Comcast’s 10-Year Deal With Disney Includes Out-of-Home Viewing

Amy Chozick and Brooks Barnes for the New York Times:

Comcast and Disney said Wednesday they had agreed to a 10-year deal that will allow the cable provider to distribute Disney content via television and streaming on iPads and other devices.

But it’s not exclusive in any way.  So Disney (which owns ABC and ESPN) can still allow other content distributors, like other cables companies or Apple or Google, to distribute Disney/ABC/ESPN content as well.

Comcast customers will have access to ESPN sports on multiple devices. That network earns more money from cable and satellite companies than any other channel, about $4.69 a month, according to SNL Kagan. Combined with ESPN2 and ESPN Classic, the ESPN networks take in about $6.50 a subscriber each month.

So imagine Disney agrees to let Apple distribute those same ESPN networks  to consumers, as an a la carte option, for $9.99 per month.   If every content provider did this, I’d buy ESPN, FX, HBO and the basic networks.  Let’s say the basic networks cost $4.99 each, the “premium” network groups like ESPN are $9.99 and the “exclusive” network groups like HBO are $14.99.  My monthly TV bill would be around $60, compared to the $175 I pay today for it to be grouped with Internet service and a phone line.

The only question for me is how much the price of Internet-only service would go up.  The only question for Disney is what percentage of cable subscribers would subscribe to ESPN as an a la carte choice.  That’s likely where Apple’s negotiations are hitting some snags.

view post

 

TUESDAY December 27, 2011

 

The New Plug-and-Play: Why Apple Must Fix Apple IDs

Apple must fix their device setup process to make it easier again.For most of Apple’s history, they’ve been famous for their plug-and-play devices.  You pull a computer out of the box, plug it into the wall, and start doing things you love.

I spent most of the last two days helping my family setup new Apple devices (2 iPhone 4Ss, 2 iPad 2s, 1 Apple TV, 1 iMac).  None of these devices were plug-and-play.*  And for the non-Mac items, it wasn’t even close.

The core of the problem is Apple IDs.  When setting up Apple devices, you must enter or create an Apple ID to download any new content (music, apps, books, movies, TV shows, newspaper or magazine subscriptions, etc), to get content from your other devices, to use FaceTime and iMessage, or just to sync your contacts, calendars and other basic data.  These are a few of the tasks every user wants to perform immediately when they start using their device.  They are the features that Apple pushes hardest to sell their devices – (can you even remember the last Apple ad you saw that didn’t focus on apps, FaceTime or both?).  But you need your Apple ID before you can do any of that, and there are a few major problems with device setup using Apple IDs:

  1. The term “Apple ID” isn’t common enough for the average consumer to know what it is (“iTunes email” seems to be common name for it among my friends).
  2. All 6 people who I helped setup devices this weekend have more than one Apple ID (I’ll explain why this is such a serious problem in a moment).
  3. Apple IDs cannot be deleted.
  4. Entering an Apple ID into your device upon setup or from device settings does not sign you in persistently across the device.

Alone, none of these (except maybe #4) are all that problematic.  But together they make it a huge headache to setup new Apple devices, especially the ones that run iOS.  These are verbatim quotes from new Apple device owners in my family over the last two days:

  • “Apple hates me”
  • “This technology is way to complicated for my life”
  • “Can’t I just start fresh?”
  • “Why is this so complicated?”
  • “I don’t care anymore, I just want to play with my iPad”
  • “I’m too old for technology”
  • “I know you have way-above-average knowledge about Apple, but how is the average customer supposed to figure this out?”
Steves Jobs would cry if he heard any of those.  They represent the exact opposite of what Apple stands for and what Apple has consistently delivered for the past decade.  All these setup frustrations boil down to the Apple ID issues I pointed out.  The solutions may be technical challenges for Apple, but conceptually they’re very simple:
  1. Dedicate the initial login screen to explaining what the user’s “Apple ID” is.  This can be as simple as “this is the email address you use for iTunes purchases”.
  2. Make it easy to merge multiple Apple IDs.  This is extremely important because:
    • It appears many people have multiple Apple IDs (I have 3)
    • If your email address is associated with one Apple ID, it cannot be associated with another.
    • For communication tools (iMessage and FaceTime) you want to associate your account with the email address that your contacts already know.
    • Apple IDs can currently not be deleted or merged, forcing users to either make fake email addresses to replace their real ones on the Apple IDs they no longer use or to choose one of their old Apple IDs and surrender any content they purchased on the newer one.
  3. Make entering or creating your Apple ID the first step to setting up your device, and the only time you ever need to enter it.  iOS 5 does as you for your Apple ID right away, but it doesn’t sign you in across all the functions of your device:
    • On iPad you must setup and sign into iMessage and FaceTime even after you’ve logged into the App Store or iTunes.
    • On Apple TV you must sign into “Home Sharing” after you’ve signed into your Apple ID for the rest of the device.
    • On Macs you must sign into the App Store and iTunes Store separately.
    • On iPhones you must manually add “Receive at” email addresses for iMessage and FaceTime, and make sure they’re first deleted from other Apple ID accounts.

Steve Jobs understood the importance of introductions, especially the first introduction of a person to the computer he’s just hired.  Setting up an Apple device wasn’t even deserving of the name “process” for most of the past decade, but now it deserves “arduous setup process”.  A significant part of iOS 5 is dedicated to a “PC-free” setup and experience through iCloud.  Hopefully Apple polishes this system in iOS 6 so every user truly can buy any iPhone, iPad, Mac or Apple TV, type in their Apple ID and password and begin using it like it’s their own.  This will be the new plug-and-play.


*I’ll caveat that both iPads were running iOS 4 out of the box because they were purchased a couple months ago, but weren’t opened until Christmas.  iOS 5 would have made this easier but doesn’t solve the root problem.

view post

 

THURSDAY December 15, 2011

 

iPhone Sales Estimates: Pay Attention

Philip Elmer-DeWitt on Katy Huberty’s note covering an AlphaWise survey of U.S. consumers conducted for Morgan Stanley the week after Thanksgiving:

“Surprisingly,” she writes, “US consumers expect to buy more iPhones in C1Q12 than C4Q11″ (emphasis hers). Even discounting the survey results 10%, that suggests Apple could sell 13 million iPhones in the U.S. and 41 million worldwide next quarter. Morgan Stanley’s model has Apple selling 30 million iPhones in calendar Q1 2012.

Kary Huberty, mind you, is Morgan Stanley’s “cheif Apple analyst”. We continue to see almost every “business analyst” who covers Apple have no idea what’s going on with Apple’s business. Morgan Stanley’s 30 million estimate is actually not terribly off the mark, but it shouldn’t be surprising at all that consumers expect to buy more iPhones in Q1 of next year than Q4 of this year – especially if you’re an Apple analyst.

Obviously holiday sales are huge and intuitively it makes sense that Q4 would be the strongest for iPhone sales every year. But if you’ve been paying any attention, you’ll know every year since the iPhone launched Q1 sales have gotten closer to matching the Q4 they follow, and Q1 of this year actually beat Q4 for last year. And this year we’re even closer to the beginning of the iPhone refresh cadence than usual.

Also remember: as of Q2 of this year, Apple brings in more revenue from each iPhone sale than each iPad sale.

view post

American History

I didn’t know most of these facts, but they make sense.

Really wish the creator had cited sources, but I found primary sources confirming some of the facts:
http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx
http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/outreach/Pledge.htm

view post

 

WEDNESDAY December 14, 2011

 

Apple TV Predictions

My predictions:

  • Apple will release a TV set in 2012
  • Apple’s TV set will have only two wire inputs: a power cord and ethernet (in other words no HDMI, no coax, no other ports)
  • No coax input means the Apple TV will be incompatible with cable
  • Apple will have content deals with major networks and channels (NBC, ABC, ESPN, CNN, etc.) to have their live TV content available on Apple TV from day one with a “in-app subscription” like model
  • On Demand content will still be available directly through iTunes
  • Airplay input from iOS devices will override what ever is playing directly from the TV set and will automatically “turn on” the TV if selected as the output on the iOS device
  • The TV system will interact seamlessly with iOS devices as wireless game controllers
  • Apple will launch a gaming platform or drastically updated GameCenter to become a live-gaming and social gaming network
  • The first or second generation Apple TV set will have a front-facing camera for FaceTime
  • Apple TV will not have a built-in web browser, but you’ll still be able to Airplay your screen with Safari from iOS devices
  • Apple TV set hardware will be similarly priced to current TV sets of the same size
  • 32 GB of flash storage will be standard (iCloud storage of content will be focus)
  • Apple will also continue offering a “set top box” TV product that plugs into the TV you own and offers a similar interface but misses some of the key functionality

I have absolutely no information or sources, these are predications based simply on thinking about what Apple is trying to do and what they’ve done in the past.  There are a few primary thoughts/insights/beliefs my predictions are based in:

  1. TV hardware itself doesn’t need fixing, it’s cable service that needs fixing.  It’s impossible to make a good TV with cable service.
  2. Apple tightly integrates its products together.
  3. Apple dominates mobile gaming, but Microsoft dominates living room gaming with its best platform and its best opportunity to regain computing prominence with consumers: the XBOX.
  4. Every site and page on the web to date has been built to view at no further than arm’s distance from the screen.  The vast majority will stay that way.
  5. The TV is an inherently communal device, not a personal one.  Every device Apple has ever made has been personal.
  6. Apple would’ve killed some of this buzz by now if they didn’t have something like this in the pipeline for release soon
Let’s look back at this list if/when Apple announces their next TV product.

view post

 

MONDAY December 12, 2011

 

Quote of the Day

Yves Behar, designer, founder & CEO of fuseProject in response to a question from Om Malik at Le web:

“Steve Jobs gave designers credibility in the business world.”

Exceptional companies apply design principles to every aspect of their business. The principles of design that Steve Jobs espoused are very important when designing a business strategy, and organization structure, a marketing plan and almost any other aspect of business:

  • “Deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what do to.   That’s true for companies, and it’s true for products.”
  • “Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.”
  • “A lot of people in our industry haven’t had very diverse experiences. So they don’t have enough dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad perspective on the problem. The broader one’s understanding of the human experience, the better design we will have.”
  • “Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and synthesize new things.”


view post

Apple Obscures Future Device Hints with Fake References

One file in particular, USBDeviceConfiguration.plist, had formerly listed about two dozen different device variants. As discovered by 9to5Mac’s Mark Gurman, that list has now ballooned to well over 100 such entries as Apple has seeded it with dozens of new fake references to such future products as “iPad10,1″, “iPhone11,3″, “iPod11,1″, and “AppleTV8,3″.

Apple TV version 8,3? iPad version 10,1? Am I the only one who finds this hilarious?

view post

Understanding the Future of “Le Internet” (as the French say)

Forrester CEO George Colony gave a great presentation at Le Web last week. Ironically, he predicts the death of the “le web”. Because the web was the first widely adopted way for people to use the Internet, it’s easy to forget that the web and the Internet are not the same thing. As Colony reminds us, “The web is a software architecture that we all decided to put on the Internet 20 years ago.” Maybe we didn’t clear that confusion up in 2002, but it’s vital to understand it today.

Colony makes a compelling case for “App Internet” as the next dominant software architecture to replace the web, and we’ve already seen trends toward this with the popularity of iOS, Android and recently Amazon. What makes Internet-connected apps better than the web? Colony says “Faster, simpler, more immersive – a better experience.” Bingo. It will be many, many years before it’s possible to create web experiences that offer the same quality of expereince as Internet-connected apps. Why? Again, Colony explains:

Storage is getting cheaper – twice as much space for the same amount price – every 12 months. Processor power is doubling a bit slow, every 18 months (Moore’s Law). Networks are improving at an even slower pace, probably doubling in speed every two years or more. (To see this illustrated, see the chart at 3:22 of Colony’s presentation.) This means that an architecture built only around the network (like the web) wastes all this progress and improvement in processor power and storage. Remember that 95% of web executable is at the server, not at your PC – you’re wasting all the power of the computer in your hands by relying on the least powerful and slowest component of the technology we all have in our hands: the network. (paraphrased from the video)

This is why Apple, and subsequently Google and Amazon, are investing so heavily in apps. Apps allow us to use the extremely powerful and fast-improving processing power and storage of the devices in our hands, while still tapping into the Internet network when needed. The web is the opposite. The web forces us to use the relatively low power network, enabling us tap into the extremely powerful local device very little. This is why Forrester is predicting the app market will grow at about 85% next year from the $2.2B market it is today.

So far, this all makes sense. Apps provide users with a better experience than the web because they leverage local power, which is faster and cheaper than network power.  But Colony predicts the death of the web because of this.

I disagree, mostly because the web has two things app platforms can’t offer:

  • Openness (all modern platforms support it and can access it)
  • Linking (it’s easy to direct users between different pieces of content)

These are two extremely important pieces that the fragmented app Internet platforms can’t support.  The short-term future does belong to apps because of the power benefits Colony discussed.  But the long-term future belongs to a web that can better leverage local power.


*partial credit for the title to Brendon Mason
**video brought to my attention by Fred Wilson

view post

 

THURSDAY December 8, 2011

 

Amazon Will Pay You $5 to Check Price, Order from Amazon Instead

Tricia Duryee for AllThingsD:

Amazon is offering consumers up to $5 off on purchases if they compare prices using the online giant’s mobile phone application in a store.

The promotion goes live Saturday and will serve as a way for Amazon to increase usage of its bar-code-scanning application, while also collecting intelligence on prices in the stores.

Smart promotion of an already great app. I use the Amazon Price Check app frequently and they usually have a lower price than the brick and mortar retailer I’m in even without the $5 discount.

view post

Great Companies Must Change

There are a lot of elements required to make a company great. I’ll save the list of my favorites for another day, but the most important element in my view is change.  Companies must disrupt their own business and industry in order be great, or even to continue being good. In short, they need to innovate.

From Booz & Company’s Global Innovation 1000 study, as covered in their publication strategy+business by Barry Jaruzelski, John Loehr, and Richard Holman:

There is no statistically significant relationship between financial performance and innovation spending, in terms of either total R&D dollars or R&D as a percentage of revenues. Many companies — notably, Apple — consistently underspend their peers on R&D investments while outperforming them on a broad range of measures of corporate success, such as revenue growth, profit growth, margins, and total shareholder return.

My hypothesis for explaining this: serious innovation – the kind of stuff that goes down in an R&D lab – scares the shit out of most companies and their leaders. Companies unintentionally (and maybe sometimes intentionally) ignore launching products, services or platforms that are extremely innovative to the point of industry disruption.  Most companies are scared of cannibalizing their own business or creating more work for themselves by unnecessarily disrupting an industry they’ve already “figured out”. This leads to two serious problems:

  1. If you don’t disrupt your own industry, someone else will.
    • It’s getting easier and easier for anyone to disrupt any business.  The Internet is the greatest democratizing force in decades, maybe centuries or longer.  There’s almost certainly a new, more efficient and more effective way to fulfill the need your business satisfies.
  2. Business is the best way to progress, solve serious global challenges and advance as a society.
    • We know governments can’t get anything done.  There is no competition and no real reward for governments or policymakers who bring about change or tangible societal advancement.  The private sector made up of companies is, conversely, designed to handsomely reward companies and business leaders who provide value to people, and thereby society.*

The takeaway: there is no such thing as unnecessarily disrupting an industry.  If you can do it, you must do it.  As the Booz & Company piece goes on to explain, company culture determines whether decisions are made in favor of disruptive change.

The results suggest that the ways R&D managers and corporate decision makers think about their new products and services — and how they feel about intangibles such as risk, creativity, openness, and collaboration — are critical for success. As part of this year’s study, we surveyed almost 600 innovation leaders in companies around the world, large and small, in every major industry sector. As noted, almost half of the companies reported inadequate strategic alignment and poor cultural support for their innovation strategies.

Only “almost half”?  Probably so low because (1) they’ve lumped “inadequate strategic alignment” (what does that mean?) in with “poor cultural support” and (2) these companies are reporting on their own shortcomings (???).   My guess is about 99% of the Fortune 500 have poor cultural support for disruptive innovation.  I haven’t studied large cap companies in nearly the depth the authors of this study have, but anecdotally I know it’s difficult to find examples of companies that have ever truly disrupted their own industry (though there’s one company that’s done so twice).

A company must have a culture for change – a culture for innovation.  This is what makes innovation from outside a company – whether through one-off services, acquisitions, or external consulting – just as difficult as internal innovation: consultants and small acquisitions aren’t going to change the culture of a company.


* Profitability usually indicates people believe a company is providing value.  Of course this isn’t always true, but the vast majority of the time.  Even more importantly, companies that are truly providing value are almost always profitable.

view post

 

TUESDAY December 6, 2011

 

I Don’t Understand What Anyone Is Saying Anymore

Dan Pallotta writig for the Harvard Business Review blog network:

I’d say that in about half of my business conversations, I have almost no idea what other people are saying to me. The language of internet business models has made the problem even worse. When I was younger, if I didn’t understand what people were saying, I thought I was stupid. Now I realize that if it’s to people’s benefit that I understand them but I don’t, then they’re the ones who are stupid.

Just speak in plain english. You can tell a lot about a person (or company) based on how simply they speak. Explaining ideas simply requires deep understanding – and we already know many business people don’t have a very deep understanding of the concepts they work with.

view post

 

MONDAY December 5, 2011

 

Who is Responsible for the iPod?

The input method – the way people interact with a product – is the most important product decision made.  Horace Dediu writes and makes a compelling case for this: ”The Primary Cause for the shift of profits from Incumbents to Entrants has been the disruptive impact of a new input method.” Who do you think suggested the input method for the iPod?

Leander Kahney writing for Wired in October 2006, five years after the first iPod was introduced and five years before today:

The idea for the scroll wheel was suggested by Apple’s head of marketing, Phil Schiller, who in an early meeting said quite definitively, “The wheel is the right user interface for this product.”

Schiller also suggested that menus should scroll faster the longer the wheel is turned, a stroke of genius that distinguishes the iPod from the agony of competing players.

Apple’s head of marketing.  Schiller is what marketing guys should be.  The marketer’s job is to think of what makes sense to consumers.  How would a consumer use this?  What would make a consumer buy this?  How can we make users love this?  These are often the same questions the people developing the products are thinking about.  But marketers and product managers restrict their thinking.

Schiller clearly thinks about these questions more broadly than your average marketer.  The question to him isn’t “what campaign/TV spot/ad would make a consumer buy this?” it’s “what decisions should we make to get a consumer to buy this?”  More than ever before, it’s the product decisions that influence purchase.  Great marketers are consumer-oriented thinkers who think about the end-to-end consumer experience.  At one end of that experience is using the product itself.  I’m certainly not suggesting most marketers are great (or even decent) product managers, I’m suggesting they should be.  It’s their job to be.

Product management requires a deep passion and understanding of design (and technology in the common case of software products) that is far beyond today’s average marketer.  But in five years this passion and understanding will be required for every marketer.

Schiller was and still is way ahead of his time.  Apple has thrived by making all decisions – business, product and marketing decisions – by thinking like marketers: consumer-first, or better: consumer-only.  That’s how Steve Jobs thought.  More and more companies are following suit.

view post

 

FRIDAY December 2, 2011

 

Josh Topolsky Reviews the Galaxy Nexus on The Verge

Really like this new site that launched on November 1 – congrats to Josh Topolsky and everyone who’s making it happen. Especially my friend David Pierce.

My favorite part so far: they rate products based on design, not specs. I’m confident we’ll never see a spec comparison chart on The Verge. Funny, though: on the linked page try scrolling down to the “Highest Rated Products” section. It appears there’s a glitch causing every fifth product to be skipped when you hit the left-right scrolling arrows. It just so happens the first product skipped is the Galaxy Nexus, which they have 5th highest rated.

When you rate devices on the experience of using them rather than the specs, you get 4 of your top 6 products made by Apple. But it sounds like the Galaxy Nexus is a great phone by that measure too. Topolsky gives it a nice review:

Since day one, I’ve been waiting for an Android device that lived up to the promise of such a powerful OS. I think I can stop waiting now.

Only took 4.5 years to make Android a good OS. Remember: the Galaxy Nexus is still the only device that can run this software. Why do they even make all these other crap Android devices that can’t even run the latest software? Because Google’s goal is to get Andriod phones in people’s hands so they see Google ads, not to make great devices.

For those wondering, the latest version of iOS runs on just five devices (three iPhones and two iPads). But that includes every iOS device Apple has sold since July 2009. Even most Android devices sold this year can’t run their latest software (which sounds like the first version worth using).

view post

 

THURSDAY December 1, 2011

 

Create Something

Helen Walters, writing at Thought You Should See This, relaying insights from Roger Martin, dean of Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto:

The problem society faces, says Roger Martin, is that the best way to become rich is to trade value, not create value.

Trading value may be lucrative, but creating value through software can be tremendously lucrative too. Growing up I was often reminded I would work in a service economy. What I didn’t learn at the time was the role software would play in providing services.

It sounds almost silly to put it in these terms in 2011, but Internet-connected software products are services. Products like Facebook, Nike+, Siri, Square apps, etc. all provide a valuable service to their users. Developers and programmers make up a key organ in the service economy. The best part is software products are inexpensive to build and distribute but have the the potential to create as much value for the creator as trading value through equities or other investments. And the software is creating value for the user and society as well.

Here’s the advice Martin offers for creating value:

Focus on serving customers, not on maximizing shareholder value or on making money.

It may sound like that would get a CEO who does this would get fired, but the way you maximize shareholder value is not to think intently about making money. It’s to think intently about making great stuff. That’s what will make money, and thereby maximize shareholder value. Steve Jobs famously advocated laser-like focus on products people love instead of profits – and that may have been his most important insight in building his greatest creation. The most important thing he did after he returned to Apple in 1997? It wasn’t creating the iMac or the iPod. It was firing the whole board, which was a stipulation of his return as full-time CEO.

Any other board probably would have fired him for focusing on customers instead of profits.

view post

 

WEDNESDAY November 30, 2011

 

Write.

Fred Wilson, principal of Union Square Ventures on his blog AVC:

We wrote in business school, but I don’t recall a lot of effort being put into making us better writers. And for almost two decades in venture capital, writing meant memos and quarterly reports and not much more.

Then, at age 42, I started blogging. And I’ve been writing daily ever since. Something like 5,600 blog posts have been entered into my Typepad CMS. Almost all of them by me. I’m getting close to Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000 hours. My writing has improved immeasurably. But more importantly, I have learned to love writing. It’s creative. It’s a puzzle. How do I tell the story? How do I get my point across? How do I do it crisply and clearly? How do I end it on a strong note?

Communication skills are so important in life. The investment I’ve made in my communication skills over the past eight years is paying huge dividends for me now. I want to help my kids make the same investment, just much earlier in life. I know it will come in handy and I know it will be a great source of pleasure for them throughout their life.

My grandfather and namesake was an attorney at law and constantly reminded me to become a great writier, emphasizing that every business requires outstanding written communication. Now my girlfriend is a writer by profession and I’ve seen first hand how critical writing is in my work.

This is part of the reason I write here: because I need practice. Since I started I’ve noticed many writers aren’t very precise (or even accurate) and some aren’t even good storytellers. Writing, like programming and business strategy, requires both accuracy and story telling; precision and creativity; clarity and flow. That’s why I’ve come to love it more than I thought I would. So I’m planning to practice every day starting at 24 instead of 42.

view post

 

TUESDAY November 29, 2011

 

Why My Grandfather Just Got His First iPhone

It’s his first smartphone. Siri is the reason he got it. After a few days of use, he now interacts with Siri flawlessly but still struggles with simple tasks on the touch interface, like slide to answer calls and typing with the soft keyboard. The technology is nascent, but for the first time I saw that voice could be an effective input method for an everyday computing device – as in an alternative to the mouse, click-wheel and multitouch.

If you want to understand why I (and many others) are obsessed with Apple as if it’s a religion, listen to this podcast on disruptive interfaces from Horace Dediu, founder of Asymco. The company, Apple Inc., is what I (we) revere, respect and love – not just Apple products.

Horace Dediu has three main theses in the podcast:

(1) Disruptive input methods are what revolutionize industries
(2) Apple’s DNA allows it to disrupt industries (“pirate” projects)
(3) Data and knowledge provide an important foundation, but decisions are made on intuition

He makes compelling cases for all three – and he seems to think voice input has a serious chance to be the next disruptive input method for computing devices. Of the three popular interfaces for communicating with computers over the last 40 years, Apple introduced all of them to the mass consumer market: The mouse. The click-wheel. Multi-touch. We shouldn’t be surprised if Apple brings the next major interface to the masses either – and maybe they’ve already begun.

It’s been said many times before, but you really can’t understand how good Siri is until use it. Or at least until you see my grandfather use it.

view post

 

SUNDAY November 20, 2011

 

Speaking of Learning to Program

Fred Wilson, principal of great New York VC firm Union Square Ventures:

On Thursday night I gave a talk at NYU Poly and in the Q&A a young man asked me for advice for “those who aren’t technical”. I said he should try to get technical. The next morning I met with a bunch of Sloan Business School students doing a trek through NYC. A young woman asked me the same question. I gave her the same answer.

I don’t mean that everyone should become a software engineer. I do mean that everyone should understand software engineering (or whatever technical subject/industry you want to work in). I don’t speak French fluently. But when I go to France, I know enough French to speak it badly until the person on the receiving end changes the language to English.

Dennis Crowley claims to be a terrible programmer. And yet he and Naveen built the first version of Foursquare together. Their third team member was Harry and Harry’s first job was to rewrite all of Dennis’ code. Dennis is the kind of technical I’m talking about. Learn how to hack something together so that you can get people interested in your idea, your project, your startup. If you can do that, then you have a better chance of success.

I don’t always agree with Fred Wilson, but this is great.

view post

Stanford Offers iPhone App Development Course Free on iTunes U

I used Stanford’s first semester of iPhone App Development on iTunes U in 2008 and found it really useful. My one complaint: I had no background in programming and couldn’t find the prerequisites on iTunes.

Jordan Golson at MacRumors points out that everything you need to get from turning on a computer to robust iPhone App coding is now available:

The university notes that the two Stanford prerequisite courses, Programming Methodology [Link] and Programming Abstractions [Link], are also available on iTunes U.

iPhone Application Development is available free on iTunes [Link].

It’s a huge time investment to run through these three courses, but this free access to Stanford education is great. I don’t think you have to be a great engineer to change the world, but having a deep interest and understanding of software programming is the best thing you can do today if you’re interested in business.

CodeAcademy is another great free resource for learning the basics; it’s much easier to stick with but less comprehensive and applicable than the Stanford courses.

view post

MAD

Mutually. Assured. Destruction.

Bill Simmons breaks down the standoff between NBA owners and players:

The owners treated these negotiations as a natural extension of their business, only caring about their bottom line and nothing else. The players took the proceedings much more personally. After things fell apart on Monday — when the NBPA rejected David Stern’s “take it or leave it” ultimatum and decided to decertify, a confusing move (because of the timing) that almost certainly wrecked the 2011-12 season — agent Aaron Goodwin made a telling comment to the Washington Post’s Mike Wise.

“For years owners have treated players as if they are just their property,” Goodwin said, “fining them over how they dress, act, everything. This is the first time the players have the opportunity to say no.”

Simmons’ entire column is compelling. His conclusion:

Just know that there’s no side to take — it’s mutually assured destruction in its purest form.

view post

 

FRIDAY November 4, 2011

 

Steve Jobs on Life and Death

Steve Jobs in 1995, nine years before he was diagnosed with cancer:

I’ve always felt that death is the greatest invention of life. I’m sure that life evolved without death at first and found that without death, life didn’t work very well because it didn’t make room for the young. It didn’t know how the world was fifty years ago. It didn’t know how the world was twenty years ago. It saw it as it is today, without any preconceptions, and dreamed how it could be based on that. We’re not satisfied based on the accomplishment of the last thirty years. We’re dissatisfied because the current state didn’t live up to their ideals. Without death there would be very little progress.

A really interesting take on history and its value. One of my favorite insights from Steve Jobs.

view post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shop at Amazon.com and support CHRGD.

© 2011 CHRGD