AR

I don't have a clear vision of how augmented reality (AR) will fit in.  Not that I should - that's for the people who do this for a living - but, after all the demos of HoloLens, iPad and iPhone apps, etc., I still can't see it.  I can see how it is a cool, and difficult to execute, technology.  I can see how AR helps in some technical situations (repairs, in particular, make a lot of sense; maybe to see how furniture or clothing might look in situ?).  But, right now, it feels a little like 3D (much of AR in fact is real-time 3D, it seems) with similar, limited utility.  For example, the games, where something is placed on a table top or in surroundings, AR is fun but, ultimately, I don't see what the difference is vs. just using the gyroscope and generating the entire world in 3D rather than as an overlay.  MAYBE, if actual physical objects in between had presence (for example, in a multi-player shooting game, if one could "take cover" behind an actual object), that would be neat.  But I haven't seen it.

That said, I wonder if AR is like maps.  Something that doesn't seem that different on a device or online vs. a paper atlas but, in reality, hugely different when dynamic, location-aware, meta-data aware, etc.  AR is sort of like a map but much more directed (like a heads up display for a driver).  Just wondering if thinking of AR like a map will help me see why so much energy is being directed to something that still seems like a gimmick or a technology in search of a use.

Beats

The more I see AirPods on the street, the more the Beats acquisition, at least in hindsight, seems sensible.  Which is funny as it was difficult to explain when it closed (i.e., less than 3 years before the introduction of AirPods).

Of course, thinking about other acquisitions, it fits in with Apple's history - purchases show up in product in 2-4 years.  But, time and again, it's hard to see things differently from the past.

Apple's i

I woke up this morning thinking about the Dustin Curtis tweet suggesting that Jony Ive said: "he believes Apple will be a health company in 20-30 years".

I wonder if this is less speculation than a very specific path Apple is working on.

Aging populations and health: If there is a market that is set to grow and is underserved, it is the health and wellness needs of an aging population.  It's a large market - one large enough to move the needle even for an Apple.  Apple is focused on health.  Apple is also focused on "where the puck is going to be".

Technical sophistication:  Some products require integrating the full stack, including custom silicon.

Camera experience:  By some measures, Apple is the most used camera in the world.  They certainly take cameras very seriously.

Augmented reality:  Apple is all-in on augmented reality and machine vision.  "Understanding" and simplifying images to pull out key elements is hard.  I think the A11's neural engine is a first step there.

Privacy:  An omnipresent product, especially one with insight into your life, should have a reputation for privacy.  Many potential competitors would be hard pressed to credibly show that they have privacy as a primary concern.

Manufacturing:  Apple is a hardware company.

An artificial eye could bring these elements together.  A trustworthy camera that will need to interpret images on the fly to present a simplified version of the world for the millions of people who will be facing weakening eyesight as they age.

For fun: just look at the shape of Apple Park!

More fun:  they can just call it the "i" and drop the mike.

transportation as a service

There has been a lot of good thinking and action regarding transportation as a service.  BMW, Daimler, and Ford have all made announcements and begun initiatives here.

I wonder how much these efforts will echo their previous attempts in transportation services?  Recall that each of GM, Chrysler, and Ford owned the US rental car industry until very recently.  This was for a very different reason (to ensure vehicle deliveries) but still, there is an echo of the past here...

What is a success?

I’m not cheerleading for the Apple Watch (exactly matching this article, I find myself simultaneously: telling most people not to buy it and yet, personally, wearing the Watch every day).

However, when it comes to determining if the Watch is a success, it seems like it would be useful to think about the right frame of reference.

The wrong frames of reference:  Annual sales in comparison to the iPhone’s revenues.  Annual sales in comparison to Apple’s overall revenues.    Benchmarking against the most successful product of the past 10 years? Revenues of the most valuable company in the world?  I agree they are relevant for the purpose of figuring out if the Watch will be a “needle-moving” business for Apple but they are bizarre benchmarks for success of the Watch itself.

I don’t know what the right frame of reference for success is but suggest that they might include:

1) Familiarity/Recognition.  This is measuring the success of building mindshare and interest in a new product - how well was the product rolled out.  Here, we have a product introduced less than a year ago that is widely recognized on sight and at a distance.  Even more conspicuously, if I say: “Is that The Watch?”, a large portion of listeners will assume I mean the Apple Watch.  For a newly introduced product, that seems like a measure of success.

2)  Market Share.  Unclear what the right scope of the market is (all watches?  all watches over $200?  all watches over $200 but less than $1000?) but it seems like it would be fair to compare the Watch against well known names.  Taking the three largest Japanese watchmakers (Seiko, Casio, and Citizen), their combined annual revenues are about $3 billion.  The largest Swiss watchmaker is Swatch/Omega.  Its revenues are about $10 billion.  If Apple Watch has sold anywhere near the numbers guessed (maybe 10 million), Apple is one of the largest sellers in the world by revenue in its first year (probably $7 billion).  For a watch (not a mobile phone, not an automobile), that seems like a measure of success.

3) Creating Prospects.  Apple Watch is a very imperfect product.  Releasing it in its initial state may have been a mistake (then again, given the above, maybe not?).  But, maybe a measure of success is how well Apple has created a potential platform.  The work of figuring out size, positioning, appearance, functions, and relationship with the phone seems to be pretty on target (given the balancing required by the state of technology and battery life).  The Watch doesn’t do all the things it should and many of the things it purports to do it doesn’t do well but, if part of the job is to create a credible platform that is worth paying attention to, again, the Watch seems to be a success.

Using Android against itself

This is funny.  As part of its efforts to switch users from Android to iOS, Apple will release an "Android Migration" app to move "contacts, message history, photos and video, Web bookmarks, mail accounts, calendars and even wallpapers" from the user's Android phone to iOS.

Why funny?  Because the loose nature of security in Android (including access to system level items such as wallpapers) means one can create an app like this on Android but not (or not without great difficulty) on iOS.

Also funny is that, given the prevalence of developing for iOS first, nearly all meaningful apps on Android have iOS counterparts and so Apple could have a "baby-version" of the app that at least shows that the potential switchee will not lose any core apps he or she depends on.

Finally funny is seeing Apple's fonts and style on an Android phone and not because it is a knock-off.

tablet doom and gloom

There's been a lot of concern about declining year-on-year tablet, including iPad, sales.  I think the definition of the relevant market needs closer examination.

For traditional business measures ("will this business line increase sales this period vs the relevant prior period?"), these metrics (total unit sales, revenues, etc.) are correct.

But, for trying to predict the relevance and permanence of a sector ("are tablets a flash in the pan or are they a device with staying power?"), these are NOT the right metrics.

Regarding reduced year-on-year sales, tablets, and the iPad in particular, had huge initial sales because they answered the unmet demands for many people and there had never been a solution prior to iPad's release.  The dramatic improvements from iPad1, to iPad2, to iPad retina, and iPad Mini, all led to meaningful sales even to those who previously purchased earlier generations.  But, as many have pointed out, iPads are durable and capable devices so upgrades are less frequent, especially as incremental improvements have been less dramatic (iPad Air 2 v iPad Air 1 is a sharp example).

None of this means that the second meaning of market (the user base) is adversely impacted.  I'd bet that many iPad1s are still going strong and relatively useful.  iPad2s are definitely still useful (noting that they continue to be sold as the base iPad Mini!).  So, in terms of a growing user base, tablets look healthy.  Apple's own comment that most buyers are new suggests that this is the case (and helps to explain why, atypically for Apple, it continues to sell 3 year old hardware in the tablet space unlike any other).

I think we are close to the point of seeing what normal replacement cycles look like on iPad and should think more about household durables (washing machines and televisions) than phones or even computers.  It's probably a five year cycle and so will start seeing some meaningful growth in a few years as the pig of those first few huge years moves through the python.

apple watch

I wonder if Apple went with the S1 SIP to permit upgrades to the Apple Watch over time?  It would go a long way to answering questions about obsolescence and longevity.

UPDATE: iOS app privacy

How does a Google or Microsoft iOS app know that I have other Google or Microsoft apps installed on my iOS device?  For example, if I download and install Chrome (after having, perhaps Google Maps installed and myself logged in), I am greeted with to offer to sign in - and Chrome already knows my Google ID.  Similarly, if I download Word, log-in, and then download Excel, Excel already knows my Microsoft ID.

This is surprising as it means the apps have access to both a list of my existing apps (I think this is okay but not ideal) as well as my user ID (huh?).  Is it possible for me to write an app that can: (i) determine a user's Google ID; and (ii) ask the user to log in and thus give me credentials?  (i) alone seems bad, (ii) is very bad.

Also, noting that I do not even need to provide a password to confirm to Chrome that I am myself, is there some serious security lapse here?

All very odd

UPDATE: Is this related?  http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/06/24/apple-expanding-user-privacy-will-prevent-ios-apps-from-seeing-other-installed-apps.  It's not completely the same (as this seems narrower than knowing my Google ID and Microsoft ID).  But perhaps part of the same framework?

Apple and high defensibility

There are lots of reasonable questions about iPad's growth and future.  Nevertheless, this article makes a nice argument that Apple has enough of a lead in the space and, more importantly, a sustainable advantage in processors, to continue to earn profits and improve the product without obvious near-term risks or competition in its high end space.  This is a direct result of Apple's vertical integration and, as a corollary, having a proprietary source of supply for chips.  Whether or not there is some enormous use case of the iPad is still somewhat unknown (to be clear, it is a big business even if people have difficulty articulating exactly why it is better than alternative formats), at least there is time for Apple, its customers, and its developers to figure it out.

Even more interestingly, the article notes that this processor independence makes a strong case for AppleTV and AppleWatch.  In brief, as Apple works to bring general computing to different places, it can stake out a high and differentiated ground using hardware (processor) and software (OSX/iOS) advantages unlike anyone else.  It is not the idea of vertical integration as a defensive strategy that is interesting; it is the fact that no one else seems to be trying this (at least successfully).

apple watch customization

I think I saw in the keynote that the watchface is customized from the watch itself.  Which is fine but, given that the watch requires a paired iPhone, I really hope customization can be done from the phone.

apple Watch

Now I understand why they added voice messaging to iMessages.  To text from the watch.

iPhone 6 and one-handed typing

Why would one-handed mode on a large-screen iPhone require a crazy re-sizing scheme?  Wouldn’t it just be a small variation of the iPad’s shrink-and-split keyboard where the iPhone keyboard would shrink to match the size of the regular iPhone keyboard and shift to one side or the other?  It could even use the same trigger (a slide of the screen once engaged) or just default to shrunk and shifted.

NFC, iPhone, Apple Watch (iWatch or whatever it will be called)

Daring Fireball, as always, had a very thoughtful post (couched as a joke) on how NFC could be incorporated and be made more useful on a phone than it has been to date.

I don't know really know a ton about NFC but believe that the paypass, expresspay, etc. systems all use an NFC chip on the payment tag, card, etc.

John Gruber suggests that both the phone and wearable could have an NFC chip to allow this.  I would not mind a contactless payment device that was already on my wrist instead of in my pocket.

My question: is it possible to create a configurable NFC chip that allows it to take on the identity of an NFC chip that works with paypass or expresspay?  So I'm thinking that an american express customer confirms some credentials that allow the phone's chip to work with the relevant system.  As an alternative to configurable, I guess the chip could be static and the payment network is instructed to respect the chip and associate it with an account.  I think this is how google wallet works.

My issues:
- would one be able to link more than one account?  If so, how would one easily select which account to use?  Right now, selection is inherent in the tap as I choose which card or dongle to tap to the machine.  If a phone has credentials for more than one network, it seems that the ease of tap gets offset with the burden of selection.  What I want is what I have now: I have a paypass chip GLUED to my phone so I tap my phone to the reader with no need to enter anything on my phone (no app, no interaction, etc.).  This is WAY better than having to enter anything.  I might tolerate a fingerprint confirm.
- do the systems want to encourage or discourage others to create chips?  I can't decide.  On the side of encourage, it would increase use of the systems, make merchants more likely to use them, etc. (typical network effects).  On the side of discourage, it lowers barriers to entry (if it can be done on an iPhone, over time it can be done on ANY phone, or watch or whatever) and creates security risks (there is some authentication process where a phone is authorized to the system rather than receiving a card that is pre-authorized).

AppleTV and gaming

I had expected games to be announced for AppleTV by now (so much so that I foolishly deferred buying an AppleTV for our new television).  I had originally assumed that the announcement would be dependent upon a large enough installed base of AppleTVs to resolve the usual chicken/egg problem for game devices (no games means no one buys the console; no console owners means no one develops games).

However, I think that, beyond installed base (seems like it is about 20m units so far, but perhaps some of these are older models? In any event, at 7m units per year, it will reach a respectable number quickly), perhaps the delay is because of the poor reception for the MFi controllers.  And, until Apple can figure out if it wants to sell its own controllers or try to simply set standards, it is holding off on gaming?

A good controller is hard to design but worth getting right.  And a good controller at a reasonable price (especially as it will be compared to the relative cost vs. the AppleTV itself) is even harder.  If we don't see games announced when the installed base of third generation AppleTVs (running at least an A5) is 40m, I will be more convinced that it is a lack of good controllers at a good price that is deferring games.

Separately, the fact that Apple has stuck to A5s for the AppleTV is suggestive of trying to create a meaningful base.  At the same time, the 64bit A7 likely makes more sense for quality gaming and future proofing so, if Apple wants the installed base to be 64 bit, we may have a long wait for games on AppleTV.  I may go buy that AppleTV now that I think about it...

Stolen plane?

MH370 is veering into James Bond territory.  All normal location reporting systems turned off.  Radar tracking shows it changed course sharply immediately after.  And now satellite information sent from the engines (and thus difficult to access to mid-flight - but I must admit I can't wait to see the movie where someone needs to disable these transponders) shows controlled long-distance flight?

Also, how did China, which is very careful about issuing visas, issue two in stolen passports.  Normal visa procedures require PRE-SUBMISSION of the passport, together with photos, etc. which is then reviewed, has a visa card pasted in, and is returned.  That seems a very bold action with a stolen passport as it is a high level of scrutiny (not a simple visual check at an airport for 5 seconds) and traceable locations (given the return obligation).  Also, how did they get the photos of two Iranians to match those of some Austrian and Italian guys?

Finally, if it was a 777-200ER (news reports say 777-200, Boeing's report page says ER), this is one of the longest range planes ever made.  It can fly to almost any point on earth.

It seems someone now has:

1. ~200 Chinese nationals;
2. the ability to get anywhere in the world; and
3. enough of an organization to land and conceal a wide-body passenger liner.

bully

When does Apple start to be perceived as a bully?  Perhaps it has already happened and I am just late.

Targeted broadcast television advertising

Given the high value of digital advertising, much of which is based upon the better targeting, why haven't cable providers and broadcasters joined forces to deliver targeted ads?  I think this should be relatively straightforward (massive because of the numbers but straightforward nevertheless): with broadcasters' permission, cable providers would replace the ads with those better targeted to the specific household.  Delivery should be relatively simple.  Ads could be pre-loaded during low demand periods to avoid the need to stream ads in realtime (DVR equipped cable boxes may be able to do this without hardware modifications).

I believe advertisers would object if they perceive their ratecards as losing value (we paid for x households, instead we got y).  So we would have a combination of broadcast program and narrowcast ads. Which, in fact, is how adserving works generally anyway.  And could very well be why Google is getting in the broadband business.

a period of inefficient utilization of computers

I wonder if the past decade will be seen, oddly enough, as a trough of efficiency and productivity.  I wonder this because we are currently hampered by both our inputs (keyboards are unwieldy, voice is inaccurate, etc.) and outputs (screens are still small and only recently have ultra-high resolutions).  Until I can replicate the massive amount of readily visible and accessible information as I have in an unfolded road map, I think there may be a lot of room for productivity gains from computers.

iPad Mini Pricing

A fun data point to help think about the reasonableness of the iPad Mini's pricing.  The original iPod Mini (4GB, 1.67 inch grayscale 138x110 screen, 8 hour battery life, 3.6 oz) was sold through February 2005 for $249(!).  And people bought it like crazy.  It was expensive but people found a way to justify its purchase.  I suspect plenty of people will find a way to justify the purchase of the iPad Mini.