Cameras Everywhere

Here in NY, the latest news was that a women left her baby at a subway station and casually walked away.  A good Samaritan made sure the infant was watched till police showed.  The news reports at the time indicated that no cameras were at this particular stop and so no footage available of the woman.  But hours later, other footage was found that showed the woman pushing the stroller elsewhere and she was eventually discovered.  What is particularly noteworthy is that we have become more and more used to cameras and surveillance in our lives.  At every airport, store, and even on streets, cameras seem to be almost everywhere.  And we seem ok with that.

Certainly in an age where terrorism affects us, cameras help to find perpetrators and victims.  It is used as a defense to help thwart potential crimes and we live by the notion that a good defense is a good offense.  Take for example the story a week ago of a trucker who watched a state trooper speed and talk on his cell, honked his horn and caused the trooper to pull the trucker over.  Quickly, the trucker started filming the interaction with his smartphone which led, not to a ticket for excessive honking, but to an apology from the trucker for not following the rules of the road, no cell phone while driving.  Without the video, a ticket would certainly have been the more likely outcome.

It demonstrates that we have become okay with cameras recording us in life just as we have the same ability with our smart phones to video our interactions.  Camera security is now more prevalent in our homes as wireless and remote cameras protect us from break-ins and help lead to capture. Cameras are in every store too recording us entering and leaving as well as waiting at the cash register. 

But the rise in camera coverage in almost every step we take comes with a price.  A loss of anonymity for one thing, and perhaps a bit of individual freedom.  Private may never be private anymore.  With every recording, everything we say or do becomes a permanent record.  Donald Sterling, "former" owner of the LA Clippers, certainly feels this way.  His anti-social rant was captured and shared with the county, resulting in his loss of team ownership. 

Overall, the use of cameras, both publicly and privately, tries to assure that safety and security are improved.  But it is at the cost of some personal freedoms.  And while it provides an added level of information, we also know that we can't be naive to believing that it represents all the facts either.  Technology also enables clever editing, Photoshopping, and other visual and audio tricks.  Still cameras are a tool that we as the public seem to be very comfortable knowing that we are always being recorded. 

Music - Rent Or Buy

The music industry is facing a difficult hurdle as the rise of streaming services like Spotify, Pandora, and others are affecting the sales of downloadable music.  Consumers seems happy with a monthly subscription service that in fact lets them listen but not own their music.  The result, "listeners in the United States used such audio and video streaming services to listen to 70.3 billion songs in the first half of 2014, an increase of 42 percent from the first half of 2013."  Unfortunately, "According to Nielsen, 120.9 million albums have been sold so far this year, down 14.9 percent from the first half of 2013. Of those albums, 62.9 million were on CD (down 19.6 percent) and 53.8 million were digital downloads (down 11.6 percent)."  What isn't clear is whether the net effect is good news or bad news, revenue wise, for the music industry.

Certainly, on the video side, the success of Netflix and Amazon Prime, echos a similar path as streaming video growth expands.  Its effect on dvd sales must be equally noticeable.  No longer is there a need to buy the movie or TV series if the content is just as easily offered in a streaming subscription service.  The challenge, of course for both video and music are the license fee rights.  When they go away, the content is no longer accessible by the subscriber.  Netflix subscribers just saw that recently as some content vanished as new content entered the library. 

At least with ownership of content, music and video, it is owned in perpetuity, or until we lose the cd or scratch the dvd.  Oh well.

Apple and Google Becoming Great Rivals

I think as humans we all enjoy great rivalries.  We were pitted to our screens to watch World Cup action, we root passionately for our sports rivals, especially Red Sox and Yankees, and in the corporate world we have had notable rivalries like ATT and Verizon in the cellular world, Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts in coffee, and lately Apple and Google. 

The latest indication of this rivalry is the acquisition of Songza, a music streaming service by Google, a month after Apple buys Beats.  Last week Google announced Android based smart watches while we all wait for Apple to finally announce its own iWatch smartwatch.  Each competes with devices and libraries, while Google has gone a step further with a build-out of fiber in a few communities.  It makes one wonder if Apple will turn around and buy a cable company.  And while Google has You Tube, some also speculate that Aple needs to buy a content company (Disney was a suggestion) as well. 

And while their business models and strategies don't overlap completely, it is clear that each looks as the other as a rival in the technology field.  The race is not a two man race.  Amazon makes a significant third leg of this stool.  It also competes with devices and content and may one day announce their own smartwatch. 

Google may be Apple's current rival but certainly not its first.  For many years, the rivalry with Microsoft has taken center stage.  But Microsoft has made a number of mistakes including Zune, its iPod substitute.  The Surface tablet may be out there but it pales in comparison to what Google and Amazon are offering nor is there any real smartphone offering.  And Microsoft has had best success most recently in gaming with XBox, competing much more with Sony and Playstation. 

Rivalries make for excitement and keep the competitive juices humming.  We are in store for more announcements by Google and Apple in the coming months.  Will it last as long as a Red Sox and Yankee rivalry, we will just have to keep watching. 

Twitter Shakes Up Executive Team To Spur Growth

Twitter has lost a COO, CFO, Head of Engineering, and VP of Consumer Products as it tries to pursue new growth opportunities.  But Twitter user growth has slowed while losses mount.  But let's be fair to Twitter, their usage is growing, just at a slower pace than previous quarters.  "Twitter’s membership in the first quarter rose 25 percent from a year earlier to 255 million, decelerating from 30 percent growth in the prior period and 39 percent in the third quarter of 2013."  And while 255 million users sounds impressive, it also matters how many are active users. 

Certainly great content helps drive users to share their thoughts through the service.  World Cup matches provide a great example of this as does all the snarky comments for every major awards show.  Still, users may also be growing tired of the service and the limit of 140 characters.  They say a picture paints a thousand words and sites like Instagram and Facebook may be providing too great a competition to the mix.  And the younger demos seem to lately prefer the Instagram route.  Or as I mentioned yesterday, we may simply be getting tired of too much sharing, especially when their ramifications lead to the need to apologize for our too quick tweeting.  Users may finally have figured out that it is time to put down that keyboard. 

For Twitter, the challenge to grow should not overshadow the need to drive revenue over costs and to build out a profitable business.  Changes in the type indicate that the current strategy was not working well enough and a new direction might be needed.  What that new direction will be could interesting.  May I suggest creating subset feeds, some that are categorized as strictly news, sports, or entertainment so that more relevant tweets reach us more quickly.  Just a thought.

Facebook Controlling What We See

I sometimes wonder if social networking is not such a good thing.  It's nice to acknowledge someone's birthday, share photos with friends and family, and engage in meaningful social discourse over politics and policies; but it also comes with a cost.  From coveting our friends vacation destinations, celebrity connections, to social miscues of not being invited to another friend's party, to the despair of cyber-bullying, it brings the full range of both positive and negative behavior.  And this is what we do to ourselves.

When we read that Facebook is experimenting on us, determining whether we see more positive vs. negative posts, then we might want to reconsider the value it brings and whether the animal has broken free too many times from the pen. 

Facebook, Instagram, and other social networking apps are a great sharing opportunity but do we have to be so open to what we share.  Are we doing it to satisfy ourselves or to let the world know just how exciting our life is.  Or should I say, how much more our life is than your life.  Is that the ultimate reason we share?  Psychologists could have a field day understanding why we post and engage in such an open way.  I frankly don't want to read that you visited Dunkin Donuts although I am sure that Dunkin Donuts loves it.  I do love seeing pics of family and friends and to see news of graduations, weddings, and babies.  What that line in the sand is between sharing and boasting is not a clear one.  And perhaps we need to do a better job determining which posts get viewed by which of our groups - family, friends, and acquaintances. 

But I don't need Facebook determining for me what I see or inundating me with too many ads that clutter my feed. Let me decide who can see what I post and what I want to see.  I'm starting to be more careful what I post these days.  And maybe, just maybe, we will all get tired of "eavesdropping" on other peoples' lives through social networking and concentrate more on leading our own lives. 

Will The Demise Of Aereo Hurt Broadcasters?

An interesting article in re/code that argues that the shutdown of Aereo is actually bad news for broadcasters.  As the younger generation continues to spend more and more time on their mobile devices, they have made bigger stars of some You Tube celebrities than TV ones.  From Bethany Mota to PewDiePie, to many that my kids know of and I have no clue who they are.  Still, that is who my kids are watching and broadcast, especially linear broadcast becomes more and more irrelevant. 

As the article note, Aereo made broadcast more accessible to that streaming crowd and opened up accessibility to the cord cutters.  Without it, viewers have to either find new ways to access broadcast programming or continue to skip it for Netflix, Amazon Prime, You Tube and others.  And the broadcasters have lost access to the future generation of potential viewers.  It is over the long run then that broadcasters have more to worry about. 

Aereo was admonished for copyright infringement stemming from the rental of an antenna on a remote antenna farm.  Other companies are now trying new ways to skirt the ruling.  Rather than rent, the antenna needs to be purchased and installed in the home; a box attached to it, captures and transmits wirelessly to authorized devices.  Does ownership of equipment change the result?  Certainly, Slingbox has been doing similar capturing and streaming for some time now.

For now, Aereo has lost and the broadcasters believe they have won.  But as viewership shifts from wired to streaming, from linear to on demand, consumers will seek out shows from multiple devices at times that best suit them and on platforms that are easy to access and appeal to their interests.  Tomorrow's audience may simply not care what broadcasters are pitching on old technology.

A battle may be lost, but the war is certainly not over either.  Much can happen to reshift interest back to broadcast.  New technologies, new strategies, new content.  I have consistently argued that linear wins with live programming.  It hits a home run when it is available on every platform.  And there are many examples to justify it including The World Cup matches on ESPN and streamed online, NBC's Sound of Music, NFL Football, etc.  Once broadcasters truly embrace streaming of their content, their future will be much brighter.

New iWatch Uses

An interesting article in Business Insider wonders if Apple's iWatch could possibly share some features that Disney has incorporated in their theme park MagicBands.  The key might just be the radio frequency built into these consumer friendly wearables.  "Want to buy food while you're at the park? Just scan your wristband and enter a PIN. Tired of scrambling for your hotel key? Simply tap the wristband to your door. The wristband is connected to a credit card and is capable of replacing your wallet, keys, and theme park tickets throughout Disney's sprawling campus. It essentially acts as a digital ID that you wear around your wrist."  Could Apple be emulating these features in their own design?  It certainly opens up new possibilities for usefulness for the future device.

Should Apple Buy A Content Company?

Given the power of content over distribution in the recent Aereo decision, other distribution companies might want to start to reconsider owning content to control the whole pipeline.  A unique scenario proposed in the Washington Post is that Apple should buy Disney.  With Amazon building original content to supply its own Amazon Prime subscribers, the idea might not seem entirely foolish.  Especially as its connection extends to its founder Steve Jobs.  But does Apple want to broaden itself so much away from its own closed architecture of products and media store?

Of course the odds against such a deal also seem overwhelming.  Apple tends to create, rather than acquire, and their acquisition strategy, until recently has been minor in size and scope.  An Apple-Disney combo could change the whole culture of both companies.  It could also cause Apple to lose vision on technical innovation as it worked to hard to find synergies of the content and distribution model.  Still, it is interesting to wonder what if. 

Aereo Loses Challenge In Supreme Court

In a strong majority decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Aereo today saying that their business violated copyright by stealing signals.  And I must admit that I am a bit shocked.  I saw the rental of the antenna through Aereo as a proper work around to forcing a homeowner to instal an antenna in the home.  And given that the signals are broadcast free over the air, I would argue that you can't steal what is free.  For those fans of the start up, cord cutters in particular, access to broadcaster signals through their service will be denied. 

So what is next for Aereo?  Shut down completely or start to negotiate individually with each broadcaster in each demographic for license fees to connect to the network.  And given the agreements these same broadcasters make for access to subscribers to Comcast, Charter, DirecTv and other, the license fees for a comparatively tiny subscriber base like Aereo will be too high to continue the business model. 

The other question that should be asked is how will content streaming and capture be treated based on this new ruling.  Will it have a notable effect or be limited to this specific ruling?  Content is king in this scenario and ownership enables content creators to negotiate those rights as they seem fit.  This ruling strengthens that position and places content ahead of distribution.