Should Comcast Buy Tivo

Since I felt it necessary to tell Apple what to buy with its money, I feel compelled to do the same with other companies. No attaching article, just my own thoughts to best serve my needs. And so my first recommendation is for Comcast to buy Tivo. If you don't mind proactively recording future shows, then the DVR is your friend. Having used both the Tivo and DVR, I wish that Comcast would buy them so as to quickly integrate them into their DVR service. Sure Comcast has a deal with Tivo, but do they market it, no. A Tivo DVR should be standard on every Comcast DVR box. And it might make it a lot easier for Tivo to get traction with other cable operators as well.

Okay, so Comcast has a lot on their plate, still arguing with the DOJ about their NBC merger. So if not Comcast, then Cisco should step up. They bought Scientific Atlanta, the company that makes the DVR boxes, they should buy Tivo and thus make their DVR superior. Why am I obsessed with upgrading the cable DVR experience? Because when you have driven a better car, it is hard to go back to the old clunker.

Okay, one more acquisition idea. Ultimately, I want Apple to have a second distribution platform and Sirius could be the company that also supports their cloud based approach. Add to that the content that Sirius produces, and Apple gets the one two punch with an acquisition of both content and distribution. Far-fetched or brilliant, it may initially seem like an odd couple but it could just be the next spark for what you want, when you want, where you want, how you want. As long as Steve Jobs and Howard Stern get along.

How Should Apple Spend It's Money

Record profits and earnings, Apple has more money, over 76 billion dollars, in the bank, than even our own government. So what should Apple and Steve Jobs do with it besides hide it in the mattress.

There has been some speculation that Apple should release a dividend or buy back it's stock, pleasing to shareholders, but not a long term strategy for growth. Others want Apple to purchase another company, and the latest talk is Hulu. Where Apple has had a purchase strategy through its iTunes' store, Hulu has delivered a rental and subscription strategy. But it's owners, a consortium of programmers, may have deals in place with Hulu that may not be ideal in the long term. I don't believe that Hulu and Apple would be a great fit.

So let me throw out other possible acquisitions for Apple that would excite me more. Apple needs a streaming rental play; Netflix is pushing hard in that space. With Amazon and You Tube on its heels, Netflix could use a strategic partner in Apple and Apple could easily integrate the Netflix model into it's products and software stores. It would also enable a better fit to the Apple TV device pushing rental content as well as purchased content into the TV. And as content drives use of iPads and iPhones, Netflix brings Apple more content and another streaming platform.

Another idea for Apple is Barnes and Noble. While Liberty Media may be making a run, Apple could benefit again with another content play. E-books are growing, a Nook powered by Apple, gives it additional credibility and broadens Apple's product line, and the digital print platform fits nicely with the iTunes library. Add to that the retail locations, which gives Apple even more access across the country.

Lastly, and perhaps a long shot, Apple should buy a company like Lightsquared. To own a wireless platform to enable broadband access across the country means that Apple could have more control of its content delivery directly into the hands of the consumer. At the same time, it puts them into a stronger competitive position against the cable operators, and lead to even faster cord cutting. The challenge for such an acquisition is that it would also put them against the telcos as well, who currently sell 3G and 4G distribution for their products.

Now I wouldn't mind if Apple sent me a check for a 100G, but that is not going to happen. Still with so much cash on its hands, and a shareholder desire for Apple to keep growing, Apple must either be spending more on R&D or looking for an acquisition to build out better synergies. It is unlikely that Apple will simply issue a cash dividend or stock buyback. It is their nature to innovate and grow. With that in mind, a content or distribution play is the likely next step.

How Do You Like To Watch?

Get your minds out of the gutter, it is an innocent question asked about how viewers like to watch their video content. With cable operators reporting drops in cable subscription, online consumption has only been growing. And there not watching just on their PC. "Video game consoles have a lot to do with the discrepancy: Half of all Netflix users connect to its streaming service through their Nintendo Wii, Sony PlayStation 3 or Microsoft Xbox consoles, according to the survey. ... The findings highlight the strong appeal of TV sets for streaming digital video, connected through myriad Internet-enabled devices. Other methods of connecting include Blu-Ray players, TVs with Internet access and Roku boxes."

We like our big TVs, we just don't need a cable box to receive video programming. And with internet connected devices, we can watch what we want, when we want, where we want, what we want. With Wal-Mart, Amazon, and others pushing streaming content, demand for it should only increase. I only expect that future research studies will show a larger percentage of viewing will be watched through streaming devices. It also speaks well for the future of Apple TV, as a device that easily transmits content into the TV. We watch our content at our convenience where it makes most sense at the time. So how do you prefer to watch streaming media content?

Wal-Mart Trying Hard To Compete With Netflix, Apple And Others

Big box stores like Wal-Mart are recognizing that they need to have a strong digital business to survive and compete. And a dot com strategy must be more thaan simply selling its in-store merchandise online. It is why Wal-Mart continues to push a streaming media video play. "A cloud-based video movie service, Vudu lets customers rent or buy movies over the Internet and stream them to their TVs, Blu-ray players and a variety of Vudu-enabled devices such as Sony's (SNE) PlayStation 3 and HDTVs from LG Electronics, Sharp and Panasonic (PC)." Vudu was bought by Wal-Mart last year and is being rolled out next week.

Wal-Mart hopes that it is not too late to the game, with Apple, Netflix, Amazon, and others also in this space. "Unlike competing services such as Netflix, the Vudu platform on Walmart.com does not offer any subscription service, and the retailer said it does not currently plan to offer such a service." A one off strategy may not be enough to work as companies are looking hard at subscription strategies as a means to better forecast and achieve higher revenues. And Wal-Mart may need to add music and other digital deliverables to its mix as demand for these other downloads grow as well.

Like the early days of cable, when there were many operators, the streaming media business will quick enough find that it needs to consolidate with others to control and own the platform. Perhaps Wal-Mart needs a partner like Barnes and Noble to add a digital book component to its mix. Or perhaps it could align with Apple to mutually support their new cloud approach. At the end of the day, many platforms for distribution streaming will merge into few and the leaders will be the ones to pursue consolidation and growth strategies.

More Reasons Apples New App In-Purchase Policy May Hurt Them

Check out this article in Wired Magazine. Apple is only opening the doors to other means to not use an Apple app.

"No Soup (I mean No Book) For You"

If your used to buying your e-books off your iPad, the process has gotten trickier. But if you are a Nook or Kindle owner, purchasing new books off your devices, but sometime reading them on your iPad or iPhone, there should be nothing to worry about. It's just that Apple doesn't want to enable purchase behavior without getting a piece of the pie. And at a 30% piece, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and others have decided to remove the purchase feature from their respective apps. So if you were previously buying through the app, the process has gotten a bit more cumbersome, as you have to go into the website; if your buying off your e-reader, you just won't notice.

Does Apple have a point? Well it is their store and there is a cost for the convenience. They are the Wallmart of App Stores with little competition at the moment. At the same time, a 30% piece of the sale may also sound awfully high, especially for simply being a pass through. How will consumers react? If they find a comfort level by going through the website, it may also enable individual content producers to recognize an opportunity to create a unique value proposition by going direct to the web. And should more and more content companies find value in marketing directly to the consumer, and consumers find satisfaction from this approach, Apple may have initiated a big sea change, all for a 30% short term margin. It is these strategic decisions that make Apple and other companies constantly re-evaluate their processes so as to understand consumers changing purchase behavior. Hopefully Apple is paying close attention to the repercussions of this app strategy.

Has Bing Gone Bong?

Google's cornerstone revenue stream comes from search. For Microsoft, it remains their operating system. And their expansion into a competitive search engine to rival Google was designed to diversify and grow profitability. Alas, no such luck. "The division that houses Bing lost $2.6 billion in the latest fiscal year." That doesn't sound like a distraction; rather, a full on problem! Does Google simply have the upper hand, does the consumer not want choice of search engines, or does Microsoft simply not have the marketing juice to overtake an incumbent?

Could Bing be more successful in the hands of another company, one that can better utilize the value from a search engine. "Moreover, there are potential buyers. Facebook already works with Bing. It might be interested in buying the site, keeping more traffic onsite, and perhaps using its data to better tweak search results. That would be a potent weapon in its fight with Google, which recently introduced a rival social network, Google+. Apple might even be interested, given its growing online ambitions, evidenced by its consideration of a bid for Hulu."

Truthfully, no incumbent is ever safe; change is rampant, especially in the technology industry, and today's winner is tomorrow's failure. As consumers, we will change search engines, just like we change ISP and cable providers, video platforms, and other businesses, when the buzz and value gets noticed by the consumer and sways us to change behavior. It is why Google must continue to innovate, why it must add new products and services, and why it must take risks.

Microsoft has had amazing success with it's operating system and with XBox. But it has had many failures too. Bing may not have had a chance in the Microsoft culture. It may be a better fit with Facebook or Apple or Yahoo. It may be hard for Microsoft to concentrate on Bing when it's core business is being hurt by tablets and cloud applications. With Apple owning the mobile and tablet space, and netbooks not requiring a Microsoft operating system to function, computing is slowly moving away from Microsoft. For that reason, Bing has become an expensive distraction for Microsoft in maintaining their PC leadership position.

New York Times - Short Term Pain, Long Term Gain

The printed piece is having a hard time, as is all physical media. The technological revolution that has transformed information, both video and audio, from disk and paper to bits and bytes, is only changing faster. Data is no longer simply delivered, but shared in the cloud, available wherever, whenever, and however you want. For companies whose fortunes have been in physical media, their future lies in digital media. But there is a cost to the ROI and if you don't pay, your company will die.

Netflix is transforming, Blockbuster didn't. Barnes & Noble is transforming, Borders didn't. And newspapers and magazines are transforming, some faster than others. For The New York Times, it means a growth in digital subscribers as print subscription declines. "For those tracking the success of the NYTimes.com (NYSE: NYT) meter that started ticking in March, the New York Times says it ended the second quarter with more than 1 million digital subscribers." A quarter million are digital only customers, a number that will surely increase as tablets and e-readers continue to gain momentum.

And with that shift comes lower operating costs, both in the printing and distribution, and higher margins. For consumers, faster access, as well as more timely, able to refresh and add new content to meet the demand for breaking news. Consumers are getting more comfortable accessing newspaper and magazine articles off digital devices. Subscription models still need to be tweaked to provide flexibility for purchase options with a value proposition marketing message. In the early days of print, you got a cool phone with your Sports Illustrated subscription, today it could be access to other digital products - a month of MLB.com, a month of Sirius.com, or a free movie download. A little incentive marketing can go along way.

For The New York Times, the short term pain will only result in future profitability. These steps into the digital world are necessary if publications like these want to survive and compete. Stay focused and innovative, NYT, digital is here to stay and you are heading in the right direction.

Should Yahoo Buy Hulu?

A simple question in a quickly changing digital landscape. Is Hulu a good asset to purchase and if so, should Yahoo buy it. "Bloomberg published a report yesterday that suggested Hulu's owners are only willing to offer Hulu's new owner five years of access, but only two years of exclusivity. 'If [Hulu's content creating owners] came out and said, we've renewed [Hulu's exclusive rights] for four years at the same terms we have today – it's really easy to model [a valuation between] $1 billion and $2 billion – maybe more,' says this source. Without four or five years of exclusive streaming rights to TV shows and movies, Hulu is 'not worth anything.'"

While I agree with the Bloomberg statement, I'm not entirely convinced that even a five year rights deal is enough to make this a good investment opportunity. The current landscape has cable operators pushing these same content owners and others for rights to their linear and on demand programming outside the cable box, on smartphones and tablets, outside the home. Apple, Amazon, Netflix and others are negotiating licensed deals as well. Hulu gets no special treatment once the current content owners sell off. And in 5 years time, content owners could begin to sell their programming directly to consumers.

Finally, I don't believe there is enough program exclusivity to differentiate distribution, the only exceptions being sports and live programming. Want an example, look at DirecTV offering Damages exclusively this year, Friday Night Lights last year. While the programming is great, I doubt it is enough to cause a consumer to switch their distribution provider.

In 5 years, cable operators will get online distribution rights from the networks. Their marketing pitch will be "TV Everywhere" and consumers will be drawn to one distributor giving them access to viewing, wherever and whenever they want. For those seeking other movies and TV shows not available from these programmers, they will access via rental or purchase from Netflix, Redbox, Apple, Amazon, and others. Hulu's play only works because of its programmer partners; without them, Hulu may not have the long term value to compete in this crowded marketplace.

Interactive Better Served With Mobile - The Convergence of TV and Web

Are you watching TV when an ad shows up and on top of the ad is a box inviting you to hit ok to receive more info on the ad? Are they intrusive or helpful? Have you reached for your remote to press the ok button? Or simply ignored?

Perhaps you prefer to interact with your TV on a different device. Through an audio signature, an app on your smartphone or tablet will connect you to the appropriate site. "It then serves up links, coupons or music downloads corresponding to what it hears on the tube through smartphone microphones." Intrusive or helpful? It seems in an app world, unless you proactively open your app, you are immune to these messages. It is your call to receive these signals. In the case where pop up boxes simply appear on your TV screen, they are not as easy to eliminate.

An innovate use of mobile ad interaction comes from Shazam. "One of the earliest users is Old Navy. The retailer's chief marketing officer, Amy Curtis-McIntyre, talked about the company's Shazam ads at Ad Age's Digital Conference this past spring. When consumers used the app to identify any of the songs heard in Old Navy spots, styling tips, deals and key looks featured in the commercial popped up." An intriguing way to interact with a brand.

For networks, working to make their programming more highly involved, interactivity can work on many levels. It can lead to more loyalty with a program, it focuses the attention span to the programming, and ultimately the ads that run with it, and it better measures who is watching. "With listening technology that loosely mimics Shazam's, ABC launched apps to serve ancillary trivia in step with the now defunct TV show "My Generation" last fall and, more recently, "Grey's Anatomy," thanks to Nielsen Media Sync technology."

This relationship of multiple devices synced together is the future of interactivity on television, not intrusive pop up ads on the TV screen. TV programming and TV advertising can actually improve thanks to the rise of mobile devices in the home. As viewers get more comfortable engaging with programming through their iPads, iPhones, and other devices, improved measurement will occur and ad revenues will rise. Internet and TV working better together.

The Barnes And Noble Makeover

Netflix moved from hard goods to soft, and Borders didn't. Netflix is growing and Borders is bankrupt. So it is now Barnes and Noble's turn to decide where it's future lies. "As reading moves ever faster from hardcovers and paperbacks to electronic gadgets, the retailer is attempting to reinvent itself as a seller of book downloads, reading devices and apps." The loss of Borders can potentially help B&N in the short run to improve it's store sales while focusing on it's next generation of products. Perhaps it is time to take notice too of the Apple Store model to help reconfigure stores to a software industry.

"Today's Barnes & Noble depends on its bookstores to introduce customers to its Nook e-readers, but its growth and future profits hinge on outfoxing and outselling deep-pocketed rivals Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc. and Google Inc. on the digital-books front." And it is B&N stores that can help in that differentiation. It may require a merger with a different type of retailer, it will require a keen focus on service, and other differentiation strategies to make book lovers more loyal to the B&N model then to Amazon and others.

Like Apple stores, the B&N store is a place to gather, a place to test products, and a place to mingle with like minded customers. But once a customer buys their Nook, they need reasons to return to the store. Whether merchandising or service, adding this push and perhaps even bringing your Nook with you to the store can lead to more selling opportunities. I watch as my son brings his Nintendo DSi to Game Stops to download free characters, to look at new games and to ultimately shop. Perhaps B&N should consider an expansion into gaming as another means to bring customers into their stores. With B&N stores so large in size, they will need other merchandise to sell. Digital books don't require any space and their will be less of a need to stock large volumes of hardbound books. If not a reallocation of space, then stores may need to get physically smaller.

The loss of Borders is an opportunity for B&N to grow. There is a new generation of readers out there getting more and more comfortable with digital over physical books. B&N has taken the right direction with their Nook; their innovation needs to continue to maintain their leadership position.

Another Brick & Mortar To Bite The Dust

Big box stores are having tough times. We have seen the close of many retail chains including Circuit City, Linens'n Things, Office Depot, and now Borders Book Stores. "Borders’ defeat marks the beginning of a new era, where online book sales and digital downloads for e-readers dominate the market." But is technological change the only reason for their demise? While these "stores" have closed, their competitors continue to do business. Best Buy, Bed Bath & Beyond, Staples, and Barnes & Noble are still here.

All businesses must adapt to changing conditions, both internal and external forces. Technological change did not only affect big box stores. AOL has suffered because they too couldn't adapt to changing conditions. Borders could have survived if they had recognized early enough that their business was changing. Barnes & Noble took that chance, by building an e-reader, the Nook,and learning to compete in the online space. There next challenge is how to better integrate online and big box into a successful business strategy. Different merchandising, in-store deals with Nook owners, etc.

The future of big box, brick and mortar stores should not be at risk, but they need to integrate online and offline shopping with better marketing. And perhaps too, a level playing field might be helpful, where goods are subject to tax, even when purchased online. That seems a battle that Amazon and others will eventually lose. Consumers like to shop both at stores and on their computers, they like value, and they like service. Successful retailers will figure out how to adapt and integrate for a better online and offline shopping experience.

Will The Rupert Murdoch Empire Crumble

Certainly the media world is all over the hacking charges, the closure of News Of The World, the resignations of top officials, and now the resignation inside Scotland Yard. So one has to question, can we say with "certitude" that this has reached the pinnacle or will more bad news follow.

If it is uncovered that hacking of phones also occurred in the USA, which won't be surprising, then the answer is obviously no. But what does it mean for the Murdoch empire? With NOTW out of business, will other Murdoch properties also get undone. Are the future of The Wall Street Journal and Fox News (and News Corporation) also in the cross hairs?

"Founder Rupert Murdoch, 80, has long expressed a wish to hand his publicly traded News Corp. to his offspring, and he retains the voting power to make key decisions. But shareholders and board members are said to be troubled by revelations of wrongdoing on Murdoch's watch, and feel the U.S.-based company needs fresh leadership." How much change will happen and how quickly? Will it be simply a management change or something far worse? Not that they will close, but will Murdoch be forced to sell off his empire in order to survive? The empire is in disarray and that could open them up to an uprising or an attack from another land. John Malone and Liberty Media, are you dressing for war?

TV Everywhere Gaining Traction With Cable Operators

First it was about live streaming of TV networks inside the home, on untethered devices. With it came contract breakdowns, lawsuits, and limitations. But some networks found a value added opportunity. HBO built an app, HBO Go that when authenticated by your cable operator, enabled viewers to watch HBO movies, series, and specials on demand. And that was a good start.

But viewers want their TV anywhere and everywhere. The challenge to watch a live broadcast outside the home concerned programmers because they can't measure viewership. "Others are concerned that new devices, such as tablet computers, aren't included in Nielsen Co.'s TV ratings, which are used to set advertising rates. Some channels also lack Web rights to some of their programming." And some programmers are trying to renegotiate their license fees with operators for additional rights outside the home.

Well the needle keeps moving forward and Turner is taking the plunge with two of its networks, CNN, and Headline News (HN). "It will be available at launch through six pay-TV providers, with a total of about 50 million subscribers, according to SNL Kagan. But it isn't available through Time Warner Cable Inc., the country's No. 2 cable operator by video subscribers." Ironic given that Turner was once part of the Time Warner Cable family before they split into two separate companies, TWC and TWX, last year.

While news networks like CNN control almost their entire content, many other networks' content deals are far different. Their rights or windows may not allow them on demand or streaming. A web stream of their live channel will require networks to go back to all their content deals and renegotiate for those rights as well. So while it may be easy to stream CNN, TNT and TBS may be far tougher networks to offer streaming rights.

Regardless, mobile viewing and out of home access will be the next push by cable operators to retain and grow their cable subscription base. Live TV streaming to authenticated cable subscribers is a great first step in a changing entertainment landscape.

Lower Cost Tablets Should Spell More Customers

In the age of competition, there are two classic marketing approaches - product differentiation and lowest cost. Each work and the consumer is left to decide the price/value proposition. Apple has led the revolution with a highly differentiated, higher priced iPad tablet, and competitors are coming out of the woodwork with their versions. From Toshiba, Rim, Samsung, and others have come competitive touch pad products. From Nook and Kindle first came the e-reader tablet and most recently from Nook a color tablet.

So now it is Amazon and Kindle's turn to release it's color, touch pad model. "According to a source who 'works with Amazon,' the company is keeping the tablet’s price low by building it 'with the bare necessities inside' (no built-in camera, limited memory). Another unidentified source, an Amazon executive with close ties to CEO Jeff Bezos, says Bezos decided last year that Amazon’s tablet would compete with the iPad on price—both of the device itself, and of the 3G connectivity." And also too with Barnes and Noble who's color Nook beat Kindle in sales volume in the first quarter of this year.

So an influx of competitors and low cost competition indicates to me that the tablet acceptance by consumers also leads to more need for content. Web access is nice, so too for video access to TV shows and movies, but the tablet size is most ideal for the consumption of newspapers and magazines. Color tablets reflect the look of the glossy publication and the interactivity that can come with the download of each issue enables a more robust and enjoyable reading experience. It also allows editorial to remain relevant, especially as consumers demand grows for updates, moment by moment. Lastly, it is the ideal platform for the convergence of all types of content, print, audio, video, all connected and interactively accessed.

Tablet growth is zooming and if content is indeed king, so too will subscription based programming opportunities. The content can't all be free and while micro-payments are nice, content companies need longer relationships with their customers, ones that works best in a subscription model. Tablets are leaving the plane of early adopters and reaching for mass appeal. Content companies should also be ready.

Netflix Knows What They Are Doing With Price Hike

If you are questioning why Netflix chose to execute a hefty price increase, don't think that this is another New Coke moment. Netflix knows exactly what they are doing and that there were going to be short term repercussions. Some subscribers will drop the service and others will downgrade. But the future for Netflix is not as a mailer of DVDs; no, it is to be a streaming media network. It is why the management structure has also changed to operate these two businesses more independently.

Notice that Netflix quickly announced a new deal with NBC for streaming content. "NBC Universal has renewed its deal with Netflix Inc., ensuring that programs such as "The Office" and "30 Rock" stay available on the popular service as it comes under pressure to pay more for its content and catches flack for a price hike." I suspect more announcements will follow.

And Wall Street seems to think that a price hike, despite a drop in subscribers, will not hurt Netflix. The physical costs of insertion of disks into envelopes and the high mailing costs certainly hurt the profitability; streaming involves far lower operating costs and thus a better margin. And given the consumers appetite for more, more content to view, those savings can help drive additional NBC-like deals. Remember too that Netflix is getting into the original content game as well, using the HBO/Starz/Showtime approach to differentiate itself from other content providers.

Netflix is proving itself a forward thinking company, willing to take short term risks to maintain a leadership position. It is ultimately a growth move to drive more investment and marketing to this mobile, online marketplace. Physical DVDs are past, streaming is the present and future.

Will Netflix Hurt Itself and Slow Down Cord Cutting?

Have you mailed a letter lately? Are you emailing birthday cards instead of mailing them? Do you think $0.44 for a stamp seems like a crime? Well Netflix seems to want to move it's customer base away from mailings as well and to a streaming only model. That was the strategic decision a couple years ago when a streaming strategy was deployed and a change in the pricing model is only a next step in pushing consumers to wholly embrace streaming only. Why else insist on raising monthly membership fees by 60%.

"Netflix shared the news in a blog yesterday, explaining, 'We are separating unlimited DVDs by mail and unlimited streaming into separate plans to better reflect the costs of each.'" In addition, they are separating out the management teams into two silos, ultimately to grow one business while managing the maturity and downfall of the other.

And while there is initial outrage, the younger consumer has been more focused on streaming only anyway. It is their older customer who has been still using mailed DVDs. The Netflix move is to gear itself more toward that next generation consumer. But Netflix must also bolster its library of streamed products to remain competitive. Complaints abound that newer films aren't available for streaming and the library of product still pales against cables' on demand library.

But it is that $8 streaming price point, far cheaper than cable, that still will factor into cable cord cutting. Netflix will grow its library and compete effectively against cable. Customers will complain about the increases; some will downgrade service, others will still pay it. Netflix has a future strategy and it is clear that this move is short term pain for their long term gain.

Apple's Fourth Screen, the HDTV?

Terrific article today in AllthingsD.com on speculation that Apple will manufacture and sell Hi Def TV sets. "At $328 billion, Apple’s market capitalization is the second largest among U.S. companies. How much higher can it go? Plenty — particularly if the company launches that Internet-connected HDTV it’s rumored to be developing." An Apple TV set would stand with the Mac, Ipad and iPhone as a fourth screen for the consumer. The key, as the article notes, is differentiation. Unlike the other devices, an Apple HDTV set would have to manage TV viewing in a whole new way. And it is hard to imagine a big screen set with touchpad technology, so important in the other three devices.

What I would love to see from Apple is more of their Airplay and cloud technology incorporated behind the TV set enabling any TV to easily share content from numerous sources, the mac with iPhoto slide shows or iMovie videos, from the iPhone with recently taken pictures, or from the cloud with iTune theatrical movies and TV shows. Some might call that the essence of the Apple TV. Where Apple excels is the simplicity of connection, the easy of use, and the mobility across devices. Why build a TV set when so many other manufacturers are already selling at many different price points.

The article contends that the lack of cord cutting may make an Apple HDTV a non issue. I believe that more innovation and marketing of the AppleTV, currently available, is the connection Apple needs to own the fourth screen and the home.

Foursquare Adding New Partnerships

In a move that seems to have great appeal but little profit, Foursquare is partnering with Groupon, Living Social, and Gilt to provide daily discounts to costumers who check in at certain stores. "Through these accounts, merchants are able to deliver specials, including discounts and freebies, to users who check in at their locations." For a Foursquare user who "checks in", these surprise savings are sure to please. But as a marketing tool, I question the motive.

Coupons and deals are meant to drive consumers, some not previously planning to shop, to stores to take advantage of a special program. It seems to not make sense for the merchant to provide a savings to a customer already in the store, when other marketing tactics are available to drive purchase behavior, without resorting to discounting. Hopefully there is more to this program than meets the idea.

I could imagine when you open Foursquare you might be instructed to first check out the deals and that might then encourage you to travel to the store to take advantage of the discount. It might prioritize discounts based on location so that the nearer ones are highlighted first. Merchants might pay for better positioning and Foursquare would highlight them first, similar to a Google or Indeed listing. "Foursquare recently passed the 10 million user milestone." And that base could be useful for geographic marketing.

DirecTV's Theatrical Movie VOD Test Not Appealing

Movie houses were in an uproar that their theatrical business was once again being impacted with a shrinking window and a theatrical VOD push. But at a hefty price tag to view a movie at home, consumers seemed to balk. "Initial consumer response has been tepid to an experiment by four studios that signed up with DirecTV to offer movie rentals at home for $30 as little as 60 days after theatrical release, executives from three of those studios acknowledged privately because they were not authorized to speak on the record." Will this test continue, probably. Other price points will be tested and theatrical windows pushed again.

Mostly, I think the issue is timing. Given the bad economy, $30 can be a lot to spend. And when folks need to get away from their troubles, they can spend a little less and get to watch these same films in a better theater experience. And since these titles being tested are available almost everywhere, it is just as easy to travel than watch at home. For smaller, independent titles, that are in limited release, the idea of a theatrical VOD film being made available is much more desirable. When films are only seen in major cities, the rest of the country can only wait. For those kinds of titles, theatrical VOD makes much more sense today.

15 Billion Apple App Downloads and Growing, Step Aside McDonalds

Remember the good ole days when McDonalds would announce on their signs how many burgers were sold and eaten. As the chain grew, so did the numbers till finally the signs simply said, billions and billions sold. Well it seems that may soon have to be the case with Apple. "It has seen 15 billion downloads from 200 million iPad, iPhone, and iPod touch users. In other words, the average iOS user has downloaded 75 apps." And as the number of Apple devises sold only grows, app download number will only grow at a faster and faster rate.

Sure a good number of those apps are free, but their value makes the hardware only more necessary. Lots cost less than a dollar, probably what a McDonalds' hamburger costs today. Add all the songs and videos that this same devices also download, and a healthy little business has been born.

15 billion and growing exponentially until very shortly it will be larger than the population on the earth. And pretty soon it will be Apple that says, "billions and billions served".

Facebook and Skype Together - Do You Even Care?

I have Facebook, I have Skype, I have Facetime on my iPhone. I have an address book for each and if I wanted to, I could combine them. So the announcement of Facebook and Skype easing the communication across their two platforms simply makes me yawn. And I suspect others, too. "After all, Facebook's "awesome" news today was totally one-upped a week earlier by Google Hangouts, a Google+ feature that doesn't just let users video chat, but lets them do it with up to 10 people simultaneously (Facebook's Skype integration is just one-on-one)." No doubt a group party line seems more innovative although reminiscent of the time when operators were required to connect callers and neighbors could eavesdrop on other people's calls.

As to Facebook, sometimes I want to post or read other posts; I don't necessarily want to chat, let alone Skype. But if I am listed as online, it is hard to say that I was away. With the phone, I can simply not pick up and callers can think I am not at home. Is a Facebook-Skype collaboration problematic? No, convergence of apps and communication seems necessary, but with a mobile population and apps that make us look like we are always on, we may simply lose another bit of privacy.

As to the article in PC Magazine, Facebook in 5 years will thrive as long as it continues to innovate and be forward thinking. Otherwise, like others in its path (Prodigy, AOL, and others) they could find themselves moving from leader to has been.

Smart TVs To Rule Over CableCards and Set Top Boxes

CableCard Set Top Boxes are nearing 30 million and barely half a million CableCards are in Tivos and non converter box devices. On the other hand, TV manufacturers have shipped over 60 million internet connected TVs in 2011 alone with more already in the home. "Television manufacturers will ship 138 million connected TV units worldwide in 2015 -- with more than half-billion connected TVs having shipped by then" making the CableCard and set top box less relevant in the home. "An increasing number of connected TVs will include wireless support to be able to deliver content to devices such as smartphones and tablets in the home. According to DisplaySearch's forecast, more than 98 million TV sets with 802.11 wireless networking built-in will ship in 2015." The set top box has some catching up to do.

Remember that a number of years ago, CE manufacturers tried to play in the same sandbox with cable but the industry was not eager to allow outsiders in. The CableCard was a means by the FCC to force cable operators to enable outside devices for cable programming. But the CE manufacturers did not see the value of putting a CableCard slot in their machines. They preferred a more simpler approach, valuing the consumers need for connectivity to the world wide web. And the consumers' needs broadened to require mobile accessibility, wireless support was easily added. The CableCard remained stagnate, hidden under the stairway (a lame Harry Potter reference). It has yet to come out of hiding and the vast majority of consumers have no idea what a CableCard is. But they do know Netlix, Hulu, Amazon, You Tube, and Apple.

Have You Seen Your CableCard Lately?

Per FCC rule, cable set top boxes were required to use CableCard Technology, as opposed to internal security, so that other companies could off cable access without a cable box. And so, almost 30 million CableCards are out there. "The 10 biggest U.S. cable operators have to date deployed 582,000 standalone CableCards to subscribers for use in retail devices such as TiVo DVRs, according to figures the National Cable & Telecommunications Association submitted to the FCC Thursday." That means that less than 2% of consumers are using CableCards outside of their set top box in other devices like Tivo. Hardly good news for Tivo or for the CE industry.

In fact, I would say that the vast majority of consumers with cable boxes were even aware that a CableCard exists in the device. And certainly the cable operators are not encouraging consumers to get CableCards. "The FCC is currently considering a successor to the CableCard regime. The new "AllVid" regulation would force all multichannel video programming distributors -- including satellite and telco TV providers -- to deliver video to third-party hardware devices using a common set of technical interfaces." Certainly better news than what exists today.

Still CE companies are not waiting for cable operators. The rise of broadband enabled TV sets, Tivos, and blu-ray devices indicates that the push is for easier internet access. CableCards cannot help the TV Everywhere model. As authentication is required for multiple devices, CableCard technology is limiting. As more content makes its way through the web, the concept of CableCards becomes antiquated as connectivity is achieved both in a wired world as well as a mobile one. And cable operators are in desperate need for new agreements to offer access of content both inside the home and out.

So have you seen your CableCard lately, probably not. Best to one day look for it in a museum.

Good News For 3D, CBS Testing For Its Programs

CBS seems to be the first broadcast network actively looking at pushing forward with a 3D broadcast channel. "CBS may be bringing 3D versions of its shows to a 24-hour cable network, and it has already demonstrated 2D-to-3D converted programming privately to several operators, according to industry sources familiar with the project. The broadcast network is considering a strategy to gain distribution for the 3D channel through its retransmission-consent negotiations with cable, satellite and telco TV operators, according to one source." Certainly good news for all the CE companies with an eye on the next generation of products.

While 3D TV sales have slowed, it is partly due to the lack of meaningful 3D content to view. If you believe like me that content is king, then the advancement of 3D by a broadcaster is the push to invigorate demand. "To date, there has been a fairly limited supply of 3D content available through pay-TV operators since the current wave of 3DTV sets hit the market in early 2010. ESPN 3D launched last year and converted to a 24-hour service this past February, although the lineup remains largely reruns of previously aired events. The 3Net channel from Discovery/Sony/IMAX has just one distribution deal so far, with DirecTV." CBS would be the first broadcaster to market and no date the others will quickly follow.

Certainly 3D is a hot commodity, not just for programming, but for gaming as well. My son badly wants the 3D version of his DSi gaming system. And I do see the appeal for 3D when it comes to watching sports on TV. But as I need glasses to see, wearing another set of glasses over my own has always been irritating to me. Nintendo has achieved a 3D effect on it's gaming system without glasses. I look forward to the day when my large screen HDTV viewing on 3D without the glasses is the norm.

Scripps Not For Sale...For Now

Per the latest news, Scripps Networks, home for HGTV and Food Network, are not for sale. "WSJ said that a potential sale has been put off indefinitely, at least partly because the company and the trust that controls it have determined it might be better to wait until there is more clarity on which way the television business is going." Which translates no sale until market conditions improve and we can maximize the potential dollars for these networks.

Uncertainty in the industry is not likely to go away. Heck, that's what makes this industry so interesting. As cable operators are looking for more distribution rights, including out of home linear access, programmers like Scripps are looking for ways to increase their license fees and ad revenue. New distribution paths will lead to more eyeballs once Nielsen and others can figure out how to best measure this new out of home viewership. Ad revenue is also improving and will only grow as this new research is enabled.

The biggest challenge, license fee revenue, comes because consumers are balking at higher cable rates and those rates increase partly because programming costs increase. Can these fees continue to rise and can programmers find new revenue through other distribution platforms?

Perhaps Scripps wants more clarity on this latter issue before once again putting its networks up for sale.