The Browser Is The OS: 19 Years Later

 

So it was declared in the early days: Web apps will win over native apps. Why let the facts cloud an appealing theory?

Marc Andreessen, the Netscape co-founder, is credited with many bold, visionary claims such as “Everyone Will Have the Web” (ca. 1992), “Web Businesses Will Live in the Cloud” (1999), “Everything Will Be Social” (2004, four years before joining Facebook’s Board), and “Software Will Eat the World” (2009).

But not all of Andreessen’s predictions are as ringing and relevant. His 1995 proclamation that “The Browser Will Be the Operating System” still reverberates around the Web, despite the elusiveness of the concept.

The idea is that we can rid our computing devices of their bulky, buggy operating systems by running apps in the Cloud and presenting the results in a Web browser. The heavy lifting is performed by muscular servers while our lightweight devices do nothing more than host simple input/output operations. As a result, our devices will become more agile and reliable, they’ll be less expensive to buy and maintain, we’ll never again have to update their software.

The fly in the ointment is the word connected. As Marc Andreessen himself noted in a 2012 Wired interview [emphasis mine]:

[I]f you grant me the very big assumption that at some point we will have ubiquitous, high-speed wireless connectivity, then in time everything will end up back in the web model.

So what do we do until we have ubiquitous, high-speed wireless connectivity?

We must build off-line capabilities into our devices, local programs that provide the ability to format and edit text documents, spreadsheets, and presentations in the absence of a connection to the big App Engines in the Cloud. Easy enough, all you have to do is provide a storage mechanism (a.k.a. a file system), local copies of your Cloud apps, a runtime environment that can host the apps, a local Web server that your Browser can talk to… The inventory of software modules that are needed to run the “Browser OS” in the absence of a connection looks a lot like a conventional operating system… but without a real OS’s expressive power and efficiency.

For expressive power, think of media intensive applications. Photoshop is a good example: It could never work with a browser as the front end, it requires too much bandwidth, the fidelity of the image is too closely tied to the specifics of the display.

With regard to efficiency, consider the constant low-level optimizations required to conserve battery power and provide agile user interaction, none of which can be achieved in a browser plug-in.

Certainly, there are laudable arguments in support of The Browser Is The OS theory. For example: Unified cross-platform development. True, developing an app that will run on a standardized platform decreases development costs, but, let’s think again, do we really want to go for the lowest common denominator? A single standard sounds comfy and economical but it throttles creativity, it discourages the development of apps that take advantage of a device’s specialized hardware.

Similarly, a world without having to update your device because the Cloud always has the latest software is a comforting thought.. but, again, what about when you’re off-line? Also, a growing number of today’s computing devices automatically update themselves.

In any case, the discussion may be moot: The people who pay our salaries — customers — blithely ignore our debates. A recent Flurry Analytics report shows that “Six years into the Mobile Revolution” apps continue to dominate the mobile Web. We spend 86% of our time using apps on our mobile devices and only 14% in our browsers:

Apps 86 Browser 14

…and app use is on the rise, according to the Flurry Analytics forecast for 2014:

Apps Web Flurry 2013 2014

So how did Andreessen get it so wrong, why was his prediction so wide of the mark? It ends up he wasn’t wrong… because he never said “The Browser Will Be the Operating System”. Although it has been chiseled into the tech history tablets, the quote is apocryphal. 

While doing a little bit of research for this Monday Note, I found a 1995 HotWired article, by Chip Bayers, strangely titled “Why Bill Gates Wants to Be the Next Marc Andreessen”. (Given Microsoft’s subsequent misses and Marc Andreessen’s ascendency, perhaps we ought to look for other Chip Bayer prophecies…) The HotWired piece gives us a clear “asked and answered” Andreessen quote [emphasis mine]:

“Does the Web browser become something like an operating system?

No, it becomes a new type of platform. It doesn’t try to do the things an operating system does. Instead of trying to deal with keyboards, mouses, memory, CPUs, and disk drives, it deals with databases and files that people want to secure – transactions and things like that. We’re going to make it possible for people to plug in anything they want.”

Nearly two decades later, we still see stories that sonorously expound “The Browser Is The OS” theory. Just google the phrase and you’ll be rewarded with 275M results such as “10 reasons the browser is becoming the universal OS” or “The Browser Is The New Operating System”. We also see stories that present Google’s Chrome and Chromebooks as the ultimate verification that the prediction has come true.

The Browser Is The OS is a tech meme, an idea that scratches an itch. The nonquote was repeated, gained momentum, and, ultimately, became “Truth”. We’ll be polite and say that the theory is “asymptotically correct”… while we spend more energy figuring out new ways to curate today’s app stores.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Lessons from a good vertical: Skift.com

 

For digital media companies, creating good verticals that breed small but valuable audiences has become essential. On that subject, here are my takeaways following a conversation with Rafat Ali, founder and CEO of Skift.com. In 20 months, Rafat’s company has become a reference in the travel intelligence business. 

There is no excuse for not trying to build a vertical digital service (web site & mobile app) for a strong media company shifting to digital. As long as you have a powerful (not to be confused with profuse) newsroom coupled with a well-structured contents system, trying a foray in a specific domain is worth considering. As an example, see Atlantic Media, one of the most innovative media brands, as it deploys a series of verticals nested in its Government Executive Media Group. These units all generate small but extremely valuable and loyal audiences — and enviable revenue per user (more on the Atlantic in a future Monday Note).

Building a vertical is a mere matter of implementation, you might say. But a look below the surface shows how such process demands much more than merely putting a small group of good writers in a digital stable, and asking them to gather news on a specific subject.

That’s why Skift.com drew my attention. In less than twenty months, manned by only 9 people crammed in an mid-town Manhattan office, Skift.com has become a strong voice and a reference in the travel industry: airlines, booking systems, hotels, tour operators – and all the the sector’s disruptors.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

I met Rafat Ali five years ago in Hyderabad, India; we were both of speaking at the same conference. Rafat was about to exit his first and remarkable startup, PaidContent.org (a terrible name he now laughs off), one of the first blogs decoding the media industry’s transformation. After building it from scratch and spending eight exhausting years producing and editing stories, Rafat sold it to the Guardian for a reported $30m – right before the 2008 crisis. (Last year, PaidContent was acquired by GigaOm).

After a short transition, Rafat was free to go. So did he. In 2010, at the age of 36, he left for a two-year series of trips to Oman, Iceland, Burma, India (where he has family), radiating from his bases in New York and London. At last out of PaidContent’s trenches, he took the time to read a hundred books during his journeys. Following @rafat on Twitter, you could feel his excitement, and also his growing interest in the travel sector.

‘You have to remember, it was 2010, the iPad had just been launched, everyone was thinking about what to build on it’, said Rafat. His first idea was to re-invent the travel guide book for the iPad. But he soon realized how crappy the whole travel industry’s information ecosystem was: ‘I was blown away.’ While the transactional part of the travel business had been completely broken apart by a massive, unprecedented disintermediation — benefiting the customer, trade information remained frozen in the past, with its sets of professional printed publications perpetuating a jargon-filled verbiage offering little or no actionable intelligence, nor useful data

Nature (and digital business) abhors vacuum, so does Rafat Ali, who decided to fill the void. When asked to define Skift in a nutshell, he said this: ‘In late 2011, we wanted to build the Bloomberg News of travel’. (When it comes to business information, this is quite a goal. Never aim low, I can’t agree more.) Rafat’s wanted to build something based on a few concepts: rely heavily on data, capitalize on the open-web, use APIs aggressively (to connect with third party data sets), aim at professionals, consultants, experts, and — last but not the least — prosumers who often know more than merchants. (Read Rafat’s post on the “Mediata” Startups).

The other key to Skift’s concept — which means shift in Danish — was tearing apart the silo culture that plagued the travel industry for decades: ‘You have airlines, airports, cruises, hotels, technology… All of these silos have collapsed in global interconnected megatrends, and we knew we could make our voice heard across all…’, explained Rafat while pointing at this graph:

SkiftCircularGraphic-b
Graph ©
Skift.com

As far as editorial is concerned, Rafat believes journalistic content is needed to create addiction, daily use, while-data related products generate usefulness, stickiness, loyalty and, ultimately, monetization. Content-wise, at the beginning, the site was built on four “legs”: aggregation (collecting headlines); curation (with a tweet-length phrase to describe a story); licensed content (full articles brought from news providers); and originally produced articles. Today, Skift is down to two items: 40% of articles are licensed (mostly Newscred) and 60% are original content — about 15-20 short business stories (produced by a staff of three…)

Business-wise, Skift positioned itself primarily as a B2B company, then secondarily as B2B-2C. Its traffic is still modest (1m UVs/mo), but growing fast; so does its newsletter business, expected to reach 75,000 subscribers by year end. No mobile apps in sight as the mobile web works well for Skift: mobile users account for 35% of web traffic and 50% of newsletters readings.

Skift sells few but high yield ads, to the point that Rafat is about to create a tiny studio to create bespoke brand contents. (Maintaining the mandatory Chinese wall could be tricky in such a small structure.)

But Skift’s true gem is its industry dashboards and data collection system, a well-structured tree that leads to scores of statistics and rankings. Inside, you’ll learn that AirBnB — whose valuation is now higher than Hyatt — has a Skift Score (a combination of indicators) roughly twice the “bookings & tools” industry average. Or that Dutch airline KLM scores way better than the hippest Virgin Atlantic. Or that Hertz masters the social ecosystem way better than the trendy Über.

Using data analytics, Skift produces reports — short and updated twice a month (as opposed to quarterly “bibles” prone to quick obsolescence.) ‘We will focus mainly on marketing, strategy and technology to produce competitive intelligence’, said Skift’s CEO. Rafat’s intense focus on doing few things but doing them well extends to the obligatory conference business: Skift intends to do just a single event about the Future of Travel, in a similar fashion to Quartz’sThe Next Billion conference (see the #qznextbillion hashtag for a list of tweets linking to videos). In both cases, these events are built on strong editorial concepts, ‘We want to make a conference about leadership instead of a vendors-to-vendors type…’ said Rafat.

What’s next for Skift? First, an off-site staff meeting in Iceland. Actually, Rafat Ali is considering a global franchise set in Reykjavik. Less anecdotal, Skift founder wants to apply his news and contents formula beyond the travel industry to what he feels are interconnected sectors — at least in discretionary spending — namely food & beverage and retail sectors.

One final note. Looking at the state of travel information, I can’t help but discern a complete failure of traditional, legacy journalism. Too cozy with the main players and their corrupting PR machines, too filled-up with press junkets and freebies, the mainstream media coverage of this $6.5 trillion/260 million jobs sector has become mostly illegible. This leaves a large open field to new players.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

 

TV Done Right: Still A Dream

 

As the strong reactions to even the slightest Apple TV rumor demonstrate, there’s a vigorous appetite for a simple, modern Internet TV experience. The technology is ready but carriers aren’t.

Last week started with Big Apple TV News in an authoritative-sounding Wall Street Journal article:

“Apple Inc. is in talks with Comcast Corp. about teaming up for a streaming-television service that would use an Apple set-top box and get special treatment on Comcast’s cables to ensure it bypasses congestion on the Web, people familiar with the matter say.”

Search for “Comcast” in a news aggregator such as Feedly (there are many other good choices), and you’ll see a wide range of reactions to the Apple-Comcast rumor. Given the heat the article generated, it’s odd that there has been zero follow-up from the main players — nothing from Apple and Comcast, no additional information in the WSJ or any other journal. When a deal of such importance is in the works, “people familiar with the matter” have a strong incentive to keep talking, to add color, to spin their side of the story. Of course, no one expects Apple to do much leaking, but the radio silence from Comcast spinmeisters is another matter entirely.

Philip Elmer-DeWitt offers the most likely explanation: The Wall Street Journal got played by someone intent on throwing a wrench into Comcast’s plan to acquireTime Warner’s cable operations. (This wouldn’t be the first time: Cellphone carriers have repeatedly used the WSJ to air their perennial Poor Me complaints about excessive smartphone subsidies.)

Echoes of the WSJ non-story ricocheted around the blogosphere. Some, such as this BBC article, make painful points about the abuse that US consumers undergo at the hands of broadband carriers:

Broadband Cost

As a sharp-witted Be engineer liked to remark: “It costs more… But it does less.”

Carriers take too much money for a user-hostile experience simply because they can. In most locations, cable companies have little or no competition, so there’s no reason for them to do anything more than milk the most profit from a cheap infrastructure. As Apple Insider’s Neil Hughes reminds us, the user experience isn’t a priority for cable providers. Indeed, as I write this from Paris, I have to juggle set-top box restarts and malfunctioning secondary content subscriptions only reluctantly allowed by the main provider.

It doesn’t have to be that way. No miracle is required to make our Cable TV experience easy and gratifying.

Consider today’s cable arrangement, simplified for our discussion. A coax cable is strung from the street into your basement or crawl space. You plug the coax into a signal splitter, connect one output to your cable modem for Internet access, while the others feed the TVs in your household.

Next, you run an Ethernet cable from your modem to your WiFi access point and maybe you also run a wire from the access point to your “most trusted” computer. Upstairs, we see a set-top box, an Internet TV streaming device (Roku, Apple TV, Boxee, or other), and, if your TV is of a certain age, a digital adaptor.

That’s four or five devices that you have to connect and, when things go wrong, disconnect, power down, and restart in the “proper” order.

It’s only too easy to imagine how a next-generation Apple TV could collapse this maze of impenetrable interfaces into one box: Coax in, Wifi and HDMI out and, miracle, one and only one remote! This is something that Apple seems to have the taste and resources to do well.

There are no technical obstacles, no new technology is required, no new software platform, just a careful integration job. I realize I’m veering dangerously close to the “mere matter of implementation” deception, but regardless of the amount of work it would take to integrate the various technologies, the benefit to the user would make the engineering effort worth it.

And there are many benefits:  We can throw away our DVRs as content becomes an app that we can stream whenever we want — the 60 Minutes iPad app is an elegant, flexible exemplar of the type. Rather than paying for a “package” of channels that are selected by the cable provider, we’ll be able to buy a la carte shows, series, and channels through iTunes or similar content vendor. We’ll be able to watch the free-with-ads version of a show, or we can pay for the ad-free edition.

Some day, the status quo will break, perhaps as the result of a patient encirclement and infrastructure buildup — a better, vertically integrated Content Delivery Network, both very much compatible with Apple’s playbook. As the reactions to the (possibly planted) Apple-Comcast rumor amply demonstrate, users are becoming increasingly aware of the disconnect between the experience that the cable companies offer and TV Done Right.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Dealing With Data Frenzy

 

Last week, I attended the Newspaper Association of America’s MXC conference in Denver. We were to focus on the publishers’ use of data. A hot topic that sometimes becomes overly broad and leads to unrealistic expectations. Here are some key points I made.   

For any digital publisher, relying on data is no longer an option nor a luxury. It has become a necessity. Each passing quarter confirms the demise of digital advertising: yields continues to fall, programmatic buying (most often operated by large third party players) takes over and continues to fuel deflation. Highly visible media brands — two years ago the Huffington Post, now BuzzFeed — deal with the issue by generating huge quantity of pages saturated with kittens and listicles, each yielding very low CPMs. At the other end of the spectrum, strong media houses develop customized, sophisticated campaigns for high-end brands (see examples on NYT’s IdeaLab page); they also fill their pages and apps with so-called Branded Content items — which very few publishers manage to implement correctly.

For news publishers, the use of data should focus on four goals:
— Increase advertising yields through smarter targeting
— Improve their editorial recommendation engines (hence raising the number of page views per visit)
— Up-sell ancillary products
— Raise the performance of their subscription system (if any.)

Over the recent years, the advertising community managed to find a new gun to shoot itself in the foot. It’s called targeted ads. Everyone has ugly anecdotes about those. Typically, the stories go like this: You do a web search for an item and quickly find it. In the following months you’re deluged by ads for the product you bought. The annoyance prompts many to opt for AdBlocking systems — I did (except for sites I’m in charge of), with no regret nor guilt.

To put it mildly, there is room for improvement, here.

Coming back to profiting from site users’ data, one good example I heard recently is a recent request made by a large airline to the Financial Times: “Find us people who travel on long haul flights and who log on FT.com more than four times per month and from locations scattered along our routes”, i.e. super-frequent flyers used to business or first class, etc. Thanks to IP location analysis yielding geospatial coordinates for each connection, the retrieval of such high-value clientele wasn’t overly complicated. The geolocation principle applies to other requests, such as finding residents of a specific city or suburb, in order to serve effective advertising.

When you think of profiling, use a passport analogy. Anyone who visit a site from a browser (it’s more complicated with mobile apps), is issued a passport in the form of an anonymous cookie, such as this one, injected in my computer by the New York Times:

nyt_cookie

As a digital subscriber, I have inherited no less than 113 cookies from the NYTimes, each one stored in my computer for a specific purpose. They come from every segment of my navigation (pages, sections, articles, blogs), each generates a “stamp” on the passport. The more stamps I get on my passport, the more NYTimes people knows about me. Over time, the process draws a finely defined profile.

The example I often use looks like this (my perspective is from a French business media company):

Based on her past navigation, the user ID:6547dgfc_9088 turned out to be:
– A woman in her 30’s
– Leaving in Toulouse [Thanks to the geolocation of her internet box] She works :
…in the aerospace industry
… most likely in a financial department
… with a special interest in European regulations
… at a fairly high position.
Then we should be able to serve her with:
– Local ads / adjusted for her income and likely tastes [she also visits our lifestyle sections & other online properties in our network] – Adjusted editorial recommendations [related stories] based on her sector and position
– A special deal for our next conference on corporate finance
– A notification when someone in our team or among our partners publishes a book (paper or digital) relevant to her interest
– An abstract of our annual in-depth survey on aerospace
– A sneak-peak at our partner’s COOC (Corporate Open Online Course) featuring four hours of talk by a prominent tax lawyer from Brussels [don't forget the Red Bull] – [And if she's not a subscriber] A promotional, customized, one-time newsletter featuring the economics of commercial airplanes, with past stories from our newsroom, curated links, etc., all of the above driving to the inevitable conclusion: this discerning individual should definitely take advantage of our one-time offer.    

This “internal” profiling can be spectacularly enhanced by working with a major profiling third party. As an example, the large European player Weborama has accumulated a staggering 70 million profiles for an internet population of 52 million French users (each person can be linked to multiple profiles.) All over Europe, Weborama has collected 210 million profiles, roughly 40% of Europeans web users. In our example, by tapping into such large databases, the profile of this upwardly moving female exec from Toulouse will be enhanced up to the minutest detail of her tastes and preferences.

For the media company, reaching such productive interplay between a profiled individual and its ability to serve her with relevant content, services and products requires a well-integrated system — and a critical mass of products.

Understanding someone’s social and semantical genome through internal an external profiling is only a part of the equation. Matching the customer’s profile to the company output (journalism, conferences, publications, surveys…) also demands that the genome of those products be precisely established. If we want to “talk” to the customer’s profile, a story must have its set of tags, keywords and metadata; so does the theme of an upcoming conference that must go beyond a basic presentation, or the description a book. Ideally, every single piece of what the news organization produces must have its semantic genome encoded in a standardized way.

In defining user profiles, media organizations must have a rich and diverse line-up of contents, services and ancillary products. The broader the spectrum of a media brand, the better. All things being equal in terms of editorial quality, an isolated media will be less well armed than a larger company that operates multiple properties ranging from editorial to e-commerce and uses those to construct a wide range of user profiles.

Much more than in print media, isolation is not an attractive option in the digital world.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Wearables Fever

 

While Google, Motorola, and Samsung seem eager to jump into the wearables market, Apple characteristically keeps its counsel – and wisely so: Smartwatches and other wearables produce more pageviews than profits.

Wearables are a danger to your health – your mental health, that is. Smartwatches and sensor-laden bracelets aren’t so new anymore — see Microsoft’s 2004 SPOT Watch — but the vernal equinox seems to have triggered a bout of Wearables Fever the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Tablet Fever of January, 2011, when 76 tablets were announced at the Consumer Electronic Show in Las Vegas. As so often happens with pandemics, there was a smaller outbreak, called the Dawn of the Tablet PC, days before the January 2010 iPad launch.

In this year’s derangement, we are witnessing the birth of another epoch-making class of product — the Wearable. As Wired sees it, for example, Jawbone Is Now the Startup Apple Should Fear Most.

In one respect, Jawbone’s devices are a lot like Apple’s. The company admires minimalism…[b]ut Apple’s minimalism is cold — all brushed metal and glass — while Jawbone’s is warm, squishy, and textured… There’s a chance Apple has designed itself into a corner. But for Jawbone, the future is full of possibility.

Then there’s this analysis, quoted and mocked by John Gruber [emphasis mine]:

Cadie Thompson, writing for CNBC, “Time Is Ticking for Apple to Announce an iWatch, Say Analysts”. Apple needs an iWatch sooner rather than later, or the company will risk losing its innovative edge to rivals, analysts say.

They only have 60 days left to either come up with something or they will disappear,” said Trip Chowdhry, managing director at Global Equities Research. “It will take years for Apple’s $130 billion in cash to vanish, but it will become an irrelevant company… it will become a zombie, if they don’t come up with an iWatch.

I’m guessing the ellipsis denotes when he paused for another line of coke.

Parenthetically, it would be wrong to imply that Mr. Chowdhry might be “incentivized” to shout from the rooftops by rewards more satisfying than pageviews — no allegations of stock manipulation complicity here — but I wonder about the games that he and other anal-ists play. As Philip Elmer-DeWitt pointedly noted in a CNN Money column last year, Mr. Chowdhry urged his clients to unload Apple stock for eight months and then blamed the CEO and CFO “for destroying Apple’s shareholder value”.

If you’re curious enough to look at Mr. Chowdhry’s spartan Global Equities Research site, you’ll see he claims to have Commission Sharing Agreements with Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Barclays, Jefferies, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan. As the Wikipedia article points out, such agreements “ask that broker to allocate a portion of the commission directly to an independent research provider.” Here, one wonders what the word independent really means…

Back to Wearables: The announcements pile on.

Samsung tells us they’re moving their smartwatches away from Android to a version of Tizen, itself based on a version of the ubiquitous Linux.

Google announces Android Wear, a version of Android for smartwatches.

Motorola, soon to be a Lenovo brand, announces that its moto 360 smartwatch is “Coming Summer 2014 in a selection of styles” and provides these artful renderings:

Moto Wrist Edited

and…

Moto Modern

(I write renderings because, as the Android Wear intro video indicates, these are simulated pictures. This doesn’t mean that the final product won’t be better looking– but we’re clearly not there yet.)

Why the haste? Did Tim Cook succeed in misdirecting Apple’s competition when he pronounced wearables a “very key branch of the tree? Or is there a giant business to be had?

We have many unanswered questions.

First, paraphrasing Horace Dediu, there are the twin questions of For What and By Whom: For what job is a smartwatch “hired”, and by whom? If we look at phones as a model, we see two “employers”: Carriers hire smartphones to increase their ARPU; normal consumers use them as small, ubiquitous, always-connected personal computers.

Will this model work for smartwatches? We can almost certainly eliminate carriers from the equation: Subsidies are out of question because a watch is unlikely to generate carrier revenue.

For us users, a smartwatch collects sensor data, connects to our smartphone, displays alerts, responds to touch and voice commands… and even tells us the time. These are all worthwhile functions that make for neat promo videos, but to keep users interested after the novelty wears out, smartwatches will have to do more than log the miles we’ve run, give us weather updates, and show us the name of the person who’s ringing the smartphone in our pocket. Put another way: We’re willing to pay a premium for our smartphones (whether directly or by contract) because of the huge range of features they provide, the enormous number of apps in the app stores. Will we be as durably aroused – and willing to part with substantial amounts of money – by (yet another) pulse rate app?

Another batch of questions: Since we no longer need a dedicated timepiece to tell us the time — our smartphone does that — Who wears a (dumb) watch these days, How, When, and Why?

Simplifying a bit, younger people don’t wear watches at all and older generations use them as jewelry — and gender-specific jewelry, at that. Furthermore, how many veteran watch-wearers wear the same watch all the time? Many of us own more than one watch, and select the appropriate timepiece (or two — or none at all) for the occasion. These aren’t trivial issues, they’re uncharted territory for mobile device makers and marketers.

Next question: How will smartwatch makers handle the delicate equilibrium between computing power and battery power? As smartwatches evolve and offer more features, a better display, and a more responsive user interface, they’ll need more computing power — and more computing power means a quicker battery drain. Will we put up with watches that run out of power at the end of the day? Will designers retard functionality in order to extend battery life to 24 hours and beyond… or make a smartwatch so big it’ll look like a miniature phone?

The power equilibrium question is why Samsung moved to a dedicated (and pared down) version of Tizen, and why Google did the same for Android Wear. All without giving much information of battery life.

Finally: Is there a business, there? Here in the Valley, Pebble CEO Eric Migicovsky claims to have sold 400,000 watches since January, 2013. At around $150 each, that’s $60M in revenue — a real tribute to Eric’s long-standing belief in wearables (he’s been working at it for six years).

But even if you multiplied this number by 10, it would barely nudge the needle for a large companies such as Samsung, Motorola/Lenovo, or Apple, which means these devices will be confined to the role of smartphone companion. They’ll help make money by enhancing the main product; they’re not going to be a $10B business in themselves.

As Charles Arthur writes in The Guardian, there are fewer than half a million smartwatches in use in the UK: “Wearable computing faces an uphill battle breaking through to the mainstream…”. Similarly, the Register doesn’t see any good, large-scale answers to the question. It calls Google wearables “A solution looking for a rich nerd”.

These challenges might explain why Apple doesn’t seem to have caught this Spring’s Wearables Fever. Smartwatches are destined to be ecosystem extensions, not The Next Big Thing.

JLG@mondaynote.com

One last thought before we close: Not all Ecosystem Extensions are equal. The no-longer-a-hobby Apple TV now brings substantial revenue and growth:

“Sales of the Apple TV are estimated to have grown by 80 percent in 2013, reaching around 10 million units for the calendar year, or some $1 billion worth of set-top boxes sold to end users.”

Horace Dediu puts a “Fortune 130” label on iTunes. By itself, with yearly gross revenue of $23.5B and growing 34%, iTunes is large enough to rank #130 in the Fortune list of the 500 largest US companies:

On a yearly basis iTunes/Software/Services is nearly half of Google’s core business and growing slightly faster.”

While music sales are on the wane, apps and video (mostly Apple TV) show healthy growth. Compared to an Apple TV, how much would an iWatch add to the iTunes business? Apps? Content?

Apple seems wise to stay out of the game until it can make something more lasting than a novelty.

CarPlay Thoughts

 

Who wouldn’t want an iPhone- or Android-like experience in their car instead of today’s misbegotten navigation and entertainment systems? CarPlay’s answer looks nice – until one looks at the details.

Apple’s CarPlay has an air of inevitability. Previously dubbed “iOS in the Car”, CarPlay brings the iPhone’s aesthetics, ease of use, consistency, and universe of apps to the ugly and dumbfounding world of car navigation and entertainment systems.

Seven years after the iPhone launched the Smartphone 2.0 wave, Apple kickstarts another mobile revolution…

It’s an enticing, simple vision. Instead of today’s disjointed systems — which often cost in the $1,000 range, plus $249 for a DVD of updated maps — you get a screen the size of a small tablet running iOS apps with voice and touch control (on-screen and armrest), off-air map updates, open-ended flexibility… We have arrived.

I’ve struggled with dashboard electronics from German, Japanese, and French car makers (no electronics on the old family Chevrolets), and I’ve seen what happened to Ford when it tried to use Microsoft software for its Sync system. Replacing these hairballs with an iOS system only makes sense.

But sense and reality are still living apart.

carplay2

To start, the “iOS in the Car” phrase is misleading. The iOS device “in your car” is the iPhone or iPad that you’ve brought with you — Apple isn’t about to license iOS to automakers (which may be part of the reason why Apple changed the name to “CarPlay”).

And Apple isn’t going to try to take the place of suppliers such as Delphi, VDO, and Aisin by making subsystems for carmakers — it’s not in Apple’s DNA. Not that it would matter if they tried: Automakers have made an art of pinching fractions of cents from their suppliers’ prices; they’d never tolerate Apple’s margins.

CarPlay replicates your iDevice’s screen as H.264 video spewed through an intelligent Lightning cable connected to your car’s USB port. The video format is widely accepted, so the in-car device either understands it already, or can be updated to do so.

So far, so good. As many observers have pointed out, the idea is a wired echo of Apple’s AirPlay, the technology that connects your iDevices (and other compliant products) to your television via the Apple TV black puck. Complications may arise when you consider the various in-dash screen sizes, resolution, actual uses of USB connections (my car’s USB connector is useless for anything other than charging my smartphone), and other mysterious incompatibilities that are beyond Apple’s control. Still, in general, screen replication demands little from the car maker. As with Airplay and a dumb TV set, the intelligence stays inside the smartphone.

The CarPlay proposal is much more limited than the Open Automotive Alliance, a Google initiative that implants a customized version of Android into a car’s electronics. (“Audi connect” is available today; we can expect similar collaborations with Honda, GM and Hyundai.) But if the in-car system runs Android (or QNX, as is often the case today), so much the better, from the carmaker’s point of view: Let Google or one of its partner do all the work to create an Android-based all-in-one car system and let Apple hitch a ride after the work is done. Serving both Android and iOS users is a no-brainer.

It sounds good… but I can’t help but harbor uneasy feelings about this whole “scene”.

To begin with, we have a clash of cultures. To be sure, Eddy Cue, Apple’s Senior VP of Internet Software and Services, is a dealmaking expert and, as a member of the Board of Ferrari, he has serious automotive industry connections. But the spirit that drives Apple is far from that which motivates automakers.

The automotive industry expects to be in control of everything that gets into their cars. The coup that Apple pulled off with the iPhone and AT&T — taking full control of the content, no crapware, iTunes only for media — isn’t going to happen with Mercedes-Benz, or BMW, or even Hyundai. Cars aren’t phones. We’re not going to see aftermarket Toyota CarPlay kits (let alone entire cars) in Apple Stores. Apple won’t get what it always strives for: Controlled Distribution.

Then there’s the F-word: Fragmentation. In-car electronics are a mess, a new culture grafted onto an old one, Silicon Valley and Detroit in a loveless marriage. Actually, that’s  unfair: Under the hood, embedded electronics do wonders to improve the reliability, safety, and economy of our cars. But where the union breaks down is in the User Experience domain. Competent combustion management engineers and the accountants watching over their shoulders have no empathy for smartphone-loving drivers.

The meanderings get more twisted when we consider a key difference between Google and Apple. Google could tell Audi that they’ll pay, in some form, for the user data collected by Audi connect— but Audi already makes a lot of money, they don’t want to open that can of worms. As they say in their privacy agreement:

“We will not share information about you or your Audi vehicle that is connected with your use of Audi connect’s in-car features with third parties for their own purposes without your consent.”

But what would a legally-troubled, profit-starved automaker such as GM say in response to Google’s offer to subsidize the in-car system?

Apple hasn’t played that game.

An all-in-one navigation/communications/entertainment system is a pleasant dream, it feels “right”. But the technical, business model, and cultural obstacles could make for a long, arduous march.

CarPlay could be a very smart way to hitch a ride on many in-car systems without having to struggle with their design and cost challenges, yet another ecosystem extension play.

JLG@mondaynote.com

 

On Marc Andreessen’s optimistic view of news

 

A strongly-worded column by venture capitalist Marc Andreessen triggered an intense debate on the future of news. Andreessen might be right places, but his views can also be dangerously simplistic. 

For starters, it is always great to have an outsider’s view. Marc Andreessen’s witty, and fast-paced dithyramb on the future of news is undoubtedly welcome. But, as always, regardless of the depth and breath of the big picture he paints, the devil lies in the details. In no particular order, here are my thoughts on his manifesto.

As a European, I found his piece extraordinary US-centric or, slightly more broadly, Anglophone-centric.

Andreessen wrote :

[T]he market size is dramatically expanding—many more people consume news now vs. 10 or 20 years ago. Many more still will consume news in the next 10 to 20 years. Volume is being driven up, and that is a big, big deal.
Right now everyone is obsessed with slumping prices, but ultimately, the most important dynamic is No. 3 – increasing volume. Here’s why: Market size equals destiny. The big opportunity for the news industry in the next five to 10 years is to increase its market size 100x AND drop prices 10X. Become larger and much more important in the process.

By saying this, Andreessen makes two good faith mistakes.

First, he mixes up global reach and monetizable audience. Evidently, a growing number of people will enjoy access to news (maybe not all the 5 billion cellphone users he mentions), but the proportion of those able to generate a measurable ARPU is likely to be very small.

The Scalability that works for Google Maps or WhatsApp doesn’t work as well for the notion of relevant information, one that is more tightly connected to language, proximity and culture.

Second, he overestimates the addressable news market’s fragmentation. I live in France, a 66 million people country with a high standard of living and good fixed and mobile internet access. In spite of these factors, it remains a small market for the super-low-yield digital news business that brings few euros per year and per user (except for a minuscule subscriber base.) I remained stunned by the inability of good journalistic products, created by smart people, to find a sustainable business models after years of trying.

And the huge, globalized English speaking market does not warrant financial success. The Guardian is one such example. It operates one of the finest digital news system in the world but keeps bleeding money. The Guardian brings a mere $60m in digital ad revenue per year — to be compared to a kitten-rigged, listicles-saturated aggregator generating a multiple of this amount. Journalism has become almost impossible to monetize by itself (I’ll come back to that topic).

Andreessen also vastly underestimates the cost of good journalism when he writes:

[T]he total global expense budget of all investigative journalism is tiny —  in the neighborhood of tens of millions of dollars annually.”

Fact is, journalism is inherently expensive because it is by laborious and unpredictable: An investigation can take months, and yield nothing; or the journalistic outcome can be great, lifting the reputation of the media, but with zero impact on the revenue side (no identifiable growth in subscriptions or advertising). The same goes for ambitious coverage of people or events. No one has ever translated a Pulitzer Prize in hard dollars.

This is also the case for what Andreessen calls the “Baghdad Bureau problem”. It was said to cost $3m/year for the New York Times. In fact, on an annual basis, the Times spends about $200m for its news operations, including $70m for foreign coverage alone. The NYT is likely to stay afloat when it goes entirely digital (which might happen before the end of the decade), but one of the nastiest features of digital news is the unforgiving Winner Takes All mechanism.

As far as philanthropy is considered, I won’t spend too much time on the issue except to say this: Relying on philanthropy to cure malaria or to support ill-understood artists bears witness to an absence of sustainable economic system. (Until, perhaps, the artist dies; as for malaria, there is indeed a very long term benefit for society, but not for those who supply the treatment, hence the mandatory call to generosity.) Saying investigative or public-interest journalism could/should rely on philanthropy is the same as admitting it’s economically unsustainable. Luckily, American society has produced scores of philanthropists free from any agenda (political, ideological, religious) — such as the Sandler Foundation with ProPublica. That’s not the case in France — not to mention Russia and many other countries.

There are plenty of areas in which I completely support Marc Andreessen’s view. For example: A media company “should be run like a business“, i.e. seek the profitability that will warrant its independence (from every economic agent: shareholders, advertisers, political pressure, etc.) This brings us to the size and shape of a modern news factory (I use the term on purpose). We have to deal with an unpleasant reality: Good journalism is no longer sustainable as a standalone activity. But — and that’s the good news — it remains the best and indispensable core around which to develop multiple activities (see my recent column about The News Media Revenue Matrix).You can’t develop services, conferences, publishing, etc. around a depreciated journalistic asset. On the other hand, this asset has to be drastically streamlined: In many cases, less people, better-paid (simply for the ability to retain talent) and with sufficient means to do their job (don’t go for the press junkets because the travel budget has been slashed, you’ll lose on three counts: credibility of your brand, self-esteem of your team, quality of the reporting.)

Unfortunately, as Andreessen noted, there are plenty of hurdles to overcome. In fact, most existing news companies do not fathom the depth of the transformation required to survive and thrive. Nor do they understand the urgency to set this massive overhaul in motion. Such moves require strength, strong leadership, creativity, a fresh approach, unabated confidence, and a systemic vision — all of the above in short supply at legacy media. Note that when Marc Andreessen prides himself to be an investor in media ventures (for instance Business Insider– no conflict of interest), all are digital natives and bear none of the burdens of traditional media. His bullishness on news is selective, personal.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com