April 2013 – Page 2 – Tech.pinions

Thinking About The Future of TV All Wrong

I’m convinced that most of the commentary from the pundits and speculators around Apple TV and the future of TV in general is all wrong. There are some bits that I think have merit. Thinking about channels as apps for example is on the right path. Letting networks and brands have more control of their viewers is also on the right path. Thinking through how we will interact in active vs. passive ways with our contnet is also on the right path. But at a fundamental level there is something not being emphasized enough in this whole discussion of the future of TV.

TV is a Communal Experience

Right now, for most people, the TV is a communal experience more than it is a personal one. For example most people’s TV screen is in a communal place. It was designed from the beginning to be something that people gathered around and enjoyed together. This is not going to change. By nature of the size of the screen and its location, if more than one person lives in a house, the large TV monitor is a shared experience.

Most of the commentary I read around the future of TV brings with it a bias of an extremely personal revolution rather than a communal one. I get the sense as I read much of the ideas put forth around the future of television that many assume that the TV screen and the entire broadcast experience itself will become more personal. Now, while I think the TV experience will become more personal, I don’t think it is the large TV screen where the revolution will take place.

The large television set is a communal computer not a personal one. Therefore, its evolution will happen within the communal context.

Second, Third, and Fourth Screens

Using a smartphone, tablet, or traditional PC while watching TV is now common place among owners of such screens. These devices have something in common which the TV does not. These screens are highly personal. They are owned and customized and are portals to a very personal computing paradigm. So it is on these screens that I am expecting the coming TV revolution.

As we gather around the TV, it is the most personal screens which we have customized, where it makes the most sense to bring the personalized experience with broadcast content.

Nearly every major network studio has an iPad app. Some have Android apps but not all of them. Not only do the networks have apps but now many individual TV show brands are also beginning to have an app. One only has to look at the Colbert Report app for a shining example of the possibilities when TV shows themselves start creating software.

A Hybrid Entertainment Experience

The key to thinking about the future of TV is to understand that the TV set itself will remain a communal and shared screen. But our personal devices, like tablets and smartphones, will increasingly become the avenues by which what we watch on the big screen becomes personal and even intimate. Of course both these screens will still function as independent entertainment experiences, but the real revolution will come when you use them together.

The real shift is that content companies (like the big networks) will also need to become software companies. It is my belief that the televsion is the laggard in the computing paradigm. It is the screen that is yet to truly be a platform which software developers can take advantage of. When this happens the TV revolution will begin and take us on a path no one yet envisions.

How To Beat Patent Trolls: Fight

When faced with a lawsuit that has even a slim chance of success, lawyers almost always urge businesses to settle rather than fight. Litigation is extremely expensive, and unless the suit raises an issue of principle that is important to defend, the candle simply isn’t worth the game.

Unfortunately, in the world of patents, this attitude had led to a proliferation of patent trolls, companies that buy up unused and generally vague software patents and then claim infringement against businesses, often smaller companies without big legal budgets, that actually make things. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which has been remarkably friendly to trolls, is the heart of the racket.

It would be nice if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would revoke the thousands of ill-considered patents it granted, especially in the early days after software patents were first allowed. It could be nice if Congress changed the laws to make it harder for so-called non-practicing entities to engage in a legal shakedown. But neither of these things is likely to happen any time soon.

So it is time for businesses to stand up and fight. Patent trolling will persist as long as it is a profitable activity. By raising the cost to the trolls, admittedly at some short-term cost to themselves, businesses can destroy the economics of the shakedown.

Rackspace Hosting, an infrastructure-as-a-service company beset by trolls, is leading the way. Last month it won a signal victory by obtaining summary judgment against a company that claimed a patent on rounding off floating-point numbers. (Rackspace was supported in the case by Red Hat Software, whose Linux implementation contained the allegedly infringing code.)

Now Rackspace has gone on the offensive filing a breach of contract suit against “patent assertion entities” Parallel Iron and IP Nav. The case, described in detail in this Rackspace blog post, is legally complicated. Parallel Iron is suing Rackspace for infringement of a patent it claims covers the open-source Hadoop Distributed File System. Rackspace argues the suit violates the terms of an earlier stand-off agreement it negotiated with Parallel Iron and IP Nav.

Rackspace, which says it has seen its legal bills rise 500% since 2010, explains why it has decided to fight:

Patent trolls like IP Nav are a serious threat to business and to innovation. Patent trolls brazenly use questionable tactics to force settlements from legitimate businesses that are merely using computers and software as they are intended. These defendants, including most of America’s most innovative companies, are not copying patents or stealing from the patent holders. They often have no knowledge of these patents until they are served with a lawsuit. This is unjust.

The rest of the tech industry shouldn’t leave this battle to the Rackspaces of the world. In particular, big companies with deep pockets should stop paying trolls to go away, a tactic that makes sense in the short run but is ruinous in the long. As independent software developer Joel Spolsky argues:

In the face of organized crime, civilized people don’t pay up. When you pay up, you’re funding the criminals, which makes you complicit in their next attacks. I know, you’re just trying to write a little app for the iPhone with in-app purchases, and you didn’t ask for this fight to be yours, but if you pay the trolls, giving them money and comfort to go after the next round of indie developers, you’re not just being “pragmatic,” you have actually gone over to the dark side. Sorry. Life is a bit hard sometimes, and sometimes you have to step up and fight fights that you never signed up for.

Why Google Shouldn’t Be Concerned About Facebook Home

Yesterday, Facebook announced “Home”, a skin that runs on top of Android, pulling consumer’s Facebook experience up to literally the lock–screen of the phone. The demos were fast, fluid, and very different than anything Android has to offer. A lot of the press coverage ensued that talked about the big threat this could bring to Android. Techpinion’s own Steve Wildstrom got into the action, too. The drama is fun, but nothing is farther from the truth on how this will play out. Facebook Home, in its current form, is nothing more than a skin like MotoBlur, Sense and TouchWiz which will encounter the same challenges and consumer push-back and carrier and handset challenges.

Some of theories that were used to justify the big threat to Google went like this:

It’s harder to get to native Google search, their bread and butter
Friend updates show up on the lock screen, eliminating the need to get into your phone and Google services
Home will lead to Android forking, causing more fragmentation and more app incompatibility

The problem is, none of these logic paths end with the destruction of Google or Android. Let’s peel back the onion.

Anything that slows down the experience for a phone will ultimately get disabled or make consumers very unhappy. Consider the skins that the major manufacturers install. There isn’t a single one that doesn’t slow down the base experience when compared to a native Nexus phone. Not a single one. I doubt that Facebook Home has found some magical way to crack the code on how to place a layer onto a layer on top of an OS and make it fast. The demos were fast and fluid, but I am highly skeptical that it will actually work this well. Only Google holds the keys to this as it involves deep access to the kernel of Android, not the base Android APIs. You think Google gave Facebook access to that? No way. Facebook will be constantly chasing multiple versions of Android, never able to get the experience where they need it, and it will be slow and buggy.

The next issue with Facebook Home is that doesn’t enable the total experience. Users will be abruptly moving back and forth between Home and the rest of their home, kind of like switching between two different phones. While not as jarring as moving back and forth between Windows 8 Metro and Desktop, it is still like having two different phones. Facebook Home offers Facebook and Instagram capability, Address book, Messenger and even repackages texts. But what about the other things you want to do with your phone? Things like searching for the nearest restaurant, driving directions, tweeting, taking pictures, or web search? Does anyone really think that if Facebook makes those critical usage more difficult to access, consumers will like that? The promise of Facebook all the time will be extinguished by the complexity of having two experiences or two phones.

Let’s now address control, control of Android and control of the experience on two levels. Let’s start with Android control. Google controls Android and they can change the terms and conditions as they see fit. Android isn’t Linux, it’s owned by Google and they can do what they choose with future versions. If Facebook Home would surprisingly gain popularity, they will simply change an API or a condition of Google Play or the Android license to make life difficult for Facebook. It’s no different from what Microsoft has done for years on Windows and I don’t see that changing if or when Tizen or Windows 8 becomes more popular. Let’s look at control of the experience. Facebook Home has a built-in governor. The carriers and handset makers know from Apple that those who control the experience hold the keys to the kingdom. Sure the carriers and handset makers will take Facebook’s revenue share deal and engineering resources, but don’t think for a second they will keep doing it if it starts to get too much traction. Therefore Facebook Home can only get limited traction or they will get shut down by carriers and handset makers, which forces Facebook to do what they didn’t want to do, which is do their own phone.

In summary, the Facebook Home announcement showed some nice looking demos of Facebook and how the Facebook experience could be improved. It doesn’t show, however, how the holistic phone experience is improved. Consumers do more than Facebook on their phones and that’s where Home breaks down. Consumers don’t want different experiences, they want one connected experience. Didn’t Apple teach us that? Even technically, Facebook will have challenges even delivering a fast and engaging experience because, like skins, they are constantly chasing a moving target. They have the same access to the APIs as everyone else does, and only Google holds the keys to the kernel. If Facebook Home ever does get traction, it will be fleeting because Google can and will change something in Android or change the terms and condition to make life difficult. Carriers and handset makers will gladly take Facebook’s money now, but if it gains too much traction, they will be forced to drop it else lose control. They don’t want two Googles.

Facebook Home will be a niche offering until Facebook can build out a winning set of holistic phone services and apps, but based on control, will ultimately need to get into the phone business, a tall and risk-laden order.

Facebook Home: The Death of Android

As a core operating system, Android is thriving. As a brand–and a user experience–it is dead. Facebook just killed it.

Android’s brand demise has been coming for a long time. Phone makers have been taking advantage of Android’s open architecture to install their own modified versions, such as Samsung’s TouchWiz. The most recent Android launches, the Samsung Galaxy S 4 and the HTC One, have barely mentioned Android. And in announcing Facebook Home, Mark Zuckerberg talked about Android only to say that Facebook was taking advantage of the openness of both Android and the Google Play Store to let anyone with a fairly recent Android phone replace the Android experience with the Facebook Home experience.

I dont know how many people will want Facebook completely dominating their phone experience. I’m out of the target demographic by more than a generation, so I’m probably a poor judge. But I’m pretty sure Facebook’s announcement won’t be the last of its sort. Maybe we’ll see a Twitter Home, or a Microsoft Home built around a growing suite of Windows/Skype/Xbox/SkyDrive products.

All of this seems to leave Google in some difficulty. Facebook is a direct competitor to Google’s primary business of delivering customers’ eyeballs to advertisers. Google’s considerable difficulty in monetizing Android just got considerably worse, and things are likely to go downhill from here.

Of course, one thing Google could do, at the risk of being evil, is lock down future releases of Android. That, however, might well be locking the barn door too late. Open source and free (as in speech) versions of Android are out there and Google action might well be viewed as just another fork of Android.

Google never seemed to know just what it wanted to do with Android. Now it may be too late to figure it out.

3 Years Of iPad Schadenfreude and Lessons Learned

On April 3, 2013, the iPad turned three. Jay Yarrow over at Business Insider has put together a great summary of How The iPad Totally Changed The World In Just Three Years. A couple of highlights:

— Apple has sold some 140 million iPads for around $75 billion in sales.
— The iPad is one of the fastest growing consumer products ever.
— iPad inspired tablets have virtually destroyed the netbook market, are expected to exceed notebook sales this year and expected to exceed notebook and desktop sales by the end of 2014
— iPad revenue alone is bigger than all Windows revenue
— Traditional software houses like Amazon, Google and Microsoft are all making their own versions of the iPad
— The iPad is popping up everywhere, including airplane cockpits, restaurants and as cash registers. I would add that almost one third of doctors in the U.K. now own tablets and tablets are rapidly spreading into education at every level.

Schadenfreude

I think it’s an understatement to say that the iPad has been an overwhelming success – the biggest technology shift of our generation – which is why it’s all the more delicious to put on our 20/20 hindsight glasses and mock those who got the iPad oh-so-very-wrong those three years ago. However, rather than dwelling on how wrong the iPad’s critics were, let’s focus instead on why they were wrong and see if we can learn from their mistakes.

Screen Size Matters

“You might want to tell me the difference between a large phone and a tablet.” ~ Eric Schmidt, Google, 10 January 2010

Turns out that size really does matter. Some things are better done on a larger screen. Further, a larger screen demands that apps be re-written to accommodate their larger size. Apple recognized this and now they have over 300,000 apps specifically optimized for the iPad. Google has been slow to recognize this fact and their tablet sales have suffered for it.

Focusing On What It Isn’t

Things the iPad can’t do:

1. No Camera, that’s right, you can’t take pics and e-mail them.
2. No Web Cam, that’s right, no iChat or Skype Video chatting.
3. No Flash, that’s right, you can’t watch NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX or HULU.
4. No External Ports, such as Volume, Mic, DVI, USB, Firewire, SD card or HDMI
5. No Multitasking, which means only one App can be running at a time. Think iPhone = Failure.
6. No Software installs except Apps. Again think iPhone = Failure.
7. No SMS, MMS or Phone.
8. Only supports iTunes movies, music and Books, meaning Money, Money, Money for Apple.
9. WAY, WAY, WAY over priced.
10. They will Accessorize you to death if you want to do anything at all with it and you can bet these Accessories will cost $29.99 for each of them.
11. No Full GPS*
12. No Native Widescreen*
13. No 1080P Playback*
14. No File Management*

What an utter disappointment and abysmal failure of an Apple product. How can Steve Jobs stand up on that stage and hype this product up and not see everything this thing is not and everything this thing is lacking?

~ Orange County Web Design Blog, 27 January 2010

There are dozens upon dozens of these lists and their particulars don’t really matter. The truth is that we often tend to focus on what a new product or service DOES NOT do instead of focusing on what it does really well. The iPad made for a terrible phone and a terrible notebook computer. And that’s as far as most people could see. The netbook did a lot of things but it didn’t do any of them well. The iPad did far fewer things than the notebook or even the netbook, but it did some of those things extraordinarily well. In most instances it’s what something does, not what it doesn’t do, that matters most.

Tradeoffs

“Why is the iPad a disappointment? Because it doesn’t allow us to do anything we couldn’t do before. Sure, it is a neat form factor, but it comes with significant trade-offs, too. No 16:9 widescreen, for example.” ~ David Coursey, PC World, 28 January 2010

“I don’t get it. It costs $500 for the basic model, when you could get a laptop with a lot more functionality for about the same price. The iPad hype machine has been in full effect this week, and I still think it’s just that—hype. If I turn out to be wrong, I’ll gladly eat my words, but I’m pretty sure that I’m not wrong ” ~ Alex Cook, Seeking Alpha, 3 April 2010

EVERYTHING has tradeoffs. The key is to get asymmetrical tradeoffs that give more than they take away. The iPad gave people mobility, simplicity, ease of use and seamless integration with a virtually endless number of applications. It gave up power, size and complexity. Turns out, for most people, that was a trade that was well worth making.

It’s Not The Consumer’s Job To Predict The Future

“Before Jan 20th, only 26 percent of people said they were not at all interested in buying an Apple tablet. That number jumped to 52 percent after the announcement. Before Jan 20th, 49 percent of people said they didn’t think they needed an Apple Tablet. That number jumped to 61 percent after the announcement. Fifty-nine percent of buyers wouldn’t pay extra for 3G coverage. Whether this device becomes a big hit is anyone’s guess but based on this study it sure looks doubtful.” ~ Retrevo, 5 February 2010

“We of course build plastic mock-ups that we show (to customers)…we had a slate form factor. The feedback was that for (our) customers it will not work because of the need to have (a physical) keyboard. These were 14-year-old kids, who, I thought, would be most willing to try a virtual keyboard but they said no, we want the physical keyboard.” ~ Mika Majapuro, Worldwide Sr. Product Marketing Manager, Lenovo, 22 February 2010

“The recent launch of Apple, the iPad tablet, has won the award for the second edition of Fiasco Awards delivered this Thursday in Barcelona. From the more than 7,000 people who voted via the website www.fiascoawards.com, 4,325 have considered it the fiasco of the year. Voters through the web have decided that they want the iPad to follow a path similar to the U.S. President Obama with his Nobel Prize, receiving an award before its career starts. However, if within a year the market’s response to the iPad is not the predicted fiasco, the organization will present the 2010 edition of the Fiasco Awards as a finalist to receive the same award next year.” ~ Fiasco Awards, 2010, 11 March 2010

Can we just stop pretending that consumer polls and questionaries have any validity when it comes to predicting future behavior? How is the consumer supposed to evaluate a wholly hypothetical product – especially a revolutionary product – before they’ve even had a chance to use it? Heck, the brightest minds in tech got the iPad wrong even AFTER Apple showed it to them. Why then do we constantly put stock in the opinion of consumers with regard to products that do not yet exist?

Sizzle vs. Subtle

“Yet for some of us who sat in the audience watching Steve Jobs introduce the device, the whole thing felt like a letdown.” ~ Daniel Lyons, BusinessWeek, 28 January 2010

“I think this will appeal to the Apple acolytes, but this is essentially just a really big iPod Touch.” ~ Charles Golvin, Forreter Research, 27 January 2011

Turns out that being a big iPad Touch was all that it needed to be.

The tech press always wants fireworks and is immediately bored by nearly everything not new or different. However, that’s not how people in the real world respond to products. Sometimes subtle is more powerful than sizzle and sometimes subtle is more sublime as well.

Tech is no longer the province of an elite. Tech is now a mass market product that is used and mastered by the majority of humankind. We need to stop thinking about how things affect us personally and start thinking about how they affect the majority of their intended users instead.

Niche

“Thus, a reasoned analysis is that the iPad is to the iPhone & iPod Touch as the MacBook Air is to the MacBook. In other words, a cool product with a devoted base of happy customers, but in relative terms, a niche product in Apple’s arsenal of rainmakers.” ~ Mark Sigal, O’Reilly Radar, 28 January 2011

That’s pretty much how I saw it too. I thought that the iPad would be a successful niche, like the MacBook Air. I was very wrong about the iPad…and I was wrong about the MacBook Air, too. Sheesh, 20/20 hindsight is a cruel mistress.

Schadenfreude Redux

“Anyone who believes (the Ipad) is a game changer is a tool.” ~ Paul Thurrott, Paul Thurrott’s Supersite for Windows, 5 April 2010

What the heck. Not everything has to be a life lesson. A little Schadenfreude can be a good thing too.

The TV Cartel Is Starting To Crack

By any reasonable standard, Aereo is a ridiculous service. But the rules and contracts that cover the distribution of television content are anything but reasonable. And that means that Aereo, silly as it is, could be the beginning of the end for the cartel of studios, sports leagues, broadcasters, networks, and cable and satellite distributors that has a headlock on content.

Aereo, which is backed by IAC/Interactive Corp. and its wily CEO, Barry Diller, invested a new way of distributing broadcast television. If you subscribe (currently available only in New York) for $12 a month, you are assigned a tiny TV antenna in an array of antennas (pictured above) in a Brooklyn data center. The content–all over-the-air broadcast stations in the area–is converted to an internet stream and delivered to your iPhone or iPad, computer browser, AppleTV, or Roku box. The service also functions as a DVR in the cloud so you can time-shift your viewing.

The silliness is that broadcasters ought to cut out the middleman and stream broadcasts themselves. But local stations can only stream their own content, mostly local news. Networks could stream a lot more, but only content they own outright or have the streaming rights for (a restriction that excludes most sports and much else.) Besides, local stations, networks, studios, sports leagues, and cable companies are locked into a system of contracts, often long term, which no one wants to break because, in the imortal words of Milo Minderbender*, “everyone has a share.”

It’s obvious why Aereo poses a threat to this cozy relationship. So its not surprising that pretty much every station in New York filed suit claiming that Aereo violated their copyrights. They argued that Aereo was essentially acting as a cable company and was required to negotiated what is called “retransmission consent,” a privilege that typically requires a hefty fee. But Aereo carefully exploited every corner and loophole in the law. Those individual antennas–technically quite unnecessary–allowed it to argue that it was merely piping over-the-air content to customers from their own antennas. And it made sure to deliver content only to subscribers within stations’ service areas, thereby honoring local exclusivity requirements,

Aereo won the first round of the legal battle when a district judge denied an injunction blocking the service. And in a potentially much more important decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the lower court decision. The only bright spot for the broadcasters was the dissent of Judge Denny Chin, who called the approach of individual antennas “a sham” and “a Rube Goldberg-like contrivance over-engineered in an attempt to avoid the reach of the Copyright Act and to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the law.”

It’s not clear what will happen next in the case. The TV stations could request an en banc review by the full Court of Appeals or appeal to the Supreme Court, but both are fairly long shots legally. Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia told The Verge he expects the broadcasters will turn to Congress for legislation blocking Aereo. Local broadcasters still carry considerable heft on Capitol Hill primarily because members count on local news to provide vital free media during campaigns.[pullquote]Local broadcasters still carry considerable heft on Capitol Hill primarily because members count on local news to provide vital free media during campaigns.[/pullquote]

But the loss of the Aereo case is not the only ill omen for broadcasters and networks. Another major blow to the status quo was the success of House of Cards, the slick, high-budget original series on Netflix. While Netflix won’t give out viewer numbers, the company is clearly pleased with the effort and plans to expand it. Original internet programming that can compete straight-up with HBO and Showtime has to make those networks start rethinking their dependence on cable and satellite companies for distribution. For now, they make their content available online only to viewers who are already subscribers. They know full well that a lot of people are viewing pirated versions of their shows–the season premiere of HBO’s Game of Thrones set a BitTorrent volume record–and they know that subscribers are sharing their IDs and passwords with non-subscribers. For now, they are prepared to tolerate the loss (assuming that folks getting content illegally but for free would be willing to pay for it if it were available a la carte.) But this is purely an economic calculation, not a conviction, and will change when the economics tip.

The condition of the television business shouldn’t be confused with the collapse of the record industry. The music business was in trouble before it was hit with large-scale piracy and the record companies made things worse through denial, resistance, and the idiotic strategy of suing customers. The TV industry knows it has to move into a new era. But the current arrangements are highly profitable and it wants to proceed with all deliberate speed.

In the end, that may not be possible. Dish Networks CEO Charlie Ergen sees the end coming. “One of two things will happen,” he said at the D: Dive Into Media conference in February. The rising cost of content will present an incumbent distributor “with a deal they just can’t stomach” and they’ll blow the system up. “But more than likely, they’ll just die because somebody will come in underneath them on price. The likeliest candidates are Amazon or Netflix. Possible Apple. And Microsoft could do it.”

——–

*–If you don’t know who this is, you should stop whatever you are doing and read Joseph Heller’s Catch-22.”

Samsung is Stepping Into the Spotlight

Something very interesting is happening and I will be very interested to see how it plays out. Samsung is stepping into the spotlight and arguably taking it from Apple. Apple for the past 10 years, or more, has been the unparalleled focus of the mainstream media and for good reason. In 2010 when I started helping on the business side of things at the tech blog SlashGear, I got to have great conversations with nearly all the major bloggers. Throughout my conversations with them one common thread emerged. Every site remarked about how writing about Apple was page view gold. And in a business where page views generate more advertising dollars, over-covering Apple from every angle was–and still is–a business strategy.

As of late, many of the same conversations I have had with media influences and editors is revealing a new thread. Writing about Samsung is now quickly also becoming page view gold. As you could see, there was more content than necessary leading up to the Galaxy S4 event and then even more harsh content and scrutiny of the event itself. Maybe Samsung is getting what they want by being in the spotlight but it comes with a price.

Being under the microscope and managing the burden that comes with it is something few companies have had to do. It is now one that Samsung must do. It will be fascinating to watch how their management handles it. The media and Wall St. can be extremely and almost universally unfair to companies in the spotlight and under the microscope. Being a leader almost always means you also get arrows in your back. I’m assuming Samsung was hoping to get more attention but I’m not sure they are fully ready for the hostility that comes with the spotlight.

Are They Ready For It?

This is the real question. Executives, folks in PR—both internal and the external firm—those in investor relations, board members, etc., will all learn the unique place of being in the spotlight. This may be particularly tough on the PR folks and those at the external agency. Those folks jobs are often judged on the quality of not just press coverage but quality press associated with the company or a product. When you are under the microscope it may often feel like everyone is out to get you and for a company that has never dealt with what seems like media hostility, it may be hard to handle.

Samsung is also an Asian company, and as is the case in Asian culture, often times criticism is taken very personally. Not taking extremely harsh criticism from Wall St. and the media personally is going to be a challenge for them.

Passion and Personal Computing

If Samsung does their job right with both their brand and their products, they will create a sense of passion around their brand. This is also something few companies in personal computing have accomplished. It is something that is necessary if you want to create a sustainable brand yielding loyal consumers. With it, however, comes the possibility of a polarizing effect. I can think of no more polarizing brand in computing than Apple and as we can see it yields loyalty but also hostility. Samsung may also be heading in that direction. If they are not careful they may create the astronomical expectations that can never me satisfied by the media.

Is it Good for Apple?

This is also a very interesting question. In my 13 years as an industry analyst I have observed how the media has covered Apple. There has been many positives but it led to a hype machine that got completely out of control. This led to the external reality distortion field which I have referred to as of late. Even though my sense is that the Apple hype machine has been lessened, and Samsung taking some of the spotlight may be part of that, it still seems as though nothing Apple does is good enough. Perhaps Samsung taking more of the spotlight will work more in Apple’s favor from a media standpoint than many think. Primarily because it will give the media another target other than Apple.

I actually believe this is good for Apple and having two companies compete for mindshare is actually very good for the industry. The media has an insatiable appetite but by them having more story lines than just Apple to focus on may help bring some needed balance.

The spotlight can only focus on a few but the fact that it is focusing on more than just one is a good thing. From what I can gather, managing being in the spotlight can be very rough. Apple has learned to manage it marvelously and we will now see if Samsung can.

Want To Sell Used Digital Content? Not So Fast

Just two week after the Supreme Court stop a publisher’s attempt to impose tight limits on the ability of purchasers to resell books, a federal judge in New York has reminded us of the limits on our resale rights when it comes to digital products. In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the “first sale” doctrine applies to goods made outside the U.S. and that a purchaser has the right to resell a book no matter where it was published.

Today’s decision by Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan appears to end the effort by ReDigi to create a market in used digital music. The judge granted Capitol Records’ motion for summary judgment and while he did not immediately issue an injunction against ReDigi’s operations, that seems likely to follow.

The decision is highly technical and turns on a distinction between what copyright law calls a “phonorecord” and a sound recording. If you own a vinyl or CD recording–a phonorecord– you are free to sell it, but not so with a digital copy. In essence, the judge said that if Congress wants to create a right to resell digital content, it may do so, but absent such action, forget about it: “[T]he Court cannot of its own accord condone the wholesale application of the first sale defense to the digital sphere, particularly when Congress itself has failed to take that step.”

Holding Apple to a Higher Standard – Solving Texting While Driving

I love my iPhone. I use it all the time. I take it with me everywhere. Yes, everywhere. I have tried and tested numerous smartphones over the years. I can confidently state that you can do no better than the iPhone. However, iPhone – Apple – can do better by us. Too many of us are texting while driving, and dying. More than nine people everyday, in fact. This has to stop.

Yes, it’s easy to claim that people’s foolish behavior is in no way Apple’s fault. Probably, you are right. I don’t care. I hold Apple to a higher standard. I don’t pay a “premium” to purchase Apple products. There is no “Apple tax.” I pay Apple’s higher prices because their products are the best: the best value, the easiest to use, the most intuitive, the most functional.

Apple even promotes this idea. Witness their latest marketing campaign for iPhone. No pretty women in leather jumpsuits, no ninjas, no lasers – no need. Instead, the powerful truth: iPhone is an amazing device, simple to use, and offers a nearly un-ending amount of fun and function for everyone – from anywhere, as their iPhone “Discovery” ad makes plain.

iPhone doesn’t merely dominate the U.S. smartphone market, they dominate pretty much every relevant metric for smartphone use and engagement. Tragically, we remain engaged with our iPhones even while driving.

According to a recent AT&T study, nearly half of adult drivers in the U.S. admit to texting while driving. Over 40% of teens admit to texting while driving. Worse, the numbers are rising.

It’s not ignorance causing this. The texters-and-drivers are fully aware of the potentially deadly and devastating consequences of their actions. Doesn’t matter.They text anyway. No doubt they also tweet, check Facebook, choose a playlist and more, all while behind the wheel.

What’s Apple going to do about this?

Yes, I want Apple to do something. Because possibly only Apple can do something to fix this. Apple gave us the smartphone revolution. The iPhone changed everything. We now use the iPhone – and all the copycat smartphones – everywhere we go, no matter the setting, no matter who we are with. This recent IDC study, for example, noted that well over half of all Americans have a smartphone and a vast majority of us reach for our smartphones the moment we wake up and then never put it away. We use them in the movie theater, at the gym, while we are talking to other people in real life. Don’t believe that getting behind the wheel of a car suddenly changes everything, whether it should or not.

No, I do not care if it’s unfair to place any blame for our behavior on Apple. The fact is, we text while driving. We aren’t going to stop. Apple needs to accept some responsibility for what they have wrought. As much as I want a beautiful Apple Television, as much as you may want an iWatch, and as cool as this patented wraparound display iPhone is, none of that should be a priority for Apple until the company makes using the iPhone while driving a car much, much safer proposition. Or impossible. Either way, the problem needs to be fixed, soon.

Possible solutions? Honestly, I don’t know. Perhaps the iPhone will recognize when we are driving and simply stop working. Maybe Apple can require apps to mess up when we are in a moving vehicle – not autocorrect our texts, for example. Maybe Apple engineers can get Siri to work great, all the time, whether for texting, tweeting, checking our calendar, selecting a playlist. I don’t have the answers. That I leave to Apple. And we need the best they can give us.

Slogans, such as from AT&T’s “It Can Wait” campaign are unlikely to work, I suspect.

It Can Wait videos admittedly offer some truly heartbreaking stories of people whose lives have been irreparably and profoundly damaged because someone was texting while driving.

Tragic, sad – but how will this help? As AT&T’s own study says, 98% of those who text while driving already know it’s bad.

It was sobering to realize that texting while driving by adults is not only high, it’s really gone up in the last three years.

That quote is from Charlene Lake, AT&T’s senior vice president for public affairs. You think more marketing is the answer? No. Showing tragic stories may shock a few into proper behavior, I don’t doubt. Realistically, however, this is that rare case where we need a technical solution for a cultural problem.

According to TechCrunch:

The Center for Disease Control says that there are an average of nine people killed in texting-related accidents each day, with 1,060 injured in texting-related crashes.

Since texting occupies your eyes, hands, and mind, it’s considered one of the most dangerous distractions on the road, and elevates the risk of a crash to 23 times worse than driving while not distracted.

Nine people killed every single day. Read that again. Nine people die every single day from texting-related accidents. Going to stop what you’re doing now that you know?

I don’t believe you.

Apple gave us the iPhone. It was like nothing ever before. But Apple’s job is not complete. The iPhone is magical and revolutionary. We mortals have not yet learned to fully control its power. We need Apple’s help.

Images taken from Apple’s iPhone “Discover” commercial and AT&T’s “It Can Wait” campaign against texting and driving.