Will Siri Be In Every Apple Product

Everyone that has an iPhone 4S marvels how much they enjoy using Siri. It represents a major change with how we use our phone to call up apps or get answers to our questions. Whether it is a simple search, math question, emotional response or simply a phone number, Siri continues to prove itself as useful. And as we as users become more comfortable using our voices rather than our fingers to generate commands, it represents a turning point in our interaction with technology.

"But experts say that Siri – and what it represents – might be as subtly revolutionary as the iPhone’s multi-touch screen was when unveiled in January 2007. That’s because Siri isn’t just “voice dialling” or “voice recognition” (which tries to turn speech into its text equivalent); it’s “natural language understanding” – NLU, in the lingo." So how much longer before Siri is integrated in our next iPad or laptop. When will I be able to say "Siri, open word document...type please...To Whom It May Concern..." or "Open iTunes...play Best of Playlist".

As I finish reading the Steve Job biography, I marvel at how many devices he created that never existed before and how he made us want things we never thought we would need. Siri is one more technology that in his legacy he will have successfully launched within his closed end to end architecture. Siri will become the heart of all future Apple devices, future TVs included.

Is There Too Much Fragmentation In Media

Is it possible to have too much choice? The proliferation of cable networks, websites, and other forms of media have made it harder for consumers to find what they want. Even worse, while the tail keeps getting longer, revenue growth is limited. No doubt the big brands continue to provide great content but some still struggle to grow revenue. Low cost rivals scratch away at market share, and in some cases, find that lean and mean can thrive against fat and bloated. But is it time for some consolidation and fewer choices.

Industry life cycles result in the big firms swallowing up smaller rivals and proceed to create oligopolies in their industry. Product life cycles follow their corporate brands which results in companies buying and merging other products into their family of products. And some products simply vanish as their usefulness erodes and they can no longer sustain their business model.

So as I look specifically at the number of cable networks and watch as viewers begin to prefer shows over networks, watching them on demand or through streaming devices, I wonder if it is time for consolidation of network brands. Where once UHF and VHF dominated, then to analog feeds and now all digital, networks have spawned more and more offshoots of their lead brand. One example is the arrival of OWN, the Oprah network from the folks at Discovery. She excelled on broadcast but her show and her network cannot find a meaningful audience. Would it have been better to put her show on the Discovery or TLC networks?

But Discovery is not the only network that has built new networks as niche offshoots of its main brands. HGTV has DIY, Food has Cooking, NBC has Sleuth now rebranded as Cloo, WE tried with Wedding Central, VH1 has VH1 Classic. Is it time for consolidation and a movement away from linear networks to on demand? Are these niche networks only hurting viewership of their parent networks and is it time for the 500 channel universe to reduce to 100?

Like the music industry, we are moving away from album sales to individual songs. For TV, viewers watch shows not networks. Couldn't a reduced number of linear networks help keep them more viable as aggregators and recommenders of the best content. Too much sometimes just lowers the quality bar of TV content. And with the rise of DVRs, on demand, and streaming, viewers watch what they want when they want, where they want. Perhaps it is time to bring expertise back to TV network scheduling. Drop networks that aren't performing and let people watch those niche shows on demand only.

Boxee Encouraging Cord Cutting

While the economy and poor housing market have been repeatedly cited as reasons for consumers to downgrade or cut their services, there is still a desire to watch TV. Boxee has developed an alternative to the cable box to provide a cheaper choice for web and broadcast viewing. They are "preparing a new add-on product in January that will let users pull out the cable cord and plug a USB device into their cable box, giving them access to broadcast TV channels like ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC for free."

You pay a one time fee to purchase the box and USB add-on and no more monthly cable charges. Unfortunately, consumers will have to pay for broadband access. And costs for broadband access are higher than when they are bundled with other cable services. Ultimately, we still pay.

So while Boxee remains a choice, so does switching cable providers and haggling for better pricing. We like the variety and quantity available on cable and thatmakes it hard to turn off completely. In a tough economy, we all become more astute consumers seeking out better choices and lower prices.

Authenticated Cable TV Viewing Outside The Home

Content companies, especially those with TV networks, have been negotiating with cable operators to receive incremental license fee payments for access to their networks outside the home on iPads and other mobile devices. Today, that access has been mostly limited to mobile devices inside the home. But why should a cable operator agree to pay more for these rights with any network when that access is already possible with technology? Why pay each network when cable companies could be integrating Slingbox technology into their current cable box?

The latest news from Slingbox is the integration of a player within Facebook, enabling a bit of sharing about what you are watching. Cute, but not so earth shattering. Couldn't this be better done with 2 screens.

Is it that consumers don't yet feel the need to have immediate access to their TV outside the home. Slingbox has been around for some time and consumers could on their own buy a box and add it to their system. But we don't seem to hear much news about how Slingbox sales are growing, although all of Echostar's equipment sales were down double digit in the third quarter. Is the idea of TV viewing outside the home what consumers really want? Do we prefer an out of home experience to strictly be an on demand one, where we can access a particular show when and where we want? Do we really desire linear access outside our home?

As to the pull on cable operators to negotiate higher license fees for out of home authentication, perhaps current technology is an alternative to raising costs and ultimately raising fees.

The Future Of TV

A terrific presentation that may just help us better understand where TV and the web are headed. The one adage that continues to play out is that "History repeats itself". We try to learn from it, we try to avoid the same pitfalls, but we continue to be faced with the same results. In business, that is seen as a disruptive influence on the mature model, causing a change in purchase behavior.

The music industry has watched sales of albums be replaced with single song downloads. In cable, networks have been bundled and sold together while the web enables single streams of video. And that, according to the presenter, is how TV will change. "My analogy is that 'cable & satellite bundles are the album. and given choice consumers prefer either singles or to make their own bundles.'” It is what consumers are already clamoring for, a la carte network choices as opposed to tiers, all to pay only for what you eat, and not ordering the whole buffet.

The web already enables a la carte and web viewership continues to grow while TV viewership declines. TV manufacturers are embracing this change by building connected TV sets, offering direct to internet connections along with a plug for a cable box. But their hope may be that the cable box will just go away.

And as our presenter acknowledges, the need for more content will only be greater. Content remains king in this changed model although how much more people can earn is subject for debate. What the web does do is to lower the barrier to entry so that more creative folks are able to produce and distribute content. The long tail lengthens and more people will earn money from creating content.

Ready To Buy An E-Reader Or A Tablet

The Holiday Season is upon us and lists are no doubt being written on what to buy our family. And Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Apple, and others have delivered an array of choices for our purchase pleasure. So what will it be, a Nook, Kindle Fire, or iPad? With so many choices on the market, the decision only gets toucher.

Well hopefully the graph from this article will make your decision easier. Ultimately it depends on what your primary needs are for the device. Do you need it to be a reading device or is watching videos also important. Must it have a camera and do you want to Skype from it. Does budget matter and must it be a tablet when an e-reader is more than enough. And lastly, does knowing that these generations will likely be modified in another 6 months with a next version, change whether you buy the most or least expensive device.

The rise of these e-readers and tablets this Holiday Season will most certainly capture the public eye and the consumers' pocketbook. Which device becomes the De facto winner remains to be seen. We may see an e-reader winner AND a tablet winner, or one device will outweigh them all. The fight is on.

Has Twitter Changed From Sharing To Selling?

Today's article on Ashton Kutcher and his Twitter issues regarding Joe Pa raised an interesting question. Is Twitter no longer the place for naive meanderings about whatever news or gossip you wanted to share, accurate or not, and now simply a marketing tool? How many times have we made a comment about something without knowing all the facts? I can raise my hand and certainly so can Ashton. No one said that all gossip and information was true. Ashton made comments about the Penn State coach and then retracted them once he was more informed. In the world of Twitter, shouldn't that be no harm no foul. Apparently not.

According to Ashton, “When I started using twitter, it was a communication platform that people could say what they were thinking in real time and if their facts were wrong the community would quickly and helpfully reframe an opinion. It was a conversation, a community driven education tool, and opinion center that encouraged healthy debate. It seems that today that twitter has grown into a mass publishing platform, where ones tweets quickly become news that is broadcast around the world and misinformation becomes volatile fodder for critics.” It reminds me of the SNL commercial parody about a bank who's business was making change. When asked how they made money, the answer was simple, "Volume".

But in the business world and with Twitter, volume is not enough; a business runs on revenue and that is the Twitter mission. With such a wide audience, it is no longer possible to be wrong without it reaching epic proportions. So Ashton learned the age old wisdom "to look before you leap". Twitter makes it too easy to leap first and say whatever is on your mind. But that is not always a good thing and this lesson may affect more than just Ashton and his tweets. Twitter's prosperity relies on being a marketing tool and not a place for mindless rants.

Adobe Agrees With Apple, No Mobile Flash

If Steve Jobs were still alive, he certainly would be even more smug about his decision to not include Flash on his iPad or iPhone devices. Despite the negative press, despite he competitive difference it could make for Android devices, Jobs was certain it wasn't good enough for his devices. And ultimately, his decision paid off.

Where once Adobe proudly told Apple that they were wrong, they must now back track and swallow their pride. Apple was right. Flash on mobile devices is no more. "We (Adobe) are excited about this, and will continue our work with key players in the HTML community, including Google, Apple, Microsoft and RIM, to drive HTML5 innovation they can use to advance their mobile browsers."

Hard for a company to change; that Adobe continues to adapt to a changing web environment and the needs of its users should be welcome news. In the short run, Adobe's stock has been hit, but in the long run, this change was necessary. Survival means adapting to change and not remaining locked in old thinking. For Adobe to make this change is ultimately a smart move.

AOL, Yahoo, And Microsoft Build Ad Partnership

In a bid to compete effectively against Google and Facebook, it seemed the best strategy was one of partnership. AOL, Yahoo, and Microsoft have agreed to work together to sell their unsold ad inventory. The article asks a good question, "The idea may seem a bit redundant, considering that all three already have massive reach—plus, if this is inventory they can’t sell on their own, why create a larger pool? Still, with Google and Facebook cutting into the portals’ traditional hold on display, this may be an imperfect answer to a challenging problem for all three."

Google and Facebook have each grown because they have made their sites compelling and valuable to use, and use frequently. As the dominate search engine and social network site, each essentially captures a huge audience making their ad sales efforts successful. In a world where content is king, the challenge for the others is to make their content sites equally as necessary and valuable to the user. With that comes eyeballs and more sold inventory at hopefully higher prices.

It may sound like a herculean task, but it is doable. Users are fickle and their tastes and interests change. New technologies and new content partnerships will continue to shape and change the landscape. No one stays on top forever. Companies stumble and get caught up with protecting rather than innovating. For AOL, Yahoo, and Microsoft, there is no time like today to get started.