Horace discusses politics and disruption with Michael Tofias. Is disruption of government possible? Michael pursues the study of American political institutions, elections, Congress, and computational political economy to reveal how disruption might play out within governments.
Source: 5by5 | The Critical Path #163: You Say You Want a Revolution
Research #Review · 136 comments
Bernard Desarnauts had a great idea a few weeks ago: the world needs an event to discuss Apple Watch. After recovering from the shock of not thinking of it first and then from the shock that nobody else had either, I immediately agreed and along with Ben Bajarin and Farshad Nayeri, we quickly rallied to organize and anchor this event: Glance: A Deep Look at Apple Watch.
We had some big questions to answer:
We realized that we did not have the answers. So we recruited a great cast of participants to help us:
Investors who will participate in panel conversations:
Special guest: Jean-Louis Gassée, former head of Apple Engineering, current VC and everything in-between will have a fireside chat with Tim Bajarin Legendary technology analyst who has been around long enough to see furthest ahead.
We will explore Apple Watch as a very curious interaction between form and function, luxury and utility, exclusivity and ubiquity, tiny screens and big audiences, short attention spans, big data.
We have developers, designers, investors, marketers and analysts contributing to what could be the biggest leap in computing since the smartphone.
If you are interesting in becoming one of the innovators on this newest of platforms or planning a strategy to invest, or even (actually especially) if you are a skeptic, you can't miss this conference.
Join us for Glance, a deep look at Apple Watch, downtown San Francisco, December 10, 2015.
Early bird pricing is $495.
If you miss early bird, and you're an Asymco reader, there is still a 30% discount.
The new iPad is like nothing we've ever seen before.
On a future filled with autonomous Winnebagos.
Research #Industry #Market #Theory · 93 comments
Since writing Peak Cable six months ago, surveys, research and analysis have contributed to the themes of unbundling the TV package. The data under scrutiny is, as usual, the data that can be gathered. Unfortunately the data that can't be gathered is where the insight into what is happening may lie. For instance, what matters for an entertainer is not how much you're watched but how much you're loved. Measuring love is done poorly with data on payment for subscriptions.
A better proxy might be time. Liam Boluk makes the point in his post that "focusing on cord cutting or even cord shaving largely misses the point." Don't follow the dollars, he says, follow the time or engagement. "Relevance" is what matters.
His data shows how linear TV has fallen by roughly 30% among the young (12-34) in the last five years. The trouble for the TV bundle (and advertisers) is that this is the most culturally influential group. They are also the group which will grow into the highest income group over the next decade. And this group does not love TV.
We have to remember that it was the youth who drove early radio, TV and consumer electronics markets. Those young are now the old which still cling to the old media, served by companies that grew old with them. They are the "high-end" customers with which Nielsen itself has grown. They have the most money to spend and they are the targets for the ads ((no longer the Pepsi generation, they are the Depend and Viagra and pharmaceuticals generation))
Paying $150/month to watch incontinence and erectile dysfunction ads—at a time not of your choosing—is preposterous for the young. They may like the programs but not the way they are packaged, delivered or interrupted. They are not smarter than their parents. They, like their parents, took to new technology more quickly. What makes the technology new is also what lets its makers separate the content from its delivery. These new technologies allow "modularizing" or unbundling that which was was integrated/bundled and thus allow their developers to focus on the customer's real jobs-to-be-done.
Unsurprisingly, incumbents have responded by throttling access to original programming–an asset over which they still exert influence as distributors. Netflix and Amazon are taking the path of responding with their own blockbuster productions. Although Silicon Valley has more capital to deploy than Hollywood this battle of attrition is by no means one that incumbents will win, and generally, it's not going to be pretty.
Tweaking the nose of the incumbent might not be the way to establish asymmetry. The better tactic may be to help the system survive but offer a "short-term alternative". This is how iTunes took on and won Music. When Napster and file sharing created a clear and present danger to the industry, Apple's approach of a controlled alternative allowed the industry to finally move to a digital download model.
An observer in 2004 would have said that Apple was bowing to the industry and providing it sustenance against "disruptive" free music. However, as behavior shifted to an overwhelming preference of iTunes downloads over physical media, the music labels found themselves in an untenable negotiating position. They had to concede on DRM, pricing and bundling itself. The music disruption occurred with a tacit acceptance and collaboration by the incumbents.
Is history repeating? Looking at the situation around TV today, the strategies of the challengers can be summarized in a similar way:
Apple cannot play an "ignore me" strategy because as much as investors think the company is irrelevant, everything it does is closely watched by anybody who might be even remotely touched by it. Especially in entertainment.
In addition, due to brand considerations, the company cannot ship low-quality or no-quality product, including material that sits on its platform.
They have to do something different. Something more complicated and something that takes much longer.
What Apple best contributes asymmetrically is a new experience. The experience allows new behavior, new usage models and hence new loyalties to emerge. The loyalties create affinity which shifts the "love interest" for the user. The new Apple TV attempts to provide such a contribution. Not only in terms of the experience but also for becoming, finally, a platform for developers, who will try to make the product itself better in collaboration with Apple. Thus the "new experience" flips when bits which are streamed cohabit a device with bits which expect a consumer response.
This "appification" becomes an interesting experiment in behavior alteration. Will "couch time" change from pure passivity to partial interaction?
To the orthodox adherents to the religion of linearity of immersive programming this sounds impossible. But why else should a product deserve to exist? A great product is one which changes the user and for Apple TV to become great it needs to engage us to do something different than we do today. It needs to make us feel we are better for using it.
Is this new Apple TV up to it? We'll have to wait and see. But then again, if not this one, then another one will. TV will not remain unchanged forever.
We welcome Henri Dediu for an advance look at technology and the world from the point of view of the latest generation. Insights from this unique perspective and your questions on this special episode of The Critical Path.
Source: The Critical Path #162
Lots of talk about cars, Elon Musk et. al. and even Twitter.
Source: The Critical Path #161
On what it means to be great, Apple's 13 Million iPhone weekend and the iPad Pro and a lot of listener questions on the 160th episode of The Critical Path.
Source: The Critical Path #160
Eric spoke with Horace Dediu about how disruptive the new Apple TV will actually be, the nature of the media landscape, how Apple could draw viewers away over time, and the potential for live events and interactive apps. We also explore what would make a new car from Apple disruptive and why Apple didnt just buy Tesla.
Mathew Desmond of Capgemini joins us to discuss Cars Online 2015: “The Selfie Experience, The evolving power of the connected customer.”
We begin with the finding that “One-half of customers are interested in buying a car from a tech company like Apple or Google. This is true even of customers who are satisfied with their current brand and dealer experience. It is particularly true of young customers (65%) and those in growth markets (China: 74%; India: 81%).”
Backing up a bit, we discuss the automaker’s dilemma, that is the legacy manufacturing, distribution and support infrastructure and contrast that with the “clean slate” approach an entrant might enjoy.
The concept and inherent conflicts of a “Master Customer Record” fuels a deeper dive into “Continuity”, the buyer’s desire for a seamless experience.
Finally, we reflect on the perils that may lie ahead as the auto ecosystem attempts to improve the retail experience.
Listen via Asymcar.