I first met Robert back in my Slingbox days, and now we get together a few times a year to chat tech in general, kid stuff, but especially gadgetry. He sat down with myself and Maksim (the CEO of Dijit) this past summer, and a couple of weeks ago I went to see him and his new digs at Rackspace HQ. Here’s the video:

A quick summary of what we discussed:

• CES 2012
• Gadgets
• Future of TV
• Social TV
• CES 2011
• Kids
• Tech
• Facebook
• CES 2010
• Gadgets
• TV
• Dijit’s iPad app
• CES (all others)

And for a fun flashback, here’s the video from our chat right before CES 2009:

good times, Robert, thanks!

I’m in the business of helping make your devices and gadgets work better and more seamlessly in your home.  But the truth is, if the industry made just a few simple decisions differently along the way, I wouldn’t have a business to be in.  The “remote control overload” problem we all have comes primarily as a result of your devices being digitally ignorant of each other.  Which, from the consumers’ perspective, sucks (industry term).  But the reason this sucks more than it seems is that your devices could be talking already, they just… don’t.  And they don’t in two different ways!

Connection-based compatibility – HDMI
Pretty much every HD product shipped in the past ~5 years has an HDMI connection. And HDMI has this protocol cleverly called Consumer Electronics Control – you can guess what it’s for.  It’s been part of the HDMI specification since the very beginning. And in general, virtually no manufacturers use it to control other brands’ products, though even more egregiously they even use this protocol to control their own products.  So your Samsung TV knows when a Samsung Blu-Ray player starts a movie playback, but ignores a Denon receiver’s request to change inputs. Fail.

"standards".

Network-based compatibility - DLNA

Back in the early aughts, there was this thing called the Digital Home Working Group, formed by several consumer electronics companies with the specific goal of – wait for it – making sure that consumers’ electronics products would work together harmoniously.  The DHWG was renamed into the friendlier Digital Living Network Alliance, and then launched in 2004. I was personally on the original working groups for the (both?) organization(s?).  Even at the time, it was beyond obvious that this open standard by committee approach wasn’t going to give consumers the solutions they were looking for.  7 years later, and I’d assert that consumer awareness of DLNA is negligible, and the standard has yet to provide the industry a reliable solution.  

So there we are, oodles of technology, tens of thousands (if not more) of man-hours developing standards and platforms, and still, consumers have to deal with the “input one” problem (in a nutshell: devices connected to anything but the first/primary input of a TV tend not to get used, with the lone standout exception being video game consoles, which is likely due to a) more explosions and b) children operating the equipment).  Why is this the case? My friend Julie Jacobson ponders a little conspiracy theory over at CEPro.

My sinister plot scenario is actually much simpler.  I think there are specifically two reasons why consumer electronics products don’t do anything “advanced connectivity”-wise together:

1. It’s hard to make it a priority.
   Testing technology, in general, is challenging.  QA can take as long as actual development time, often more.  Many products get rushed to market even before the testing is complete.  So imagine, if you are the person in charge of shipping the product, and your marketing team probably (a) announced prematurely and (b) likely set expectations too high.  You are likely underresourced, understaffed, and concerned about just shipping at all (or maybe a few weeks too soon?).  How much energy do you think you’d spend on testing other companies’ products?  Right, me too.
   

   I'm not in charge of line-straightening, that's a different department.

2. It’s not financially rewarding to make it a priority.
   As illustrated above, just getting the darn product to market is a major chore.  Further, you know that much of your sales and success in the marketplace have to do with product reviews, as well as customer ratings (and worth of mouth and social media, etc – but these all come from the quality of the product itself).  Lastly, you know that virtually no reviewer, either “expert” or “typical consumer” is going to take the time to really do a lot of testing of compatibility, unless of course you claim compatibility.  So if you don’t, and just sit back on the sidelines and phone it in when it comes to cross-brand compatibility, it isn’t going to hurt your product sales or market perception in any meaningful way.

The only meaningful standards to expect in living room are (1) most content should be able to play on most devices, and (b) most devices should use the same cables as most other devices, and (c) most devices will come with arbitrarily confusing directions as to how to connect said cables.  Oh, and don’t forget (d) most devices will not come with the cable you really need at 11:30pm when you finally get to setting it up.

Maybe they'd do better if they stopped asking for my phone number just so I can buy some more AA's?

Microsoft introduced Windows 8 for developers today, with a specific focus on their take on the tablet.  Now some are fawning over this, but they clearly don’t recall a summer day in 2005 when Microsoft showed off Vista for the first time.  I was there. It was, in a word awesome. The early demos of Vista blew us all away, it was as if we were at the Windows 95 launch all over again.  Then Windows Vista came out, it was *nothing* like the demos, the train blew through the station, and the company’s been in a bit of a quagmire ever since, losing market share as well as credibility and prestige in virtually every category (other than Xbox).

roughly as on target as Vista was...

So today, when they show us a decently cool looking version of a tablet that isn’t going to ship for another year, after series of missteps, I’m sorry if I don’t really get particularly excited.  Particularly when I see it’s got a fan inside.  This entire move, yet again, makes me wonder: who on Earth are they building this for? What is the real market opportunity here?  Even if the Windows 8 tablet *is* as good as the current generation iPad 2, that’s chasing a product that’s already 6 months old, and will be 18 months old by the time they are in the market.  Didn’t these guys watch the movie called “HP and the Wacky Adventures of the TouchPad”?  We’ve seen how it ends!

works like nothing... else...

There really is a great market for non-iPad tablet devices, there are a few in fact.  And Microsoft is perfectly poised to build a really great tablet.  But I don’t think that perfect Microsoft tablet is about consumers, nor is it about Windows.  These markets are, at present and for the foreseeable future, mostly closed to Microsoft, and they’ll have little luck there.  So empty your heads, don’t think of anything – they’ve only got one shot at this. Microsoft needs to focus on the other key product they have, the one software package Apple can’t really touch, the one where they make a boatload of cash.  Yup, it’s Office.

yes, that WAS a Ghostbusters quote, well played!

I can write another 1000 or words on the topic, but I’m going to keep this one short and sweet.  There is unquestionably a great business opportunity in a tablet device with a great Office productivity software suite.  If the iPad is a consumption/entertainment device, then for jebus’ sake, Microsoft, learn how to cross-program, and offer a completely different thing.  And do it really well, with no big committees, and nobody who’s worked for the company for more than say 4 years.  And then go let Dell build it.  Oh, and don’t standardize (read: compromise) – make one product that works one way, no drivers, fragmentation, or anything else.

ah, that's how they get so much done!

And please, don’t tell me about it until it’s ready to ship.

I don’t think I’ve ever waffled on a topic as much as this one.  Back in ’07 I wrote two articles on Apple “owning” the living room and building TVs.  Ever since, I’ve gone full tilt in both directions.  Until about a week ago, I agreed firmly with Erik Schwartz on the topic, as he wrote today:

I am quite sure that there has been a team at Apple working on TV projects for literally the last 20 years. I am also quite confident that they are not going to release a TV in the near future.  (read more)

He continued to espouse on the four issues he saw: Margins, Replacement Cycles, Logistics, and Integration.  And on all four counts, I’ve agreed with him.

But now I have second thoughts.  My friend and coworker Adam Burg has long been a believer of “iTelevision” as has Dijit (and TiVo and many others) investor Stewart Alsop (who was quoted today in VentureBeat’s article on the topic).  For them, and many others, the rumors were way too much smoke for a lack of fire.  And on that point, I tend to agree that the rumors are a little stronger than what the Apple PR team will let flow when there’s no substance whatsoever.

So first, the case against iTelevision

Generally speaking, the two strongest “con” arguments are:

1. The margins in TVs suck, and since you can’t get away from the reality check of what it takes/costs to make a TV (hint: glass), the margins will suck for Apple too, and Apple doesn’t play in the “sucky margin” business.  This would force Apple to make a notably more expensive TV than anyone else, and even Apple can’t somehow get people to spend $1500 on the same sized screen they can have from Samsung for $1000.

We make THIS many!

2. The TV replacement cycle sucks, as the average family won’t replace a TV for ~7-8 years, and that’s not a world Apple typically plays in either.  Unlike phones (1 year) and PCs (2-3 years), consumers won’t be up for buying a new set very frequently, and the concept of having an “outdated” television will cause more infuriated people than Apple typically likes to create.  Note: this is a concern of the entire “Smart TV” industry (well, it’s probably not, but it really should be), and you can mark my words that backlash is going to hit these manufacturers in the next 6-12 months.

I’ve had a 3rd argument personally, which is Apple can’t make an iTelevision for $1000 whilst selling a “$99 upgrade” Apple TV product that brings the same functionality/services to any other manufacturer’s device.  Now the counter to that would be the Apple TV is there to enable wider content consumption, etc, but it’s still generally considered a “no-no” to cannibalize your own market.

We'll pre-announce while our existing product is on the market. What could possibly go wrong?

So now, why I’ve come around, and the case for iTelevision. I’ll start by refuting the arguments above.

1. Apple makes awesome margins on everything. If Apple’s building a TV, they’ve figured out their own amazing supply chain methodology to do it profitably.  Very profitably.  So if everyone else is selling a 50″ LCD for $999, they will too, only instead of making less per unit than the price of a really good bowl of soup, Apple will rake in the cash as they go.  They are the only tablet manufacturer selling at a real profit (HP not withstanding.  What, too soon?),  and I see no reason why, if they enter this space, they won’t do the same thing.

2. Apple will change or solve the replacement cycle issue.   Before iPhones, the US market was radically less likely to buy a new phone every year.  I have a much harder time accepting that Apple can successfully convince people to lug a 50″ screen home (and correspondingly, out of their home) once a year (or every other year).  This is way too painful a process, even for a fanboy.

I'm on a truck!

This implies either Apple can make a TV that is easy to move/replace or the components which would require upgrade can be guaranteed upgradeable for a few years.  Both are actually feasible, though the former requires some more impressive technology (flexible or roll-up displays, for example, could do it).  The latter is probably more likely – after all, even the original iPhone can still run a lot of the apps that are on the market.  What would matter the most here is that each generation of iTelevision is guaranteed to mostly compatible with the same content offerings as future generations (in other words, regardless of apps and whatnot, if Johnny Homeowner’s TV can only play 1/3 of the movies as his neighbor, he’s pissed – if he can play mostly the same stuff, just no Angry Birds, he’s less so).

3. They could coexist, if the other product is iTelevision and it isn’t the same thing as an Apple TV. So if the rumored iTelevision isn’t about “Apple TV inside a flatscreen” and is instead something new/different, this could be more feasible.  I’ve heard and debated scenarios ranging from built-in DVRs to TV tuners to CableCard and more.  Here’s all I know: whatever they do will be fully end-to-end thought out.  You won’t buy an Apple TV then have to go to the mall to pick up a CableCard.  You will do everything in an Apple store or online (or from your phone), and it’ll just work.

If I have to weight the pros vs cons these days, I have to say, the pros seem to have it.  Will it come out in 2011 or 2012? Hard to say.  Will they dominate the TV market the way they dominate tablets? Unquestionably NO, but they’ll probably profit more off the sales of TVs than anyone else, more akin to what they do in phones.  Will they shock us with their offering when it comes out? Probably, though probably in the same “why isn’t everybody just doing it that way” style they do with everything else.  Will they create a massive gaping wound in the side of the TV industry, and opportunity for a brand new type of ecosystem to emerge?  Absolutely.

Now, back to the waffling.

So last Fall when I first heard about companies turning phones into remote controls, I thought it was a silly idea.  I’d like to kick this post off by saying I’ve come around fairly full circle on it.  In other words? I was wrong (yes, it’s happened – but don’t worry, it’s just this once). So I’m going to counter my own post with my revised feelings on the matter.

To begin with, my fundamental argument against the phone as remote is similar to my feelings as the phone being used for anything other than a phone (+apps) on a recurring basis.  In other words, my phone is a lousy GPS device if I need to make a call while I’m lost.  My phone is a lousy cooking timer if the alert doesn’t remind me to get my eggs off the burner because I’m playing Words With Friends.

Over the past ~8 months, I’ve evolved this argument into the following state: users must conditions themselves to the concept that their phone can be a pretty good  ____, but will ultimately default to be a phone first and foremost.  In other words, your iPhone is a phone that can also be a GPS or also be a kitchen timer.  But at the end of the day, if you really really need a super reliable GPS or kitchen timer, you probably don’t want to solely rely on your phone.

So in that context, and now highly specifically related to Dijit (where I work, remember?), I’ve come to find my iPhone makes for a really good remote control.  I just sometimes still want the physical one nearby – and that’s okay.  In my media room (aka mancave), I have 6 devices, their remotes, and a Harmony 880 as well.  I’ve got it working pretty nicely with Dijit/Beacon, and I think it’s overall a better solution than I had before.  Here’s why:

1. Completely customizable controls – as much as the Harmony unified all my devices, there’s just no way to have all the relevant buttons accessible at the same time.

2. Line of sight – two of the devices I own have mediocre IR sensors, which makes the task of perfectly pointing the physical remotes a challenge which the Beacon’s stronger IR emitter solved.

3. IP-enabled - at least 3 of my consumer electronics devices are “smart” and can be controlled over IP, meaning I can have absolutely perfect control without any need for IR whatsoever – and there’s only more Smart TVs and related products to come… (btw Roku owners can see what I’m talking about already – download the app here)

4. Upgrades and the Future – not totally fair, since I know what we’re actually building at Dijit, but suffice it to say the future looks incredibly bright for what the fully integrated app has in store.

I think my final comment on using the iPhone as a remote is this: for my personal use, I still like having a physical remote around (not 6, but 1), and that’s okay.  I like having mute, pause, and volume controls accessible 100% of the time with no risk of sleep, battery, app switching, etc.  Some people won’t have these issues and will go iPhone-only.  Some people will never get past a touch-screen remote.  But I have a hunch there’s going to be a lot of folks like myself, where a hybrid solution presents an amazing experience for the digital living room.  Can’t wait to share more about what we have in store down the road!

A week ago I announced that Jim Schaff would be taking over active duties at Stage Two, and that I’d be focusing on “other stuff.”  Today I’m excited to share the stuff:  I am joining the management team of Dijit Media as Chief Product Officer, where I’m responsible for product and marketing (here’s the official update).  Not only that, my virtually common law married colleague (business partners for much of the past 14 years) and very close friend Adam Burg is the company’s VP of Business Development.

What???

Last Fall, I gave a presentation at the Set-Top Box Conference in San Jose, and the entire drive back I had a feeling of near elation.  Not that I had said anything extremely profound, but it was wrapped up in the feeling of doing something I had a lot of passion for – in this case, discussing the future of television.  Over the next few months, I spent a lot of time doing research in the Smart TV (also called Connected TV or Internet TV) space, and started seeing some trends emerge, and realized there were some very interesting business opportunities on the horizon.

Adam and I spent months developing a prototype concept of the vision we had, and went to meet with some of the brightest folks we know in the convergence field.  One such bright folk was well-known VC Stewart Alsop, who I’ve known since the late 1990s, who introduced us to Maksim Ioffe, CEO of Dijit.  In our very first meeting with Maksim it was clear he shared much of the same industry and product vision and philosophy with Adam and me. I’ll keep this part of the story short, as we’ve all seen this movie before – we ended up agreeing to join the company. And there was much rejoicing (yay).

Why Dijit?

The grand vision of Dijit is to create the ultimate “four screen” (phone, tablet, computer, TV) social entertainment experience, one which seamlessly merges disparate products and platforms and content into one single, easy to use, consumer offering.  The company is well on its way, and its first product is an iPhone app that enables a really sophisticated, yet elegantly simple control experience for home media centers.   As Maksim put it, “Consumers have 21st-century home entertainment experiences but are stuck with remote controls that haven’t been updated since the 1980s.”  The company partnered with Griffin to produce the Beacon, a clever take on the “IR blaster” product, and one that’s already receiving solid reviews (and I haven’t even done anything yet!).  This is going to be a very exciting company to be a part of, and I’m thrilled to have such an opportunity.

Reminiscing.

I still recall the early days at Mediabolic, where we enabled networked home entertainment solutions that interfaced with legacy, analog consumer electronics devices (yes, we were networking the living room in an era where there were virtually no HDTVs, no YouTube, no Pandora, and no… iPod!).  At Mediabolic I learned what it takes to design and build embedded entertainment devices, to work with consumer electronics manufacturers, and the deep set of challenges surrounding the connected home industry (fun trivia: I heard the phrase “this is THE year of the digital home” every single year starting in 2001 – possibly earlier).  It was a great experience, and key people from that team now work at amazing companies like Netflix, Rovi Corp (Rovi acquired Mediabolic in 2007), etc.

At Sling Media I had the unique opportunity to work for and with some outstanding individuals, not to mention the position of being tasked with figuring out how to deliver the perfect “living room experience” – only over the Internet.  The company’s CEO, Blake Krikorian, taught me the meaning of focusing on every detail and nuance, remaining truly innovative, and keeping the consumer’s wants and needs in the forefront of every product decision.  I also had to learn the ins and outs of social media, back in the era before it was called “social media,” where “the bloggers” were a special, hard to understand subset of humanity (or, as I rapidly learned, just cool people).  We accomplished a great success building the Slingbox, and I’m proud of the product, the team, and the experience.

Over the past four years at Stage Two, I’ve had tremendous exposure to startups, big companies, CEOs, visionaries, the media, and managing a great team.  We literally put companies like Boxee, Bug Labs, and Pogoplug on the map, and have also had the chance to work for well-established firms like Electronic Arts, Best Buy, and VUDU (now Wal-Mart).  I’ve learned from entrepreneurs like Jim Lanzone (now president of CBS Interactive), Peter Semmelhack (Bug Labs), David McIntosh (Redux), Rahim Fazal (Involver) and so many others (I’ll write another post in the next little while chock full of shout-outs).  I’ve redesigned product experiences for dozens of products, and created marketing/PR/social media campaigns for dozens more, and had the pleasure to work with great teams along the way.

The Future.

And now I’m taking all of the above, and putting it to work at one place.  Welcome to Dijit.

I don’t have cable. But I watch a lot of TV.

For my birthday I got a Roku and after tooling around with it for a couple of weeks, I cut the cable cord, much to the wife’s chagrin. Then, last Christmas, I found under the tree an AppleTV (although it is small enough it could have gone in the stocking.)

AppleTV and Roku essentially inhabit the same space. Both are around (or under) $100, both are solely media streaming devices and, unlike the mythical GoogleTV or the enigmatic Boxee, neither offer web access.

So with no methodology and no experience in product reviews, here is my official, unauthorized, David-vs-Goliath head-to-head streaming media device smackdown. In one corner, Apple, the single greatest human accomplishment in the history of the universe; the company that proves Intelligent Design is real. And in the other corner, Roku, which means “six” in Japanese.

Design

OK, this isn’t really fair because this is where Apple has always excelled. When I first got my Roku, I thought it was a pretty slick device. Black plastic, pleasing angles and the size of a turkey club sandwich (hold the mayo). Then I unwrapped the AppleTV and…. My God you’re beautiful! So small, so sleek…

I looked at my Roku, what is that hideous oversized slab of a streaming device currently attached to my TV?

Point: Apple

UX

I won’t even go there. Apple’s is amazing… Roku’s has always sucked.

Point: Apple

Content

So this is where it gets interesting. The gateway drug for both of these is Netflix and Pandora, which are both awesome services and the reasons why the sun still shines in my world. But what’s there beyond that?

With Roku, yes there is MLB if you like baseball (I don’t) and HuluPlus if you’re able to figure out why you would want it (I can’t). Where Roku really shines is access to all the weirdo webTV shows on Koldcast, Blip.TV, Revision3 and so on. You have to really like web-only TV and fortunately, I do. The wife doesn’t so I end up watching a lot of it by myself. You can also watch Al Jazeera streaming live on Roku in the event you need more proof as to how f-ed up the world is.

With Apple TV, your channel flipping will lead you to YouTube or to all the various audio and video podcasts on iTunes. That may sound lame, but it really isn’t. There is a ton of great stuff there and most of it is pretty bite-sized. So in 3-5 minute increments you can flip from news to comedy to movie trailers… unless you land on the “This American Life” podcast, in which case you’re stuck on the couch listening to your TV for an hour.

Winner of this round? I’m going to give it to Roku. I love all the cheese that webTV has to offer. My big complaint is again the UX… it is hard to find content and then to remember which channel it is on if you want to go back to it.

Reliability
So here’s the knock-out blow… this goes to Roku. Yes, it is close, but Roku wins it. I found a better picture and fewer artifacts when streaming from Roku. Also, surprisingly, AppleTV hung up and crashed more than the Roku did. Not by a long shot, mind you, but enough to notice.

Final Verdict

If you like design, UX and more mainstream content, you’ll love AppleTV.

But this is my smackdown and I’m giving the prize to Roku. They’ve got the edge in reliability and I love the goofy webTV access… but that is just me.

I recently had the opportunity to critique the Logitech Revue’s ten foot UI for Nikkei Electronics, a Japanese trade magazine that “offers prompt reports, to-the-point commentaries and in-depth analysis on advanced technologies.”

Phil Keys, US Correspondent for NE, approached me for this project. He wanted an expert opinion on how to build a better interactive user experience for the home theater. I have known Phil since my days at Sling and Mediabolic and working with him was a real honor and privilege.

I applied user-centric design principles to grade the Logitech Revue and point out its strengths and weaknesses. My review was then translated and printed up, along with photos of the Logitech UI. Here is a small sample of the article.

Thanks to Nikkei Electronics for the opportunity to deliver Smart TV best practices to a global audience.