My knees are in pretty bad shape. In fact, every doctor I’ve worked with over the past 10 years has told me that the only real fix available to me is to have them replaced.

But they always give me this recommendation with the qualifier “at some point” tacked on to it. Despite the difficulties my current condition entails, all of them believe I’m about 10 years too young to have the procedure done now. So instead, as a half step to delay the inevitable, I had knee surgery again last week (my 6th knee operation over the past 15 years) to try and provide some temporary measure of relief.

My reason for sharing this with you isn’t a play for sympathy. What I find so interesting here is the justification doctors have for wanting me to wait. There is no doubt that I would benefit from having this procedure done today. Their reticence instead boils down to a conservative view of the future:

I grew up during the 1960′s, when science established itself as the engine of progress and shaped my view of an unbounded future. With this as motivation, I have spent my entire post-gratuate career developing and commericalizing new technologies in a series of startups, seeing entire industries reinvented and new ones created in ways no one imagined previously.

In these types of creative environments, decisions aren’t made based on what you know can be done today – to do that would marginalize progress. Instead, they are based on what you ‘believe’ you’ll be able to do at a given point in the future. Innovation isn’t simply a happy upside surprise that occasionally interrupts an otherwise slow, predictable march forward. It is the ephemeral, yet paradoxically substantial, foundation that every significant thing you accomplish will ultimately be built upon. Innovation happens through strength of will and the conviction that you can accomplish whatever you set your mind to – even if the necessary details aren’t clear when you begin.

With this as context, having doctors defer taking beneficial steps today based on concerns about limitations that may exist a quarter century into the future seems counter intuitive to me. Believing in innovation isn’t a ticket to be reckless, and I do understand that there are risks involved. That said, it should give us the confidence to move forward with things we see as reasonable, even if we currently lack the clarity of detail we will need at some point in the future to execute on it.

To me, that is what believing in innovation is all about.

I do appreciate that doctors need to balance a range of medical, legal, and business factors that are all significant elements of these types of decisions. My comments here are really meant as a more general call for us to recapture that fundamental belief in our ability to solve the challenges we face and to the capture the opportunities we have in front of us – even when they initially seem overwhelming. We need to view risk in our society less as a yoke of uncertainty that we should avoid, and more as a liberating force of possibility that we should embrace.

This belief is an essential component of building an innovative culture. And it’s what makes America a beacon for so many people throughout the world.

Wired Magazine put up a quick look at the technical preview version of Windows Phone 7 that Microsoft has been floating around. This video doesn’t show much in the way of details (and is a pretty lame review overall), but it does give you a general sense of the thinking and flow behind their new UI design:

With the caveat that I haven’t actually played with the new phone myself, I’m left with the impression that the ’tiles’ design of Microsoft’s latest mobile OS – what they call the “Metro” UI – is going to require a lot of scrolling around – especially if you have a lot of applications you normally work with. For better or worse, Windows Phone 7 is clearly not another iPhone knockoff – something I do give Microsoft props for. It is approaching the phone as a social tool, and weaving all forms of communication you have with people together into a cohesive stream anchored by the people you connect with instead of through discrete services.

That said, I just don’t have a good feeling about this. I’m getting the sense that Microsoft is getting the spin machine started up early – never a good sign. No amount of PR is going to save this phone if it fails to deliver, and the competition is only getting tougher the longer it takes for them to release it. Their ambitions and focus seem to be in the right place, but the OS will need to translate that into something that is easy for people to understand and use in real world set ups and situations.

Train wreck, wild success, or something in between, with Microsoft’s entire mobile strategy riding on this new OS, it’s definitely worth keeping an eye on.

Once I get to spend some time with it, I’ll post something more detailed on the specific pros and cons I see – stay tuned…

Cisco and Intel have partnered to launch a new tablet device called the Cius.

The Cius (intentionally pronounced as “See Us”), is a small, Android based tablet being pitched to communication/collaboration focused business and educational users. When it comes to describing gadgets, images just seem to work best. So to get a feel for what the Cius is like, just skim through this two part demo of the device given by John Chambers at last week’s Cisco Live conference in Las Vegas:

I’m not sure what Cisco was thinking with the design of the Cius. At this point, Apple’s iPad has set the standard for tablet based devices, and by that metric, the Cius is a major fail. It comes across as a thick and ungainly piece of plastic. The large speaker grill (I’m assuming) in the front takes away from the usable touch surface of the device, and the choice of a 7″ screen makes it too small for running productivity apps – yet too large to easily carry around or use as a camera. Even the look of the software being run was unimpressive – very “last decade” in it’s style and interactivity.

I’m sure there is some segment of the business marketplace that will find this device interesting – I just don’t see it getting any real traction beyond that hard core Cisco fan base.

From what I’ve seen here, Cisco would have been much better off focusing their efforts on supporting 3rd party developers for the iPad/iPhone 4 as well as the nascent Android tablet marketplace. The results they got from doing it all in-house are, to put it mildly, unimpressive.

About a month ago we launched a newsletter publishing app – Publisher HD – on the iTunes App Store. We were really pleased with the response we got to the app, and were jazzed that it even spent some time in both Apple’s “What’s Hot” and “New & Noteworthy” sections for productivity apps.

Publisher HD allows you to hook in to your free Google Reader account (or your professional InfoNgen account) and use content you find there to assemble and customize newsletters for redistribution. It lets people act as web curators, picking out things of interest that they find, commenting on them, and packing them up for redistribution to a targeted audience. (This is effectively the same model some popular publications like the Huffington Post use to serve their readers).

About two weeks ago, Google decided to make a change to the technical methodology they use to authenticate with Reader. Since Google doesn’t publish a formal API to access Reader, this change ended up breaking Publisher HD in a significant way – feeds from Google Reader would no longer refresh. Once we found out what happened, we were able to push out an update, test it, and upload it to the app store all in less than three hours.

Unfortunately, the rest of the App Store process doesn’t move as quickly.

We had to wait about 9 days before the updated version of Publisher HD became available for download. During that time, our download count went way down, and those folks that did download it ended up with an application that probably didn’t work for them. We had to modify our application description on the iTunes Store to let people know that there was an issue and that an update for it was done and awaiting approval. (We didn’t want to pull the App from the store since our professional InfoNgen clients were not affected). It was incredibly difficult to watch all this play out, knowing that we’d already made the fix but were powerless to influence it’s release.

While the App Store’s 7-10 day review window is manageable when dealing with planned updates and enhancements, it can end up being incredibly damaging when something urgently needs to be updated. There should be some avenue made available to developers for the delivery of critical fixes, even if it involves additional costs or an upfront certification that would let them do this directly. Perhaps it would make sense for Apple to allow a certain number of updates with a ‘post release’ review, and with severe penalties for anyone that abuses it. Though situations like this will ideally be infrequent, their typical severity when they do arise should earn them some special consideration.

The fixed version has now been available on the app store for about a week. Even though this episode dampened some the incredible momentum we had from the initial app launch, downloads have started picking up again and I’m optimistic that everything will get back on track. We’ve been lucky in this regard.

Despite having gone through this, I still love the entire app store concept. It provides a delivery and service platform that we could never realize alone as a small development shop – especially in the mobile space. Hopefully, Apple will consider the impact of these kinds of situations as they evolve their app store policies. I’m sure many other development teams have found themselves in a similar situation and have their own tales of woe to tell.

Sadly, some of them probably have a less happy endings.

While I gave you a quick look last Friday at the quality of video produced by the iPhone 4, that was done without any attention to lighting and with the iPhone propped-up against a monitor. The movie I’ve embedded here, while also shot using the iPhone 4, was produced professionally, and leveraged an array of techniques and equipment to produce a clean stable image.

This short movie is called “Apple of My Eye” – an iPhone 4 film from Michael Koerbel. At the end of the movie, a small ‘making of’ segment is included that shows exactly how the various shots were composed, blocked, and shot.

Over all, this is an interesting look at how short films are made, and the best example to date of the true quality of the video that can be produced on the iPhone 4.

Not only that, but it was edited entirely on iMovie for iPhone. Without any of the post production tools offered with Final Cut or Avid, I consider this an impressive feat on it’s own.

Enjoy.

If I asked you to define exactly what a Browser is, could you?

At first blush, this may seem like a dumb question. Browsers have been around since Netscape Navigator introduced the concept well over a decade ago, and most technical people can rattle off the names of popular browsers like “Internet Explorer”, “Safari”, “Firefox” and “Chrome” without hesitating. But while it may be easy for people to provide this kind of ‘definition by example’, I would argue that getting people to offer a definition based on more specific criteria would end up being a much bigger challenge.

Let me assert that this isn’t simply an academic question that I’m asking as some intellectual exercise. It has actually become a very important issue that will need to be resolved – both legally as well as in the ethos of the web. To understand why, consider the recent tussle between the NY Times and the young developers of the successful iPad RSS reader called PULSE.

PULSE was one of the applications profiled during Steve Job’s WWDC keynote. It’s a popular application that marries the traditional RSS reader with an innovative browsing interface, creating something really unique. Shortly after that keynote, Apple received a letter from the New York Times demanding that PULSE be removed from the App Store. Here is a clip taken directly from the legal take down notice Apple received:

The Pulse News Reader app, makes commercial use of the NYTimes.com and Boston.com RSS feeds, in violation of their Terms of Use*. Thus, the use of our content is unlicensed. The app also frames the NYTimes.com and Boston.com websites in violation of their respective Terms of Use.

Though there’s a long discussion I could have on the commercial use clause in the above quote, for this post consider the line I called out that talks about “framing” sites. Historically, “framing” was the practice where one website would use an HTML ‘<frame>’ command to embed the contents of another web site into it’s display. This was predominantly used by unsavory sorts on the web as a way for them to “capture” the value of another site instead of investing directly in creating value of their own. In response to this, most quality websites started including Terms of Use that specifically banned people from framing them in this way. If nothing else, it gave a site the legal basis to going after any other site that tried to do it to them. In those early days of the web, recognizing this practice was pretty clear and straight forward.

Fast forward to today…

There have been two significant threads of web evolution that have made things far more complicated and less clear. One is that ‘browsers’ have continued to add features and functions that make them much more than simple utilities for browsing web pages. The other is that an increasing number of applications being built today include some form of integrated web browsing as a native component of their functionality.

What this has done is blur the line between browsers and other internet savvy applications, blending code based features with HTML rendered options to enhance the web experience. To get a better sense of this, consider some of the capabilities that are now available within modern browsers.

• TABS: Perhaps the most basic extension that is now a part of every significant browser is the TAB bar sitting above the browser display:

  

  Tabs allow multiple web pages to remain open at the same time, simplifying switching between multiple sites. What TABS end up doing, effectively, is framing individual sites and showing only one of them at a time based on which ‘TAB’ is selected. It isn’t using HTML FRAMING, but it uses code to achieve the same result. It is also core to the way most people browse the web today. While this type of function may seem trivial, it is actually one of the issues PULSE came under fire for.

• REFORMATTING: Some browsers are starting to go a step further and actually reformat the content displayed on a web page. Consider this snapshot I took of the new READER feature in the latest version of Apple’s Safari browser:

  

  READER lets a person take any web page with a single article on it and view it in an easy to read window without any images, ads, or other distracting ‘web noise’. Though this capability is built in to Apple’s latest version of this browser, I think it clearly falls outside any traditional definition of “web browsing”. In many ways, it does something even worse than ‘page framing’. READER creates a denatured version of the page, removing any branding or advertising the creators of the content originally packaged with it. You can even mail it or print it in this reduced form.

• PLUG-IN’s: Beyond the capabilities offered by browsers natively, most modern browsers also provide ways for their feature sets to be extended through Plug-ins. Plug-ins are lightweight applications that ‘plug in’ to the back-end functionality of a browser to extend it in some way. Plug-ins can leverage a browser to do things like communicate with hosted services across the internet, direct the browser to open different web pages, analyze the content being displayed on a page, or even augment it with outside content. Consider this screen shot of a plug-in called GLUE. In this case, the plug-in has been activated by someone looking at a specific book on the Barnes & Noble web site:

  

  One of the features ‘GLUE’ adds to a browser is the ability to analyze what is being shown on a page, find specific items that are being mentioned there, and give people additional options for interacting with those items. In this case it has recognized the book and, among other choices, has given them the option to buy the book – on Amazon. I have no doubt that B&N would much prefer that choice not to be a simple left mouse click away on their site.

In all of these cases, the browsers are providing functionality that goes beyond simple browsing. In some of them, the functionally is either passively or actively at odds with what the site providers would like to have done with their content. At this point in time, all of these capabilities – since they are happening within mainstream browsers – have become accepted practice on the web.

Compared to what some of these browsers can end up doing to web pages, what PULSE did to tick off the NY Times is almost trivial. Safari can let people browse through their RSS feeds (another built-in ‘browser’ feature) and open any interesting articles they find using the ‘READER’ interface show above. However, because PULSE is “an application”, the same basic type of functionality falls afoul of the NY Time’s terms of use – a distinction in form but not in function.

It’s clear that the way many web sites (and possibly even the law) view this distinction is out of touch with where the technology has progressed. Drawing a clearly defined line between browsers and applications would be a fruitless exercise. In fact, given the shift to the mobile web, I would expect browsing to start happening a lot more via application embedded browsers. Our underlying norms of ‘browsing’ may actually be changing at this point.

I have no doubt that finding common ground here between content publishers and consumers won’t be easy – but this is an area that needs to be debated and discussed. A compromise of some kind will need to be reached and a new “cultural standard” established in this area.

The great thing about the web community is that it still has the capacity to do that.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the features of the new iPhone 4 that I’ve been looking forward to using is the built-in 720p HD video camera. Here is a short video I recorded on the iPhone 4 that I hope will give you a feel for the image quality you can get with it:

This video was recorded with just the ambient light in the studio, and was compressed into h.264 and uploaded on to YouTube.

I would love your feed back.

I’ve been getting ready to begin producing new video podcasts for The Digital Edge again, and that has made me start paying a bit more attention to what is currently going in the video production space. While not immediately applicable to what I plan on shooting, one of the most interesting new areas in video now is the production of 3D ready content.

3D has become a key draw for many new movies and big budget productions, most notably James Cameron’s recent movie Avatar. The basic premise of 3D filming is to record two distinct image streams simultaneously from lenses that are spaced apart by the same distance as a normal person’s two eyes. This spacing is known as the inter-ocular distance. When played back on the correct viewing equipment, these two streams combine to produce images that appear to be three dimensional. The best 3D playback systems being produced today are based on a display that is synced up with a special pair of glasses. These glasses alternately block the image for one eye or the other, with each eye only seeing one of the image streams recorded on the 3D camera. Our native “persistence of vision” (the time the retina holds on to an image after it is gone) lets the system impress a unique image on both eyes while our mind ends up processing it as a single complex image. The “stereo imaging” this creates provides a person with a perception of depth equivalent to what they would see in real life.

But 3D is more than just a technology for movie theaters. 3D televisions with alternating shutter glasses have just started to become available in consumer channels, with top CE firms like Sony actively supporting it. Content providers are also moving into this space with major producers like ESPN and Discovery committing to creating channels carrying nothing but 3D programming. While adoption may start off slowly, 3D has made a good start in establishing itself as a viable delivery model for high value productions both big and small. I expect it to start moving mainstream over the next three years.

The place where I do expect 3D delivery to really take off very quickly is in video games. The detailed environments developed for most video games today can easily be repackaged for 3D delivery, allowing game producers to come to market with a substantial back catalog of 3D material without a significant ramp up delay. A strong selection of 3D games would likely accelerate adoption, and make the purchase of any new equipment required for 3D playback an easier decision to make. Gamers also tend to be experience junkies and would naturally be drawn to something that offered the kind of truly immersive experience that 3D can.

I’d like to get the chance to see more 3D programming first hand – especially 3D sports – before committing the money needed to buy a system like this for myself. But from what I see of it so far, I do expect that 3D television will become a part of my home technology arsenal at some point in the foreseeable future.

It just won’t be coming to my Digital Edge productions quite yet…

I received the following email from Apple Store early this morning:

Dear Apple Store Customer,

You recently received a Shipment Notification email from Apple advising you that your iPhone has shipped.

This email is to confirm that your delivery will occur on June 23rd. Although Apple and FedEx tracking information may currently indicate a later date, you can check the FedEx website the morning of the June 23rd to track your package to your doorstep.

In the event that you will not be available to accept delivery on June 23rd, it may be more convenient to use our pre-sign delivery option by visiting our Order Status website at http://www.apple.com/orderstatus.

Sincerely,

The Apple Store Team

Early delivery? – No Problem!

Now that’s the kind of email I like to get.

When I wrote the post yesterday about Verizon Wireless potentially dropping their unlimited data plan, I touched on the need for a fresh look on how spectrum gets allocated in this country. I want to talk a little bit more about that in this post.

The airwaves have traditionally been a scarce resource, licensed in the public interest by the FCC to both commercial and non-commercial entities. Everyone from local radio and television stations, to public safety services like police and fire departments, to radio hobbyists, to cell phone carriers, to wireless remote manufacturers all need to “share” the spectrum that is available to them. The way this is done is by having certain ‘frequency bands’ allocated to specific uses, with further sub-bands allocated to direct individual uses – like specific TV or radio stations. To make sure their isn’t any interference, the edges of these frequency bands are typically left unused to act as ‘buffers’ between their adjacent bands. This entire approach reflects the analog roots of spectrum use, and is really a poor way to manage such a limited resource in a digital world.

So how do I see making something happen here?

As a first step, we should move away from ‘fixed use’ allocations of spectrum in favor flexible use allocations. This would allow existing license holders to maximize the use of the spectrum they have by deploying whatever services make the most sense for them to provide – not just a single licensed service. This would be a huge economic windfall for existing license holders, and they would likely be strongly in favor of it.

In exchange for that windfall, however, they would need to start returning spectrum to the FCC for reallocation. This would force them to continually invest in the more efficient use of the spectrum they have left, or find themselves economically disadvantaged at some point in the future. The rate of spectrum return could be based on the overall efficiency increase in the industry, but at a significant enough rate to force meaningful improvements to happen.

The spectrum that licensees return would become part of a flexible use pool that could be licensed to anyone on a transactional basis at current market rates, acting the same way that spot rates for power on the electrical grid do. (In fact, I could even see the emergence of financial futures markets and other free market exchanges growing up around wireless bandwidth.) Not only would this make spectrum available to a whole new class of service and content providers, it would also create even more pressure on everyone to use the spectrum available to them as efficiently as possible. Our long term goal should be to make the majority of our ‘wireless commons’ available to those who can put it to the most productive and efficient use – the biggest value for society overall.

I am far from an expert in this area, and am really suggesting this approach more as a starting point for discussion rather than a fully considered solution. The unfortunately reality is that the allocation of spectrum today (in large blocks via auctions) is really focused on getting more money into the hands of our elected representatives for them to fritter away, providing little long term value to society. We can’t forget that there is a real social impact from poorly allocated spectrum, especially around job creation in the private sector.

Whatever solution ends up replacing the current prodigality, it truly needs to be in the public interest.

According to an article in Bloomberg Businessweek, it appears that Verizon – like AT&T – may be getting ready to implement a tiered data plan of their own, eliminating their popular prix fixe unlimited data option in the process. If this ends up being the case, it would mean the two largest wireless providers in the US will both be working to discourage bandwidth consumption on their networks, something that could end up being a big drag on the development of mobile services and other non-phone mobile technologies.

The irony here is that both of these carriers were willing to sell unlimited data plans when they knew that the devices they were offering them on couldn’t really make use of it. Now that mobile devices have finally started to catch up, those plans are being eliminated. On top of that, as carriers continue their rollout of 4G/LTE networks (which theoretically can offer significantly higher speeds), folks will simply find themselves running over their usage limits more quickly and racking up whatever overage charges their carriers’ may assess (which can sometimes be frighteningly expensive).

What’s desperately needed in the wireless space is innovation. The structural monopolies enjoyed by incumbent carriers make it easier for them to cut out any meaningful competition that could impact their businesses. The status quo favors them, so any change in the fundamental structure of the market isn’t welcome. They understand that their businesses depend in large part on preserving these advantages, making them less then ideal agents of change in this space.

Ultimately, the real innovation needed here will, by it’s very nature, be disruptive. It will upsets the marketplace and redefine today’s accepted terms of business. Given the nature of how wireless spectrum is managed, innovation will also involve more than just new technologies and algorithms. It will require a reconsideration of the regulatory and licensing frameworks that currently govern the deployment of wireless infrastructure, and demand a fresh look at the way access to the airwaves is allocated. It may also require that a larger chunk of spectrum be allocated specifically in support of the development and deployment of more creative wireless data solutions. There is some incredible research being done in this area, but it needs a path to commercialization if it’s going to get the funding it needs to become viable.

We will never see the promised wireless revolution take hold if the only options available to consumers are congested networks or capped and overpriced plans.

Change urgently needs to happen.

Yes – you’re at the right place, but a few things have changed.

I’ve been having hosting issues with The Digital Edge for the last several months, with chronic internal server error’s cropping up with increasing frequency. Well it finally came to a head last night, when I found I could no longer post updates. I spent some time rebuilding the site on my old hosting provider, but made the decision that the time has come to switch to a new one.

I had been looking in to making a switch for a while now. A couple of months ago, I had started planing a rework of the The Digital Edge site, hoping to have it ready by the end of this summer. I wanted a site that would be better organized, mobile friendly and less cluttered. My idea was to soft launch it on a new hosting provider once it was finished, make sure everything looked OK, and then switch the domain and feeds over to point to it.

In this case, things just didn’t work out like I planned.

So starting today, I am on a new host (HostGator), with the very beginning of my new streamlined look in place. I will continue to enhance it over the coming months, and would welcome any feedback you have. Also, if you see any problems just contact me via email – I’m certain there are things I missed.

I’ll talk more about what I would like to accomplish with this site refresh in another post, so stay tuned. This is really just a quick post to let everyone know what had happened, and also to apologize for making such an abrupt transition. Clearly, this wasn’t the way I wanted it to happen.

I am grateful to everyone who has become a part of The Digital Edge community over these past 3+ years. I’m confident the best is yet to come.

According to Silicon Alley’s Business Insider Chart of the Day, iPad browser share has already passed Android’s browser share:

Apple is becoming far more aggressive in the mobile marketplace, and we can expect that any competition between iOS and Android will ultimately be good for us as consumers.

The iPhone 4 is just the beginning…

Both the iPhone and iPad are a big part of my digital life. To put it mildly, I was a bit upset when AT&T announced yesterday that – effective next week – they are doing away with their unlimited data plan options across all of their smartphones and devices.

From that point on, the closest option they will offer is what they call their ‘DataPro’ plan:

DataPro: Provides 2 gigabytes (GB) of data – for example, enough to send/receive 10,000 emails (no attachments), plus send/receive 1,500 emails with attachments, plus view 4,000 Web pages, plus post 500 photos to social media sites, plus watch 200 minutes of streaming video – for $25 per month. Should a customer exceed 2 GB during a billing cycle, they will receive an additional 1 GB of data for $10 for use in the cycle. Currently, 98% of AT&T smartphone customers use less than 2 GB of data a month on average.

While 98% of AT&T smartphone users may actually use less that 2GB of data per month, I am sure that the percentage of iPhone users that fall in to that camp will be considerably smaller. Smaller still will be the number of new iPad users that can fit within that 2GB limit. The people crossing this threshold aren’t doing anything crazy. They are simply using the mobile web the way people expect to use it – doing normal things like:

• listening to Pandora on the iPhone
• downloading a digital version of Wired magazine (at 500MB per issue)
• buying a movie before boarding a plane (at ~1.3GB per movie)
• using any cloud storage application (like MobileMe)
• sending emails with attached presentations or documents

There is nothing noble going on here with AT&T. They are simply trying to take away the promise of the iPhone and iPad under the guise of lowering prices and protecting their users from that “2% Club” of real data hogs. And while AT&T is going to grandfather anyone that already has an unlimited data plan (good for current iPhone users), this will effectively do away with the month to month nature of the iPad data plan. (If you stop paying that $30 each month for the unlimited 3G service, the only options available to you when you light it up again will be limited plans.)

The real question in my mind though is why is AT&T doing this now?

The easy, obvious answer is that they are trying to get a handle on the increasing load being placed on their network, and this is the best way to make that happen. While I have no doubt that this is part of the reason for AT&T’s move, I believe there is something else going on here.

Something big.

Steve Job’s went out of his way to highlight that Apple had worked with AT&T to offer two attractive month to month data plans, the main one being an unlimited plan at $29.95/mo. The iPad 3G has been shipping for less than 2 months, and now that plan is being killed. The only way I can see that happening is if AT&T was told that something else was being killed as well.

U.S. Exclusivity.

I’m guessing that AT&T agreed to those data plans contingent on remaining the sole carrier with the iPhone, and that they will be free to retool their pricing once that changes. Is it coincidence that he new plan takes effect this coming Monday -the same day that Apple’s WWDC 2010 begins? The same day Steve Jobs is expected to announce the next generation iPhone? And maybe some other type of phone or device?

Let’s see what happens.

The backlash against Facebook’s evolving stance on user privacy has started to escalate. While bloggers and others in the tech press have been grumbling for years about what they’ve seen as Facebook’s disregard for user privacy, some technology luminaries have taken the next step with folks like Leo Laporte and Peter Rojas publicly ditching their Facebook accounts in protest. EPIC, a group of privacy advocates, even filed an unfair trade complaint against Facebook, asking the FTC to intervene. As the Facebook vs Privacy meme has started gaining traction with the mainstream press, we now even have some folks in Congress prodding Facebook to reconsider some of their data sharing practices. Even the mere thought of government meddling in complex technology decisions should be enough to send chills down everyone’s spine!

Especially when the discussion is really about the wrong topic…

While most of the conversations regarding Facebook that are swirling around the web look at all of this through the lens of ‘privacy’, the more fundamental issue here isn’t really about privacy, per se. That is really a simplification of the larger issue. Ultimately, this is about three fundamental things that make up the core social contract underpinning the modern internet: who has control of your information, who has the right to monetize it, and what is the basis for the trust relationships you have on any social site.

In a social environment, your personal information is your currency . This isn’t an abstract concept or some metaphorical comparison. The whole reason social sites are willing to offer their services for “free” is because the information they collect about you has real value that they can monetize. It is effectively a barter relationship where you are willing to share certain information in exchange for certain services. For this type of relationship to be sustainable – for people to understand the true cost they are paying for a given service – some level of transparency is required as to how the information they’ve provided is being used.

I believe that this will require a substantive change from the way things currently work.

I start from the position that all of the information about you belongs to you. In the context of a commercial relationship, you have exclusive control over it. That means that for commercial relationships (like you have with sites like Facebook or Google) you should only give a site a limited license to use your information for a specific set of purposes. Granting, perpetual, irrevocable rights to information about you should no longer be the norm.

Make no mistake, your relationship with these social sites is commercial – not social. In fact, every social site I know of has a very clear Terms Of Use that place limits on what you can do with their service. You need to agree to it contractually before you’re given access to the site. What I am advocating here is that TOU’s need to become reciprocal, with the specific uses your information can be put to spelled out with equal consideration.

Just think about how one sided this relationship is today without this type of framework in place.

With equal conviction, I believe that this contractually centric model only should apply to your relationship with a site itself – not with other members. Just like in the physical world, sharing something with another person isn’t a commercial transaction with terms and conditions – its a social gesture of trust, and the basis for building a relationship. That element needs to be preserved for the social potential of any site to be realized. Social relationships are complex and sometimes messy things. There is no way to sanitize or constrain them without erasing the essence of what makes them so important and compelling. And because of this, judgment and discretion need to guide our choices and interactions. We all need to take responsibility for our own decisions – just like in the “real world.”

This whole situation with Facebook should become the catalyst for us to consider these important issues and the broad ramifications they have for the future of the social web. We have an opportunity here to make some meaningful progress in shaping how communities on the net should behave and develop.

Ultimately, it’s about a lot more that just privacy…

This isn’t the first time this kind of thing has happened to me.

Last week, I went to a large electronics retailer in downtown Manhattan looking for a very specific type of microphone. I had a meeting to videotape, and needed what is known as a “boundary microphone” – a low profile microphone designed to pickup the voices of a group of people sitting around a table. I described what I wanted – and what I was trying to do with it – to a salesman in their pro-audio department, and asked if he had any specific recommendations he would make. He confidently directed me to a reasonably price shotgun microphone, telling me that it should work well for what I was looking to do.

Unfortunately, the type of microphone he was recommending was designed for a very different purpose from mine. In fact, it would be pretty useless in the situation I had described to him. It was clear from this that he was just looking to make a sale – even if it meant selling me something that didn’t really work for me. If I hadn’t known enough NOT to take his advice then, I would have ended up with an inferior (and potentially useless) recording – a situation I’m grateful I avoided.

But this type of situation isn’t that uncommon.

When it comes to more complex items, especially in computers and electronics, far too many sales people end up making confident – yet frivolous and uninformed – recommendations to the people they are supposedly “helping”. Their overt conviction may help them close the immediate sale, but it comes at a cost. They end up losing the more lucrative opportunity to convert someone into a satisfied long term customer that would happily recommend them to friends and colleagues. By not investing in the quality of their sales staff, many firms effectively squander the “network value” of their customers to get some kind of short term gain.

While many stores have reward programs for frequent shoppers, they seem to offer little to their truly highest value customers – the “frequent referrers” that keep sending new customers their way. The most important thing a sales person can do is convert a basic “shopper” into a networked “referrer” – even if it means not selling them something on a particular visit.

The more connected we become socially, the more important this approach will become operationally. The “velocity” of word of mouth referrals – both positive and negative – should become a a key operational metric in our 21st century economy. It’s the only reliable way to reach a highly oversold-to and fairly jaded consumer market. Customer service isn’t something that can be ‘bolted on’ at the point of sale. Being customer centric needs to become central to the way any modern organization thinks, plans, and operates. Long term success depends on it.

The role model for this market approach (as they are for many other things) is Apple.

Apple thrives off of referrals. They count on having their existing customers convert the ‘Apple uninitiated’ through enthusiasm and word of mouth. That is why Apple focuses so much on the design, quality, and usability of every product they make. Even the packaging is an experience. But they also invest very heavily in something almost every other electronics manufacturer tend to take for granted – their retail channel. The entire Apple Store experience is first class. All of the people working in the store are both personable and highly trained, and seem genuinely invested in both the company and the products they sell. You can’t help but feel that everything Apple does with their retail stores is designed to create a satisfied customer out of every person that walks in their doors. And they seem to get it right almost every time.

But you don’t need to be an Apple sized company to apply this to your business. At the end of the day, great customer service happens one salesperson at a time. Every contact they have with a potential customer is a chance for them to demonstrate their value and gain that customer’s trust. If they do a good job truly helping every customer that walks in the door, the sales part of the equation will take care of itself.

That’s a lesson far too many companies still need to learn.

If you haven’t actually used the iPad, it’s hard to appreciate what a compelling computing experience it gives you. Though at a physical level the device may seem to be nothing more than a large iPod Touch, in real world use it becomes something quite unique.

And that’s what makes the iPad so exciting.

I’ve been using the iPad as my main computer for the past three days, covering everything from email, web surfing and media playback to working on a detailed presentation and typing up the outline and notes to go with it. I even used the iPad to type up most of this post on the train this morning. While not perfect in every respect, the device has shown itself more than capable of handling everything I have thrown at it – no small feat for a small, mobile device.

Based on that experience, I wanted to share a list of those things with the iPad that seem to really work well, and also those that I think Apple still needs to focus on.

Working Well:
The iPad does so many things well, but certain things are really standouts. Here are some that I feel merit specific mention.

• The iPad extensions made to the iPhone OS interface make using the larger display both intuitive and efficient. The pop-over displays are a great idea for maximizing screen real estate, and the way apps reconfigure to optimize themselves based on screen orientation is brilliant. The entire user experience here is simple and refined.
• Every native iPad application brings more of a desktop experience than I’ve ever had on a mobile device. Unlike traditional apps running on netbooks, iPad apps don’t feel cramped or chopped up. In fact some iPad only apps – like Mail or the Wall Street Journal reader – actually seem to surpass the experience you can get on the desktop today. There is an opportunity for some groundbreaking innovation here that has been missing in the software industry for a long time.
• Though touch-typists may feel differently, I found typing on the landscape keyboard to be very similar to typing on a MacBook. Though lacking the tactile feedback, having the keyboard on the same physical plane as what I’m typing gave more visual feedback than I get from a separate keyboard and display configuration. The auto-correct is also excellent, saving me from going back to fix common typing and spelling errors.
• Battery life seems to be awesome. Unlike with the iPhone (where you always have to keep an eye on the power meter), the iPad just seems to keep running. I’d work on it for over 3 hours at a clip and never had the battery drop below 75%. I’ll be interested to see how well the 3G version does on this front.
• Once I started browsing the web on the iPad, it was tough to go back to the traditional browser experience. Using touch to navigate around full sized web pages is so much more satisfying than using a mouse or trackpad. It’s the most natural way I’ve seen to move through information on a screen.
• The iBook application is a real standout. I can see why so many publishers have become excited about the iPad as a delivery medium. I would like to see how this develops – especially around interactive and mixed media ‘books’. Short of reading in direct sunlight, the lack of eInk doesn’t seem to be much of an issue here. The display was crisp and easy on the eyes, and the book reading software was both playful and functional.
• Apple multi-use iPad cover is a must have accessory. Beyond protecting the device, it provides a stand that optimizes either viewing and typing based on how you orient it.

Missing The Mark:
Not everything with the iPad deserves acolades. Here are a few of the less than optimal features that Apple will need to pay some attention to going forward.

• While iPhone native apps do run on the iPad, they simply don’t translate well to the large screen. They look pixelated and lack the elegant interface touches that iPad native apps all have. I know that it will simply be a matter of time before most apps are updated to accommodate the iPad, but running ‘classic’ apps on the device right now isn’t very satisfying. Streamlining the process of getting converted apps approved and in the store needs to be a priority for Apple.
• It’s hard to believe, but there is no coverflow for media files on the iPad. Given that coverflow is almost a signature Apple interface element, I’m at a loss to figure this one out.
• While far from heavy, the iPad weighs more than I thought it would. I don’t notice it when I carry it around, but it is definitely tiring to hold it unsupported in a reading position for long periods of time.
• Apple has done an excellent job adding books to the iPad, but treating newspapers and magazines as general applications seems to be a real kludge. Even if the unique nature of magazines and newpapers benefits from an application based packaging model, that should at least be collected and organized outside the general pool of applications, with given a consistent way for people to purchase or subscribe to them.
• There is no obvious way to copy PDF’s or other published documents over to the iPad. I typically carry around a lot of reference documents and manuals, and was hoping the iPad could lighten the load of physical paper I currently need to carry around. Hopefully Apple or a third party will provide an app for that soon – it’s such a natural use for the device.
• It seems out of place that a media centric device like the iPad won’t be able to include a video iChat compatible application. The lack of a web cam is something of a disappointment. At this point, I’d at least like to see a basic text iChat application released.

Based on the time I’ve spent with it, I don’t see the iPad replacing either my laptop or my iPhone. It is a unique device with it’s own place in my ‘gadget world’. That said, I don’t consider myself the typical computer user, so your experience may vary. What does speak volumes to me about the capability that is in the iPad is that its the first device that I could see taking on trips or vacations instead of my laptop. It is also my clear first choice for doing email, web browsing, and watching video. It really does fill the gap between my iPhone’s portability and my laptop’s power.

I think that for many people (non-power user, non-bit tweaker, real world people) the iPad could even end up becoming their primary computing platform. It does so many things well, and with a simplicity unmatched by any other device on the market, that I expect it to catch on with this broad demographic in a significant way. Once you actually start to use an iPad, you understand the limitations of what today’s computing experience offers.

You simply don’t want give it up.

And that’s the thing that makes the iPad so ‘magical’.

I would strongly encourage you to experience it for yourself. In every way that really matters, the iPad does live up to the hype.

After years of waiting for a tablet device from Apple, the iPad will finally be shipping next week.

Based on the rumors/news online (hard to tell them apart sometimes), it appears that Apple has picked up some serious momentum in bringing content providers on board for its roll-out. Both media companies and software developers are scrambling to capitalize on the expected early demand for the iPad. And as more providers come online, that demand should continue to grow.

Unlike Microsoft with their tablet (mis)adventures, Apple has been placing less emphasis on the technical aspects of the device itself and more on it’s broader content ecosystem and unique user experience. This is a smart move, and should help make the iPad a major success.

But what ultimately makes the iPad so groundbreaking is it’s combination of power, size and simplicity. It packages all of the basic computing tasks people most want to use in a lightweight, portable footprint that doesn’t feel cramped. It offers an incredibly diverse library of 3rd party software covering games, news, utilities, and productivity apps. It has the largest selection of digital music and video available, and has begun adding books, newspapers, and magazines to the mix. Some of this is free and some of it’s paid.

And all of it is just a download away at the iTunes store.

Apple’s decision to base the iPad on the iPhone OS instead of the Mac OS makes it much more than just a sexy new gadget. What Apple is really offering through the iPad is a fundamental challenge to the existing model of personal computing. The device is always on. The operating system is transparent. Software distribution is standardized. Updates for everything are automatic. In short, its a platform where user doesn’t need to worry about taking care of anything – it just simply works.

And for many people, that’s all they really want in a computer.

Now I do recognize that there are clearly computing tasks that require more traditional computer platforms – especially in professional disciplines like media creation or mathematical modeling and in infrastructure roles like web services, database hosting, and large scale data analysis and management. Hardcore gamers will also demand the raw power available with traditional computing platforms. Traditional computing platforms will continue to have an important role to play.

But what they do well isn’t what most individuals use computers for – even in business.

With the iPad (and more specifically, the iPhone OS) Apple is asking people to reassess what they really need from a computer – and then offering them the first credible alternative to the traditional PC model they are currently locked in to. It’s a transition that will take time, and the release of the iPad is only the beginning of the process. I see Apple developing a whole line of platforms built around the iPhone OS ecosystem – each one extending the appeal of this new computing model to a broader audience.

It’s clear to me that at some point (sooner rather than later), Apple will introduce a keyboard/touch hybrid device that will transplant this new computing model into a more mainstream, laptop-like form factor. At that point, it can begin to attract that significant segment of the marketplace that wouldn’t be comfortable buying a pure slate based device.

And once it happens, the battle for the soul of personal computing will begin in earnest.

After remaining relatively quiet over the last few weeks while Apple was out trashing their FLASH environment, Adobe has finally decided to respond. In this video, Adobe lays out their case for having flash available on any device, and takes a few not so subtle swipes back at Apple:

It’s no coincidence that Adobe has chose to feature HP’s yet to be named slate platform in this presentation. With Apple’s big push for the iPad just starting up, they want to dangle the promise of an alternative coming later this year. You can see the similarities:

HP “Slate”:

Apple iPad:

While everything Adobe is saying in their video has a strong element of truth to it, they fail to address the two key issues Apple has had with putting FLASH on their mobile platforms – it’s voracious appetite for power (that reduces battery life), and a less than optimal code base (that causes performance issues). These are not trivial issues in the hand-held computing space, and they shouldn’t be dismissed as just an attempt by Apple to assert control (though there is no doubt some of that wrapped in to all of this).

The fact that FLASH was able to gain ubiquity across the ‘traditional’ web doesn’t mean that it should necessarily play a significant role in the mobile web space. These are vastly different environments requiring different priorities and compromises, and I believe Adobe still has some serious work to do if it want to make FLASH a key component of mobile media delivery.

I’m just not sure if they see it that way.

Penguin Books seems to be aggressively embracing the concept of digital books. Take a look at this video:

While this is only a demonstration, it is clearly well developed conceptually. The model of using a traditional book framework as a ‘navigation map’ into additional content, applications, and services make complete sense. And it has the potential to redefine the economics of the entire publishing industry.

To make this happen in a way that can scale, the publishing industry (including Apple and other vendors) has to come up with a technical packaging model that moves beyond traditionally focused packaging like the ‘EPUB’ format. Having an open, commonly adopted standard for expressing/delivering these rich, interactive publications can shift publication from becoming one-off developments or publisher specific frameworks into a rich industry ecosystem. I believe that making this happen is the game changer the publishing industry needs. There is a lot to talk about on that front and I want to revisit and expand on it in a later post.

It’s exciting to see some momentum building behind the iPad. So much potential…

Though the opening ceremonies of the 2010 Winter Olympics were held last Friday, I had the opportunity to connect with the games a couple of days earlier.

As I was waiting for the early train into work last Wednesday, I had a chance meeting with a brother and sister that were on their way up to Newark airport to try and catch a flight to the games in Vancouver. It turned out they were Sinead and John Kerr from Great Britian’s Olympic Skating team (Ice Dancing). They have been training in New Jersey where their coach, Evgeny Platov, lives and were hoping to catch an early flight out of Newark to try and make the opening ceremonies. They had been scheduled to fly up the night before, but NJ was in the middle of a nasty snow storm and their flight had been canceled.

Despite the miserable weather and the early hour (it wasn’t yet 4:30am), they were gracious enough to let me snap this picture:

The Kerr’s are the seven-time British Ice Dance Champions and are ranked fifth in the world overall. They have had a strong season coming in to the games and have a real chance to medal in Vancouver.

Their first official event is tonight, and I wish them luck.

It’s great to see innovation coming from more traditional media companies.

Wired Magazine a must read for for anyone interested in the intersection of technologies and the digital life style. Though firmly anchored in the more traditional media world, they have never been conformists. Both in print and on the web, Wired’s design and packaging of the content they create has always shown a level of creativity and sophistication that can challenge the mainstream while simultaneously defining the “new norm”. As the industry starts to embrace Apple’s iPad and other tablet form-factor devices for distribution, Wired will no doubt play a significant role in defining this next phase of digital publishing. This video is a good indication of their thinking:

While I am no fan of Flash (HTML 5 is the way to build this type of interface), the creative possibilities and potential revenue opportunities hinted at in this video can make your mind race. Any time a market is in transition, the explosion of innovative and even crazy thinking that takes place is exciting, scary and inspirational all at the same time.

I am more convinced then ever that the iPad will finally set this all in motion.

Microsoft is betting ’7′ will be a lucky number for them.

Looking to build off of the initial success of Windows 7 (the consumer side looks good but still not sure how well corporate adoption will go), Microsoft previewed the next generation of their Windows Mobile operating system – the “Windows Phone 7 Series” at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona yesterday. As part of their introduction of the new mobile OS, they put together a video that essentially slams Apple’s iPhone platform:

While slickly produced, this video segment is somewhat misleading. It is comparing Apple’s current iPhone OS against an unreleased version of their mobile OS that probably won’t be available until late this year. I have no doubt that by then, iPhone OS 4.x will be out and offering quite a few new and updated features – including broader multitasking capabilities.

That said, there are some interesting concepts in Windows Phone 7 that give it a completely different feel from the raft of inferior ‘iPhone Wannabes’ that have flooded the market over the past 18 months. I would need to spend time with it to get a feel for just how usable it actually is in the ‘real world’, but it clearly represents a total reset of Microsoft’s previous phone OS efforts. This is something I applaud – the Mobile 6.x line was a complete dead end.

Ultimately, the biggest challenge for Microsoft and almost every other mobile OS provider is that they are trying to support a broad range of hardware options and capabilities. While ‘consumer choice’ may seem like a good thing on the surface, apps developed for this type of heterogeneous environment either end up being limited by the least capable device they support, or developers make a conscious choice to limit their compatibility to selected handset models. While this approach may be satisfying to tech savvy users, it tends to confuse and frustrate mainstream consumers, and ultimately works against broad adoption.

Windows Phone 7 Series definitely looks interesting, and does demonstrate a real commitment by Microsoft to be successful in the mobile space. This is probably the last real chance they will get at making something to work here.

And I believe this OS is more important to Microsoft’s future then Windows 7.

NOTE:To find out more about how the 7 Series will work, check out this complete video of Microsoft’s preview event. It will start to play automatically once you make the video window visible. You will need stop it manually if you want to watch it later.

There has been so much written about the iPad itself over the few days that I don’t think my fawning over it would add much to the discussion.

Do I think there will be more in the released version than we saw in the presentation? Yes. Am I excited about the potential of the device? Without a doubt. Will I get one when it finally goes on sale? Absolutely! And though I am pretty pumped about ordering one, there is clearly still a lot of speculation in the media over the true market demand for a device like the iPad. Passions seem high on both sides. Given everything that we still DON’T know about the final functionality of the software/OS and about what types of new content will end up in the various ‘iStores’ by the time the iPad is released, I’d rather wait till then before jumping in to the fray.

Instead, for this post, I’d like to dig down a level and look at three of the less sexy things that were revealed during the iPad event that could actually end up being quite significant both to Apple and the industry overall.

Apple’s A4 Chip:

Outside of the release of the iPad itself, the revelation that it is powered by a custom Apple chip (handling both general and graphics processing chores) could be the most significant thing to come out of last weeks event. While the A4 chip will almost certainly make it into the 4G version of the iPhone, I also expect the A4 (or some variation of it) to also be at the heart of the next generation of AppleTV. This would likely be as part of a move of ATV onto the same OS platform as the iPhone/Touch/iPad, and would probably allow the box itself to be re-engineered to better support HD video (eg – real 1080p) and also to open it up to running games available from the App Store. As a big fan of the existing AppleTV, I see this as something that is long overdue. (I expect it to be announced before mid-2010.)

Another way Apple could leverage the chip this year could be the release of a successor to the Macbook Air based on some version of it. This could give Apple a way to deliver the dramatically improved battery life and graphic muscle of the iPad in the super-thin laptop form factor of the current Air (not to mention integrated “always connected” 3G/4G ). It could even end up running the iPhone OS, and provide the ‘Touch’ aspects either through a substantial trackpad area or directly on the display. While I’m not trying to predict specific product details here, I do see an opportunity for Apple in this segment as well – a hybrid offering blending the best tablet and laptop features for true ‘road warrior’ types.

Ultimately the most exciting thing about the A4 is that it frees Apple from Intel’s lock on mobile processors, and can give them the ability to change both the economics and overall direction of products they launch in this area. And in the hands of Apple, that holds some pretty big promise for the future.

The Touch Based Version Of iWorks:

Apple’s iWorks has been around for quite a few years now, and has matured into a full productivity suite offering word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation applications. While no where near as popular as Microsoft’s Office suite, each component of iWorks is well thought out and a pleasure to work with. Unlike Office on a Windows tablet computer, the new iWorks isn’t simply an extension of the previous version that makes it usable without a keyboard. Instead, iWorks on the iPad has been designed from the ground up to work in a touch environment. From the way various functional menus are displayed to the way task specific virtual keyboards appear in different contexts, every element of the product is designed to be part of a native touch experience. While I will need to spend some quality time with the new iWorks before passing judgment, it does appear that Apple has learned a great deal from iterations of the user experience they developed for iPhone apps, and have done a good job scaling it to more comprehensive applications on larger displays.

While this is impressive on it’s own, what may end up being the most significant aspect of the new iWorks probably isn’t in the code or design at all, but rather in the business model surrounding it. iWorks for the iPad will be sold through the Apple App Store, with each component application available individually for less than $10. That means the entire suite can be bought for under $30 – less than a third of the discounted price Microsoft’s Office 2007 Home and Student edition sells for on Amazon. By unbundling the individual applications, selling them for such a low price, and making them available through their App Store, Apple is clearly challenging the current economic model for the sale and distribution of traditional software applications. This is not without precedent for Apple – even beyond what they did with pricing in the iPhone App space. When Apple moved into producing professional media creation software (known for outrageously high prices), they were able to reset the price points for applications like video editing, compositing, and audio editing in a similar dramatic fashion. It would not be surprising to see this model finally slip over to the Mac, with the desktop version of iWorks taking on similar pricing and packaging to the iPad version – and possibly being sold through the app store as well.

Selling Books In The iBookstore Instead Of On iTunes:

I think the fact that Apple chose to build a completely separate ‘iStore’ for books is interesting. By approaching print publications as truly unique forms of media with unique content and marketplace dynamics, Apple stands a good chance at reshaping the ebook market and really challenging the current dominance of Amazon’s Kindle platform. I believe that what was shown at the iPad launch is simply the most basic starter functionality for this store. I see it ultimately having different business and functional models to address some unique opportunities found in this marketplace. For example:

• renting eTextbooks for a semester instead of buying them
• offering subscriptions to magazine and newspaper content via special viewing applications unique to each of them
• selling content that is pretty much static – like a daily newspaper – with options for dynamic updates
• integrating social elements to let people discuss or interact around specific titles – much the way a college study group or typical reading club might interact

There is a lot of room in this space to innovate. The upheavals we have already seen happen between Amazon and publishers like MacMillan (almost 2 months before the iPad is even released!) are a good indication of how dynamic this marketplace still is – and just how disruptive Apple’s entry into this space will be. By having an independent store that can evolve quickly and embrace new and unique ways of accessing media, Apple will have the flexibility they need to learn, adapt, and adjust. Success wouldn’t be achievable with a more static approach.

I am firmly convinced that the iPad will have just as significant an impact on the media marketplace as the iPhone did on the mobile phone market. The convergence of these two markets, and the increasing importance of mobile computing will continue to present incredible opportunities for Apple. I believe the three elements I’ve discussed here will be important differentiators for Apple as the aggressively pursue this new market.

I can’t wait for my iPad…

Google and Apple always seem to get lumped together as the “new tech titans” that will define our digital future. While no one can deny the leadership each of these great companies has shown in their respective markets, they each represent a fundamentally different view of how this future we are racing toward will unfold. In many ways, Google’s approach to the market is actually pretty similar to that of the company many define as their biggest competitor: Microsoft.

Both Google and Microsoft take the view that the best way to develop a product is to quickly put out a roughly thought-out “beta” version of it (hardware, software, or service), and continue refining it until it becomes something that might have appeal beyond a hard core tech audience. Products that never get to that critical mass eventually get pruned, and the really successful ones become the drivers of the business. All of the other products or services continue to roll along in limbo, backed by someone in the organization that believes in their potential to succeed but not fully supported by the organization as a whole. This ends up creating a fairly Darwinian environment for these projects to mature in, and the competition that results from it doesn’t always provide the best outcome.

Apple, on the other hand, takes pretty much the exact opposite approach. They rarely release anything that hasn’t been fully thought out, and they focus on getting the core value proposition of an offering to a fairly high level of polish before it goes out the door. Even a product like Apple TV – which is clearly still trying to find it’s footing in the market – was still well integrated into Apple’s iTunes ecosystem from the day it launched. But given it’s evolving feature set and interface, Steve Jobs never misses a chance to refer to it as a “Hobby” product for Apple – clearly distinguishing it from their very successful mainstream offerings. Apple is all about creating an extraordinary consumer experience, anchored by market redefining design and technology. Anything less is unacceptable to them, and they invest years of internal product refinement to try and avoid that kind of failure.

The difference between these two approaches will have an important impact on the long term success of both these companies – positive for Apple and negative for Google.

Because so much refinement takes place before a product hits the market, Apple is able to provide a focused, consistent product and brand strategy across everything they do. Their product sets are diverse enough to cushion market fluctuations in various lines of business, but still linked at a software level that lets them integrate more or less seamlessly. Apple makes a limited number of products, which lets them lavish great attention on each one. And unlike most tech companies, they view a product as the entire user experience with a device – shopping, packaging, design, technology, interface, functionality and support. And that results in products that people don’t just like but are actually passionate about. To Apple, defining the future starts by tapping in to the needs of the individual. And they do that very well.

For Google, in contrast, defining the future starts by tapping in to the power of a collective community – something they also do well. They cast a wide product net, giving them a finger in just about every aspect of evolving internet trends, standards, and technologies. In some areas – like Search based advertising, online video, mapping, and email – they have been incredibly successful. But the number of real Google successes is small when compared to the full suite of services and capabilities they now offer. Just look at the number of significant product betas, open source initiatives, and Google Lab projects that they have active at this point. And even more telling than all of that is that, if you put popularity aside, search advertising still ends up being the only really meaningful source of revenue they have today. While incredibly successful right now, Google as an organization is unbalanced and spread thin. Outside of a few big areas they lack cohesion, with many smaller project teams competing with each other for funding and management attention. This has driven many incredibly bright, entrepreneurial developers, unable to make an impact or accomplish anything meaningful in this environment, to simply leave the company in complete frustration. I personally know a number of them. While this may not matter much to Google while the search ad dollars are still rolling in, it could really end up undermining their competitiveness over the long term. Not only are they losing talent they really could leverage today, they are seeding it to an incredible number of small, innovative companies that could end up competing with them in the future. Web search is still in its infancy, and the web is littered with the remains of once dominant search providers. Google isn’t immune to this, and needs to be careful.

Don’t get me wrong – I use many Google services on a daily basic and I depend on them for a great deal of what I need to do online. They are an extraordinarily innovative company. That said, I don’t have the same passion for Google’s services that I have for Apple’s products. There is a pleasure I get every time I open my Macbook or touch the screen of my iPhone that transcends the basic utility the devices provide. There are very few things in life that are able to deliver that type of experience, and none of them spring from the efforts of a collective. It takes the vision, talent, and desire of individuals to produce a result like that. That is the feeling I hope I’ll get one day from doing a search on Google.

But they still have a long way to go.

This isn’t to say the the next new product from Apple couldn’t be a complete market failure, or that an update to Google couldn’t completely redefine our expectations of web search. Either of those outcomes are possible. And while both Google and Apple are in exceptionally strong market positions today, that shouldn’t be much comfort for either of them going forward. Change is the one constant in the tech world that no one, no matter how big, can avoid. And change can be unforgiving.

After a decade of dominance in the 1990′s, Microsoft struggled to maintain relevance in the evolving internet landscape. Their size, diversity, and lack of clear focus made them slow to react and adapt. They instead tried to use their dominant position to preserve the status-quo that tilted in their favor. When they could no longer do that, the wave of competition that followed upended the entire market, even placing into question the fundamental value proposition Microsoft built their business around. Despite the strength of their significant product franchises like Windows and Office, Microsoft now finds itself in the position of playing catch up in as market that won’t cut them any slack.

The challenge for Google is to avoid a similar fate.

Happy New Year, everyone!

I know 2009 was a tough year for many of us, but I am optimistic that 2010 will have many good things in store for us as the year plays out.

When it comes to the digital world, I believe that 2010 could actually end up being an exceptional year. In this post, I though it would be interesting to discuss some of the key technologies that I believe will make this new year so exciting. With so many things to choose from, I’ve decided to limit myself to just three picks in four areas: Trends, Media, Software, and Gadgets.

Here it goes…

In Trends:

1. Pervasive MetaData Usage:
   In a digital world, context is key. It is at the heart of how we navigate, search, share and shop. Effective use of context is based on having quality metadata associated with everything we touch digitally. I see the use of metadata accelerating in 2010. TV and Radio will begin adding move of it programming to link you to a range of purchase opportunities based on what they are broadcasting. Search engines will follow the Bing example and create a metadata rich experience around results they display. Geo-tagging will grow in popularity, and GSP will become the driver behind some early ‘augmented reality’ efforts. Metadata will become the fabric that connects everything.
2. Broad HTML 5 Adoption:
   As tech standards go, HTML 5 is a massive game changer. Services written to the HTML 5 spec can interact with users in pretty much the same way desktop applications do. And they can do it without requiring the common proprietary plug-ins like Adobe’s Flash that rich sites depend on today. Adherence to HTML 5 will also open up the mobile application space to many more players, and might even blunt a bit of Apple’s ‘App Store’ momentum. I expect all of the major browsers to support HTML 5 before the end of 2010.
3. Corporations Finally “Get” Mobile Computing:
   What makes applications on the iPhone so appealing is that they are NOT designed like traditional computer applications crammed on to a small screen. They respect what is inherently unique about mobile computing, and leverage the more organic interface elements of the device to deliver compelling solutions. Despite it’s massive consumer success, it wasn’t until the release of iPhone OS 3 that the Apple iPhone has became a mainstream corporate solution. But now that the iPhone has become a corporate staple, I expect that demand for delivery of corporate services with a truly mobile character will grow. With that pressure increasingly coming from the C-Suite – where the iPhone has been embraced – the mobile corporate computing experience will finally start to change. 2010 may be the year.

In Media:

1. Hulu Becomes Available On Hardware Devices:
   Hulu is the go to site on the web for access to television shows and other professionally produced media. As they start to figure out ways to monetize their service, I expect that Hulu will introduce some subscription based model that will move the viewing exp[erience from being exclusively on their site over to set top boxes and possibly even onto portable devices like the iPhone. This would be the next logical step in directly connecting media producers with media consumers, and the first serious threat to the cable monoplies in the US. Bring it on – I’d love to see it.
2. eBooks/ePublishing Goes Mainstream:
   I am a big fan of eBook readers, and have been for about a decade. After being a little ‘geek niche’ for so long, it seems that the eBook industry is finally starting to reach critical mass. Amazon’s Kindle was one of the hottest gifts this holiday season. Barnes & Noble’s Nook is expected to start shipping in volume by the end of this month, and Hearst corporation’s Skiff – a large format eReader designed expressly for magazines and newspapers, is expected to ship by next quarter. Publishers – though wary – are starting to open up and make more of their titles available for digital download. With the right combination of device, content , and pricing, eBooks could take off in a big way in 2010.
3. Cable Moves Toward `A la carte’ Pricing:
   With traditional media producers struggling to grow revenue, many have begun looking for ways to pry more money out of their distribution agreements with the cable monoplies. Time Warner just resolved a dispute with FOX over money, and Cablevision is still locked in a struggle with Scripps Networks over pricing for the Food Network and HGTV channels. I only expect this situation to get worse over time as the dollars from traditional advertising models decline. Given the consumer anger these types of high profile squabbles generate, I expect the FCC to make a play to force the unbundling of cable packages and give consumers a more direct say in the programming they receive. While probably not taking the form of a complete a la carte mandate, I do see a shift in that direction happening. With a growing populist sentiment pervading Washington, and difficult mid-term elections coming up in November, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this play out sometime mid-year.

In Software:

1. Google Chrome OS:
   Chrome OS is the first true internet based operating system targeted at mainstream users. It will offer a fresh rethinking of the way we use applications, tightly integrating cloud storage, social networking, and an ‘app store’ framework into the foundation of the OS experience. While I don’t see it as posing a near term threat to Microsoft’s dominant OS position, I do thing it will redefine expectations of an OS environment, and put downward pricing pressure on Windows bundles. We should have something real to use late in 2010, which is exciting, and it could end up becoming a big seller on netbooks during the next holiday season. That said, we probably wont see a major market impact from Chrome OS until sometime in 2011.
2. Microsoft Office 2010:
   By delivering a version of their industry standard office suite on the web with Office 2010, Microsoft will be positioning it as their ‘game on’ platform for dominance in web based services. More specifically, Microsoft is directly challenging Google with their online office suite, and I expect this will end up becoming a seminal point in the future delivery of software. However it all plays out between the two tech giants, it will absolutely validate the cloud services model for consumers, and could accelerate the move by corporations away from supporting roll-outs of complex packaged applications. It may also reshape the hardware industry, shifting focus away form higher performance over to more instant-on capabilities – something Microsoft isn’t well positioned for. There is a lot at stake here, and it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
3. Windows Mobile 7:
   I have been pretty rough on the Windows Mobile platform in the past, and their latest 6.5 ‘interim’ release has done little to change my opinion of it. That said, Microsoft is very well aware that they are on the ropes with their mobile platform, and that they will need to release something pretty significant to get them back in the game. If Microsoft wants to be a player in the fast growing mobile computing space, Mobile 7 is probably going to be their last, best shot at it. I expect this new release to be a significant update (and departure) from their current mobile architecture and interface, and am guessing they won’t release something unless they really believe it can reestablish their mobile street cred. They came back from Vista with Windows 7, and I’m anticipating something similar to happen here. If the rumored release date is to be believed, we should find out sometime in April.

In Gadgets:

1. XBox 360′s Project Natal:
   Project Natal is Microsoft’s bid to out-Wii the Nintendo Wii. It places a camera on top of the XBox 360 console display that is able to do a basic form of motion tracking on a player’s movements. For many kinds of games, this tracking can completely replace controllers with physical movements, creating emersive gaming at a level not possible with the Wii. Turn your head and the displayed image turns with it. Make an on screen avatar mirror your body movements exactly – jump, crouch, kick, punch, etc – the same way a player does. While I am not sure just how capable the first release of Natal will end up being – especially if it is sold as an add on to the existing XBox 360 console – this approach will absolutely define the way future generation consoles and games will be designed.
2. Next Gen Apple TV:
   It’s time for Apple to get out of hobby mode with Apple TV. I am hoping that the Apple TV will finally move beyond it’s current, limited media model to become a more open Web/IP-based settop box. Apple could begin offering streaming content on-demand with both a free and subscription model. Despite their areas of competition, Apple and Google could come together to deliver premium content being released through YouTube. Apple could even become a excellent partner for Hulu, allowing people to view recent programming for some basic subscription price, then linking it to paid downloads people could own and archive. Another thing I would really like to see is for applications – especially games – to come to the Apple TV. Integrate the App Store into iTunes and become a wildcard player in the console space. An iPhone or Touch could sync up with it and turn itself into an incredible gaming controller. There is so much potential here on so many fronts. This may be more wishful thinking than anything else, but my gut tells me 2010 will see the release of the next generation – both hardware and software – of the Apple TV. I sure hope so.
3. An Apple Tablet (Finally!):
   What can I say that hasn’t already been said about an Apple Tablet. Even though I have owned several very disappointing Windows Tablet PCs, I really do believe in power of the slate form factor for so many computing tasks. Apple has already validated both this concept and the technology behind it with their iPhone/Touch. It just needs to be packaged right for a larger device design. This is an area where Apple usually shines, and I am expecting their new iSlate – or whatever it ends up being called – to be groundbreaking. Hopefully the wait will end later this month. I’d be surprised if I don’t end up wanting one after I see it. Better start saving now.

I’m sure I have some things here that would never have made your own lists while omitting things you feel are more deserving. Make your voice heard in the comments section and let me know.

—-<>—-

I couldn’t end my first post of the New Year without thanking all of you for sharing this blog with me over the past year. I really appreciate all of the feedback and discussion we’ve had, and welcome your suggestions for making this new year even better.

Peace. Happiness. Prosperity.

While Intel has been pouring money and effort into increasing the number of processing cores they can pack on a single chip, they may simply be offering too little, too late. The software industry has already begun to take advantage of other more specialized processors found in today’s computers, and the results are pretty impressive.

Most current desktop computers (and some higher end laptops) have graphics cards that contain multi-core, high speed processors. Software being developed today, especially games and media editing/creation tools, leverage these specialized processors to boost their computational performance. Hard core gamers have even begun adding “physics simulation” processors to help speed-up frame rates and improve the visual realism of 3D environments like those found in First Person Shooters (FPS’s)

These specialized processors allow for a more natural simulation of water movement, light refraction and diffusion, shadow casting and other “natural world” phenomena to make games more believable and immersive. Quality rendering of these types of elements using just traditional multi-core processors would be prohibitively expensive at this point in time, though Moore’s Law will help with that over time.

Another useful type of special purpose processor are those that you can just plug in when you need them. Since I end up doing a lot of video work, my personal favorite “outboard processor” has become the El Gato Turbo.264 HD.

This processor does one thing exceptionally well. It accelerates the rendering of H.264 video all the way up to HD resolutions. Since H.264 is the native resolution for video on the iPhone and Apple TV, rendering any videos I produce into this format is almost de rigueur. It has reduced rendering times for me by over 60%, and has allowed me to allocate more time to actual editing.

While traditional multi-core processors are critical for efficiently running the kinds of high end, multi-threaded applications found in corporate environments, they don’t add anywhere near the same value to typical consumer focused computing applications. Intel isn’t blind to this, but has decided (after their own failed attempt at developing a graphics processor) to focus on ramping up the number of cores they can deliver on a chip (expect 8-16 core before the end of 2010). The main folks developing specialized graphics processors – NVidia and AMD/ATI – are not resting on their laurels either, and will continue progressing both the clock speed and number of processing pipelines they make available on their solutions. It’s too early to predict winners in this space, but the benefit to consumers from either approach should be significant.

It will be interesting to see which one will ultimately prevail.

The marriage between TechCrunch and Fusion Garage was supposed to bring us an exciting new internet tablet called the CrunchPad. When that relationship fell apart and Fusion Garage co-opted the project (not sure which came first) they simply rebranded the device and have come to market alone with what they are now calling the Joo Joo. Here is a quick demo of it:

From what I can see in this video, the Joo Joo appears to be a well thought out browsing device with sleek lines and a nice looking touch screen. At a suggested price of $499, however, it does seem a bit pricey for what is essentially a “browser in a box”. No clue on battery life either. I believe a device like this – with this larger form factor – needs to offer a “full day” untethered from power. Without significant battery life, it would be hard to justify carrying something this size around with you. That said, it is exciting to finally see a touch screen based tablet come to market, and I would love to see it find it’s niche.

Seeing the Joo Joo, I can only imaging what a tablet device from Apple would offer. I know I’m not alone in thinking this.

Hopefully we’ll have some real competition in this space by early next year.

I need to start off with an apology. It’s been over two weeks since my last post, and that’s a long time for me. Unfortunately, I have simply been overwhelmed with things to do this month, and spare time has been hard to come by.

Perhaps the biggest demand on my “free” time has been selling my current house and buying a new one. It’s amazing how many things need to get done as a part of this whole process. And having as much technology in my house as I do, there is a side of this that feels a bit like a data center relocation as well. Wiring, telecoms, automation and control systems all needed to be planned out in the new house. Not only that, but I’ve actually had to start documenting how everything works in the current house for whoever ends up buying it. I’ve been told more than once that my house isn’t exactly ‘plug & play’ by most folks standards.

While this move will give me a chance to update my current technology and streamline some of my infrastructure, there is one piece of tech that I will need to leave behind in this move that I will sorely miss – my home media center:

From accessing the internet, to streaming media files stored on servers around my house, to big screen gaming – and even traditional uses like TV and Bluray viewing – this has been the media and entertainment hub of my house for the past 5 years.

The design goal in building this media center was to allow individual technology components to be updated as needed while keeping the basic frame of the system untouched. Everything is built around a rear facing projector/mirror system housed in a “black room” I had built behind the screen. The screen itself (93″ diagonal) is made by Stewart Filmscreen out of optical glass with a high gain coating on it. I’ve already done one major technology refresh in a move from 720p to 1080p without any issues. Even the audio setup – currently wired for 7.1 surround – could easily be extended for the new 9.1 surround systems just coming out on the market. The glass in the doors on the two lighted display cases can easily be replaced with speaker grill panels, and simple wire pulls can be made to the new receiver. A lot of thought went in to future-proofing this set-up.

It will be tough leaving this one behind.

That said, I am really jazzed about making this move. As I start to get things set up in our new home, I’ll post about some of the new technology choices I finally make, and how I end up configuring everything there. I’m excited thinking about the possibilities.

As for my postings through the end of this year, I will do my best to be more timely.

Thanks!

It’s a fact that most newspapers are dealing with significant declines in traditional readership. The internet has become ubiquitous, and people have fully embraced using free online sources for keeping up with the news.

Most news organizations viewed this shift over to the net as a real opportunity, and began to make their content available online. Unfortunately, the projected ad revenue they had hoped would come from this move never materialized, and they were unable to offset the declines that happened in their traditional revenue sources as a result. They now find themselves left with declining interest in their traditional, revenue producing marketplace, strong growth in online ventures that they have been unable to monetize effectively, and a balance sheet that is bleeding red ink. These organizations are now growing restive, and calls have been coming from within the industry for publishers to begin charging for online content. Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and CEO of News Corp, seems to have become the voice of this effort:

“The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites.”

I believe that moving to a pure “for fee” model with online content simply wont work for most news organizations. It ignores some fundamental changes that have taken place in the market. The uncomfortable truth is that the industry wont succeed by looking backwards for business inspiration. The news world has changed.

There was a song written by Joe Young and Sam M. Lewis after the first world war called How Ya Gonna Keep ’Em Down on the Farm (After They’ve Seen Paree). It was basically a lament that after experiencing a more cosmopolitan world, it would be hard for the young men that fought over in Europe to come back home and be content in their former, simpler lives. And though this song is nearly a century old, it applies equally well to the dilemma the newspaper industry finds itself in.

The traditional news consumption model involved buying a newspaper with everything packaged inside, and then reading through it in whatever order and depth appealed to you. It was a closed but comfortable view of the world around you. To draw the analogy, that newspaper was The Farm. In contrast, the internet is the Paree of information. Everything you could want is there. Every topic. Every perspective. Every form of media.

The real challenge facing the news industry isn’t that people don’t want to pay for a paper like the New York Time because they can get it for free on the internet. If that were the case, charging for it online would make complete sense. The challenge they have is that people don’t want to pay for just the New York Times because they can get EVERYTHING online for free.

And while the “free” part is great, it’s the “everything” part that’s essential.

The fact is, we just don’t go to a single site to read the news. We graze for news across the entire internet, following links and references as we go. We share articles with each other via IM’s, tweets and blogs, and constantly discover new sources that way. News consumption has moved from being linear and static into being both interactive and social. We depend on having a constant connection to an almost endless flow of information. This is something no one is willing to give up.

That said, having access to news does have real value, and I believe people would be willing to pay something for it. What has changed is that people are far less willing to pay for specific sources of news anymore. While some publications may be able to charge for their content uniquely, the industry as a whole will die if it tries to go that route. People are no longer satisfied with limiting what they read to just a few publishers.

They’ve been to Paree and are not going back to the farm.

One way to address this challenge would be for the newspaper industry to form a new not-for-profit news cooperative designed around the distribution of news. In many ways this could act as a compliment the Associated Press – the industry cooperative formed to help share the high cost of gathering news. This new cooperative could act as the clearing house for all news articles published by it’s member firms. It could charge a single subscription fee for access to all of the content it cleared, and pay it’s members a percentage of those fees based on some formula linked to the popularity of their specific content. This could at least provide a business framework the industry could build on. Getting a viable commercial model in place is critical, and this could be a big help.

But it will do nothing to address the news industry’s other big problem – massive oversupply.

Historically, newspapers were local affairs. They usually served the town or a city they were founded in and didn’t get much further than that. These papers covered everything from world and national affairs to regional and local events. Since distributing newspapers was a physical affair with real costs and logistics, these organizations ended up becoming localized monopolies of a kind. They serviced a captive audience of both advertisers and readers, and were very profitable endeavors.

With the shift to online news, however, all of the distribution constraints went away. The internet is global and everyone can reach everywhere. Reporters that covered national news for their local audience are now competing with hundreds or even thousands of other news sources with nearly identical coverage. This radically changed the economics of the business.

The market simply can’t support the number of news sources that exist today, and some significant changes will need to happen. Many news organizations will need to scale back and just produce something that is uniquely local or otherwise differentiated. Many more will simply need to fold their tents and close. The rightsizing of news supply will be a very painful transition for the industry, but there is simply no way of avoiding it.

Overall, the status-quo in the news industry is unsustainable, and the traditional industry business model is on the fast track to extinction. As that plays out, I believe we’ll see a very different news provider community start to emerge that is far more in tune with the web – leaner, better integrated, more collaborative, and hopefully much more profitable.

But to get there, the industry needs to stop clinging wistfully to its past.