Archive for the ‘Innovation’ Category
Today (Valentine’s Day 2012) a company called Aereo announced (Barry Diller of IAC did the announcing) in the NY Times Media Decoder blog from Brian Stelter http://nyti.ms/y5uJfZ it will begin offering a new television service that will stream local television stations to internet users. It will cost $12/month. Many people already have ditched their cable television service so it’s not exactly ground-breaking. In fact what I found most interesting were the comments from readers.
Here are samples of a few and I found them to be extremely interesting and indicative of an audience that has a both a good understanding of the landscape as well as some interesting alternative solutions.:
“This could work in Manhattan. Antenna’s do not pull in hardly any channels for many of us in the city. I would happily pay $12/month for network television only.”
“I own a television machine, but I haven’t used it in years (I do dust it occasionally). But I do have basic cable through Time Warner only because I need to have that in order to get my high speed Internet service (talk about lousy deals).“
“On those very rare occasions I might feel compelled to watch a broadcast, I have Windows Media Center on my computer, which is hooked up to a $5 antenna (I bought that at the dollar store in my neighborhood and it works quite well). I pick up all the broadcast networks, their sub-networks, and several radio stations. Seems like a much better deal than yet another service like Aereo.”
“I use Remote Potato (an iOS app) with Windows Media Center to do this and it cost me the price of an antenna, digital tuner, and the app.”
“Good-bye TWC!”
“This is going to completely change the way cable service providers do business. NYC today, nationwide tomorrow. It will be interesting to watch how cable companies change the way they engage with their existing/ new customer base in order to remain relevant.”
“TWC doesn’t advertise it, or make it easy to use, but if you ask they will sell you basic broadcast channels only for around $18 a month. I’ve been using it for a few years, connected to a dedicated computer which I use as a DVR, netflix streaming box and blu-ray player. I tried an antenna but it didn’t work for me because I’m on the wrong side of the building. My total cable/internet bill is $53 a month. “
“TV service for $12 a month? That will soon double. Still, every cable TV outfit around will try to destroy these guys immediately. And I wonder how they plan to keep it only in NYC. Of course they will feature the same low quality programming and the same “all or nothing” menu that is the norm today. Let’s see what happens!?
“I don’t understand – they’re “offering” to make me pay for channels I can get over the air for free?”
“Bravo. Living in an area without cable. Satellite is the only available service. The monthly cost is too high for a very light TV user. This service is an answer to my prayers. “
“Add this to the list of streaming services that choke my cable broadband connection. Let’s take OTA HD programming (which is free and which already has its own spectrum) and stream it needlessly over the internet, doubling the overall bandwidth that it takes to watch TV and increasing the costs. Great idea!”
I actually learned a few things just from reading the comments and that’s the most interesting thing about the article itself. A $5 antenna? And who refers to their set as a ‘television machine’? Reader comments are not always that interesting but often are don’t you think?
Like Yogi Berra says – you can observe a lot by watching.
Does that ever happen to you? It happens to me all the time. Yesterday I read about the idea of having a ‘Guest’ application on a mobile phone such that you could offer your phone to someone else to use (temporarily) and they would log in as a guest and make a call or do whatever they needed to on their own account and not be able to get into your account. I realize that it won’t be long before everyone has a smartphone but sometimes batteries die, phones get lost or don’t work so having this as an option in the form of an application is a great idea. It seems so obvious to me and caused me to wonder why I didn’t think of that?
Several years ago I wrote a post on how I thought there should be an iPhone EZ pass application – http://wp.me/pJX7l-9L – and BTW I didn’t and still don’t have an iPhone. I would now add that it should be a smartphone application for all platforms (Android, Blackberry if they last). Good idea but I’ve lately been trying to find a way to make it happen and have been stymied every step of the way when it comes to contacting people at EZ Pass – which has been nearly impossible. If it was easy it already would have been done right?
So my conclusion is that the answer to ‘why didn’t I think of that’ can sometimes be answered in realizing that the idea is only part of the process and successfully implementing an idea is most often more difficult than thinking it up in the first place.
If I have learned anything from creating http://www.yourcover.com is that good ideas don’t always translate into good businesses – at least not right away – and even if they do it will take time as it has with YourCover which I am happy to say is now a very successful business. And even if they do translate into good businesses the road to success is will be long and filled with potholes that we do our best to avoid. However I find myself on the side of the road from time to time fixing the damage done when the pothole cannot be avoided.
But I strongly encourage people to not answer the question ‘why hasn’t it been done already? Before they’ve tried actually doing it. Even if other people thought of it, putting an idea into action and making it happen requires more than ingenuity. The idea is only the beginning and the hard work then follows. What happens to me is that I think – someone has undoubtedly already thought of this and there’s a reason it has not been done. I realize that is a pretty poor excuse for not at least exploring an idea to a greater degree.
Some time ago I had an idea for a smartphone mirror application – something that would look like a compact-type mirror. Sure enough when I looked I found one on the Android system (but not for Blackberry as far as I have been able to determine) http://bit.ly/wrPbwp. The question I should ask myself (and you should think about asking yourself) is – ‘Why didn’t I think of making it happen?’
When I went to see Avatar in 3D in 2009 I felt it was an interesting and worthwhile experience. What I did not realize is that the story and imagery were woven so well together that they transcended the fact that the movie was in 3D. I’ve since seen Avatar in un-3D (i.e. regular film) and enjoyed the movie very much. That movie experience was not downgraded for the lack of it being in 3D.
Over the Christmas holiday weekend my family and I went to see Tintin www.tintin.com . I’ve always been a fan of Tintin having read the comics when I was a kid and watching the cartoons when they came out 20 years ago in 1991. The Steven Spielberg treatment of the Tintin characters was true to the franchise. The characters and the story again put together so well. Yet the experience was not enhanced by the fact that we saw the movie in 3D. My daughter says this all the time and that she would rather NOT see a movie in 3D if it can be avoided.
Once again the $15/ticket price for the four of us was eyebrow-raising. It shows me that it will not be too long before a family of four could pay $100 to go to see a movie in the theater. I still feel the movie theater experience is a very worthwhile and unique one that cannot be recreated in 99.9% of home theaters.
But shelling out $60 for four 3D tickets due to the supposed enhancement of the movie-going experience is most times just a bad value. 3D techniques do not seem to have advanced all that much and the ‘cool’ factor having something float by you in a 3D movie is highly overrated. I look at the 3D technology having not advanced much – sort of like modern day toasters.
Apparently there’s hope on the way for a vastly improved 3D experience. An improved experience would I hope include the need of having to even wear 3D glasses. I don’t know anyone that actually likes having to wear 3D glasses to watch a movie.
So save your money folks – I think my daughter is right.
What do you think?
On Monday December 12, New York Times’ writer David Streitfeld quasi-reviewed the hot-selling Amazon Kindle Fire http://nyti.ms/ruVyId. Skewered might be a better description. I have had my own Amazon Kindle Fire for two and a half weeks and have not been disappointed but not completely thrilled either.
The reviews I have read invariably start with what’s wrong with the Kindle Fire. So I will do my best to first focus on the positive attributes before casting any stones. Bob Sacks of Precision Media Group has more of an even-keel view of the Kindle Fire that I share in large part.
‘It is not an iPad, nor does it pretend to be one. Most of the reviewers are making a mistake to compare them . . . The first and obvious attraction to the Fire is the price. At $199.00 it is half the cost of an iPad, so no comparison is necessary there. And most of those who buy a Fire will not have held an iPad and will therefore not be able to make a comparison . . . Is it a perfect device? No. Is it a fair compromise of price and services? Absolutely yes.’
What first attracted me to the Kindle was that it served as an e-reader with true web connectivity. Yes it is a mini-tablet and for me eminently more portable than an iPad. The back lighting on the Kindle Fire is very good and the book and periodical reading experience is also excellent – better than the original Kindle by far. Oh and did I mention it was $199.00? Price is a huge driver here and I think it is also true that many people who will try the Kindle Fire have not used an iPad so they do not have that experience to compare one versus the other.
The Kindle color tablet screen is vivid and for me not too small as some have suggested. There are some issues with content not being optimized for the Kindle size but those will be worked out in subsequent versions. Book and publication downloads are fast and easy. The battery life is more than adequate particularly if you are careful about turning off the Wi-Fi when it is not being used. The touch screen and navigation are intuitive and work well.
When it comes to things I don’t like about the Kindle Fire there are a number of those as well. The thing that first bothered me is that there is no way to get web access other than Wi-Fi. At present Amazon is not offering consumers a way to purchase 3G or 4G connectivity under subscription. The lack of a front and back facing camera is something that will be added later I suspect but again keep in mind that an iPad costs more than double the price of a Kindle Fire.
Over the air updates are slated to come in spring 2012 for the Kindle Fire. So I expect some improvements in the user experience. And when Amazon releases the Kindle Fire 2.0 (sometime) I expect many of the issues to be resolved – perhaps not at the $199 price however. I can see Amazon creating a vertical market for the Kindle Fire with different levels of features and services.
Amazon needed to get version 1.0 of the Kindle Fire on the market or it might have been too far behind to ever catch up. If you are a book lover the Kindle Fire offers a great reading experience and a so-so web browsing experience in a convenient and portable size. You can wait for the next version but it might be a while.
Amazon’s Kindle Fire is not an iPad – and that’s ok isn’t it?
Last night as we traveled back from the airport I was hungry and decided to order a small pizza. There’s a place www.PlanetPizza.com that makes good pizza near to our house. On their website they always have coupons for discounts and we use them nearly every time we go there. However on the road without a printer we were unable to print one out and get a discount on whatever might have been available. Unfortunately Planet Pizza like most local retailers does not allow you to show the coupon on your mobile device in order to use a coupon to get a discount.
Small portable printers have been around for several years. Of course what might be considered small and portable are adjectives that are best viewed through the eyes of the people that will use them. If you’ve rented a car anytime in the last few years you are probably familiar with the car rental company’s ability to print out your receipt on the spot. The devices they use to process the transaction are held in their hand and the printer often clipped on a belt. The print quality is acceptable but nothing great. This is the kind of device that would be practical for people to carry around in a car or even a briefcase.
When I started looking around for a small portable personal printer I was surprised to find there were not many reasonable options. The products were either too large, too expensive or both. Just to be clear I am looking for something small that could be held in one hand, and something that would cost under $ 75.00. A website www.planon.com advertises that it offers their PrintStik product as ‘The World’s Smallest Mobile Printer’. And small it is but it also costs $ 199.00. So far I have been unable to find anything that meets my small criteria at any price close to $ 75.00.
The other thing to keep in mind is the ultimate obsolescence of portable printers. After all with mobile communication sharing using things like NFC (near field communications) on the horizon it should not be too long before the need to print out a coupon is non-existent. It’s already happening with airline boarding passes and the trend is clear that ink on paper is fast becoming a relic.
Do you have any thoughts on using a miniature portable printer? Would you use one if it were affordable and available?