Cybervan/APC

 I’ve had very few predictions over the past 6 years. But had one today. 

SUVs have come to dominate because they are a pretty good form factor. More cargo than sedans. Big rear door and in-cabin cargo space like a hatchback or station wagon (but somehow escaping the stigma of both). But what’s missing for the final piece of the utility puzzle is sliding doors (again, a stigma issue). 

I also think that quieter, better engineered cars make SUVs more tenable than they were 30 years ago - there are really very few compromises from the height and weight because of computer control, etc.  Minivans were also boomy and engineering made it hard to locate the engine (previa, for example).  But electric propulsion solves lots of these problems (but adds a high floor issue for batteries).

My guess: Tesla’s next vehicle is a sliding door vehicle. The Tesla brand, especially if the vehicle takes styling cues from the truck (which it will - boxy is better for minivans), could allow it to overcome the minivan stigma. And it would studiously avoid the minivan name. Probably cybervan but I would put money on APC. 

Creating an Alexa habit

Smart speaker skills have proliferated but most reporting I've read suggests there has been little actual usage of these skills.  Instead, smart speakers are mostly used for listening to broadcast terrestrial radio, listening to music, setting timers/alarms/reminders, and getting the weather/news.

If I worked on a smart speaker project (in particular, Alexa), I would try a Trojan horse to get people to develop habits to use the speaker more in order to exploit its potential.

Two specific ideas: 

One: team up with public radio to allow listeners to contribute to pledge drives by voice.  This feels less commercial and more altruistic and so would be a nice path to getting people comfortable with purchasing by voice.  For those without linked credit cards (is that even possible with Alexa?  Maybe if Google wanted to do something similar with Google Home as Google has fewer credit cards on file), the system could at least take a command to send an email reminder with a simple one-click donation button for an amount already specified.  I think of this as a variation of Amazon Smile.

Two: work with radio (and podcasters) to make ads (including those on public radio - there's no lack of them) voice-aware by offering discounts or similar promotions to those who indicate interest by voice.  Again, expanding people's comfort zones with new voice interactions would seem useful to get Alexa to where Amazon would like Alexa to be.  This is a variation of the promotional code which appears on lots of podcast advertisements; those codes feel anachronistically low-tech.  A smart speaker knows your email address - why memorize a code if the speaker can simply send it to the listener?  This of course would create valuable information on engagement and interactivity for marketers by proving that people are listening to ads and showing concrete follow-up (promo codes would be custom and thus much better than the wholesale generic codes now being used that don't directly link listening with use of the code).  I think of this as matching the evidence based marketing of Google Ad clicks.

To be clear, I'm perfectly happy without another intrusive, advertising platform but was just thinking about the strange stagnation and limited use cases of the voice platforms given the presumed interest in Amazon of using Alexa to embed itself more deeply in our transactional lives.

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.

Apple Watch case design

Some complain that Apple's roundrect/squircle case design for the Apple Watch is inferior to a truly circular dial.  Others note that the current design more efficiently presents information, especially text info.  I like the Infograph face but I'd like it more without the weird curved complications.  Infograph Modular is less attractive but is right at home in the squircle.

I wonder if Apple's new watch faces suggest we will someday see two case designs - each with their own compromises - as sales continue to increase and more users come in.  I thought about this as I noticed how much Apple has tried to "fill-in" and curve the text and information of the corner complications on faces that seem designed primarily for a round dial.  This test of the circle is especially noticeable when looking at the old version of faces such as Utility (which really embraced the square) in comparison to the new version (which seems torn between square and circle - and is now horrible looking, I feel).

I know that app developers will have a hard time handling two different screen shapes but perhaps Apple can differentiate models enough that consumers know they should not expect apps designed for squircle cases to look right on apps designed for round cases.  Or, maybe, Apple can draw a strict line between Apple Watches so that one cannot load a "round app" onto a squircle case, and vice versa, except for some sort of universal binary version that correctly handles each.

iPhone naming

I had thought that the iPhone X designation was selected to allow a temporary new premium price point (because that is the cost of getting the future today) as a test.  And that we would eventually see a move to non-numbered naming once we got past the 9 (similar to how iMacs and iPads are no longer numbered).  So it would just be iPhone (without ridiculous numbers like 18 showing up someday).

Now, with no iPhone 9, I am a little concerned that X somehow part of the iPhone name, sort of like how OS9 went to OSX and then OSX became the name of the OS itself with numbering continuing onward regardless.  But it seems cuckoo for ALL iPhones to be named iPhone X so am still hoping reason prevails.  Maybe the X disappears once all numbered phones are gone?

So maybe in a few years, there is just "iPhone" with letters indicating where in the hierarchy they stand.

A small note - the surprise that the XR has the same chip and camera as the XS seems misplaced - the 8 had the same chip and camera as the X so it makes sense that the XR (which is really a 9) has the same as the XS.

A smaller note - I thought the X meant we were seeing two years ahead but all we were really seeing was the X line that would come into its own in 2018 (a one year advance look).

Apple and in-house chips for MacOS

Lots of commentary today around Bloomberg's story regarding a switch by Apple to in-house chips (from Intel) for the Mac.

Perfectly consistent with Apple's stated goals (control the whole stack) and addresses some issues (waiting for Intel, instruction sets sometimes not even needed, etc.).

Of course, transitioning won't be trivial but I wonder if a solution is viable given Apple's unusual business model and execution.  Simply said, why couldn't Apple just include BOTH an Intel chip and an in-house chip?  The costs of a processor seem to be in the $25-40 range.  Given Mac pricing, it seems doable to just build in both and use the appropriate processor as necessary.  In fact, notwithstanding Apple's adherence to strong margins, they could even swallow some (or all) of this and treat the extra cost burden as sort of a down payment on the future to derisk the transition for a couple years.

I know this is the exact opposite of Apple's usual course of taking the hard decision and stepping firmly into the future (or at least Apple's vision of the future) but, if viewed as a choice between emulation software and simply including the hardware, maybe this is more user friendly (and thus entirely consistent with Apple's approach)?

Headphones, TrueDepth, and Warby Parker

There have been rumors of Apple expanding its headphone line beyond airpods, earpods, and in-ear headphones.

As much as I have historically agreed that the Beats line will slowly wither away, I don't think we are anywhere near that today.  And it doesn't make sense for Apple to rebrand Beats headphones as Apple.  The Beats aesthetic is nothing like the Apple aesthetic.

Apple looks for simplicity, small size, and distinction.  Thus, airpods are NOT Beats devices.

A very Apple device would be earbuds that feature noise-cancellation.  This has historically required in-ear fitment as the noise cancellation strongly encourages having ambient noise getting a direct route to the ear.  This would be fine for Apple (they already make in-ear buds) but it isn't distinctive.  What would be distinctive is using the TrueDepth camera to take a detailed image of the ear for customized external fitment (note that Warby Parker already does this for eyewear).  This wouldn't make sense until TrueDepth cameras are more prevalent but, once they are, the doors open for a wide range of personalized wearables.

And, of course, medical devices like hearing aids.