case can be made for Apple to offer more choice in the current generation iPhone lineup–if not now in the near future. Perhaps it will have something to do with market maturity or even perhaps designing products for people like me who just want something different from the masses. But in my opinion, offering designs that cater to unique segments needs, wants, and desires will be key for Apple to continue to satisfy their customer base.