Apple TV, Google TV Take Different Approaches

Apple and Google are taking different approaches to their TV efforts. Apple TV essentially wants to be an add-on that delivers streaming Internet video to the TV display, in an "iTunes for TV" type approach. But consistent with the way Apple approaches its other businesses, the emphasis will be on streaming video available within the Apple ecosystem, in all likelihood.

Google TV really aims to be an active organizer of linear and Internet TV options, acting more like a traditional set-top decoder than a provider of online video that can be viewed on a TV. And, so far, Apple has gone with an "accessory" approach to the "iTunes for TV" business, while Google is working with partners to embed the functionality directly into the TV itself.

Apple's approach likely will work better in the near term, but Google's approach would be more powerful long term, if sufficient number of Google TV units can be shipped. Historically, one would side with Apple in terms of building the user base.

Cable, satellite and telco video providers have found they must provide their own decoding units, instead of relying on TV suppliers to build that functionality into the actual TVs.

Apple's approach makes it more of a distribution channel and partner to content companies. Google's approach, riskier in some ways, represents a potentially more significant change in video viewing habits. For one thing, it essentially makes linear video delivered by a service provider and Internet video gathered from across the web "equals" in terms of viewing choices.

Eric Ries on "Minimum Viable Product"

Eric Ries, author of the blog "Startups Lessons Learned," and a guiding light in what's become a popular movement in Silicon Valley - going lean.

  

Minimum Viable Product Webcast

Here's a webcast with Eric Ries, who teaches startups and product developers about the development process, especially the way to use the "minimum viable product" approach. It is worth a listen if you do product development. 

What is a "Minimum Viable Product," and Why Do You Care?

If you are not in the product development business, you probably don't care what a "minimum viable product" is, and how it relates to creation of new products. If you do have responsibilities for product development, minimum viable product is a method for creating products faster, and at lower cost, by prototyping and beta testing.

More on "Minimum Viable Product" in Product Development Process

 In the product development process, the "minimum viable product" is that version of a new product which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort. Think of it as a "beta" released initially to a rather small number of power users, to test features, find bugs and prepare for a "full production" product.

The idea is sort of like "prototyping." One wants to quickly figure out what features everybody wants, which features nobody wants, and find out fast.

Ebook Readers are Toast, Informa Says

Though some will question the prediction, Informa Telecoms & Media predicts dedicated e-book readers will lose favor to multi-purpose tablet devices.

According to the latest forecasts from Informa Telecoms & Media, sales of smartbooks are expected to rapidly grow from 3.65 million in 2010 to nearly 50 million in 2014, representing over 50 percent of all embedded device sales.

This growth will be driven by a shift away from dedicated devices like e-readers, towards multifunctional portable devices like the iPad and Samsung Galaxy Tab. These smartbooks merge the best features of both smartphones and netbooks, plus they have the always-on connectivity of a cellular device.

InformaTM :: What's New

How Big a Threat Do App Stores Pose to Search?

"The App Store is replacing the web search engine for mobile device users, at least for some searches," argues Dan Frommer, Senior Staff Writer of Business Insider. The long-term issue is just how much search volume (and therefore ad revenue) might be at risk.

Apps are good for some content, such as games, camera apps, productivity software and utilities, for example. Lots of people might also argue apps are suitable replacements for traditional websites, though many users with smartphones and decent browsers might simply say they prefer access to the "full" version, not the mobile-optimized apps, which remind some users of the older WAP-style, text-heavy experiences. That is mostly going to be a matter of end user preferences.

There might also be a developing difference between iPhone and Android users. Many iPhone users might not realize they can save bookmarks that essentially provide "app" functionality. Many Android users probably figure out pretty quickly they can do so, and can simply substitute an icon that is a "bookmark" for an icon that represents an "app."

The point is that some subset of searches on mobile devices is going to be different than search on desktop computers, which puts Google's core search business at a bit of risk. The example Frommer points to is users going to the App Store looking for a shortcut to "Facebook," when they could use a browser, go to Facebook and then simply create a bookmark.

But there are other ways to make search a lot easier on a touchscreen device. Voice-activated search is one of those alternatives.

The choices likely will be most relevant for popular web sites, games and other content experiences. Apps will be viable there, but it is somewhat hard to see general search functions being substantially replaced by apps.

link here