Chromecast Audio

Chromecast Audio makes good sense - it seems like Google's approach to Airplay and so allows a phone or computer to "cast" audio to a speaker.  Apple TV and Airport Express do the same thing but, as Apple TV morphs into a more full-fledged console and given the Airport Express's wider mandate (router, printer hub, etc.), this is a reasonable slot to fill.  And the 3rd generation Apple TV is still a little pricey (and big) to act merely as a speaker bridge.

A simpler "Apple Audio" dongle could respond directly but I still think an even more interesting approach would be to take the Airport Express (and Airport Extreme - which, bafflingly, does not have speaker output) and allow Apple Music to run directly on the router rather than simply act as a bridge between the computer and speaker.  This would avoid lag and help battery life enormously.

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?

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).

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.

Google and Britannica

I wonder why Google hasn't purchased Britannica.  It would seem to fit the bill of putting the world's knowledge online.  And it can't be too expensive.  And is consistent with purchases such as zagat, etc.

iPad Mini

A few not-so-special thoughts on the iPad Mini that put in writing what I would say if someone were to ask whether to buy it:

1) It is really an iPad 2.  Same processor (noting, as anticipated, that the 32nm process allows Apple to stick to the 10 hour battery life specification that they have chosen to be a fundamental iPad feature), same memory, same resolution (but not PPI), etc.  And an iPad 2 is only $70 more.  So if one doesn't own an iPad and is price sensitive, he should just buy a 2 (noting that it may not get supported up to iOS 7 as iPad2 was not given Siri).
2) It's a bit pricey compared to Androids (both branded and unbranded) and iPad 2.
3) But, if one already has an iPad and is looking to add another, the Mini starts getting more attractive vs. a 2 (Siri, better camera).  Especially if "another" means an "auxiliary" iPad - one that is picked up because the other is being used or that is taken on the road, etc.  The distinguishing physical features (weight, size) tied to the same overall experience (iOS 6 with no compromises) might make this the device of choice for out-of-the-house use.
4) This is especially the case for those with a first-generation iPad and a second (iPad 2 or New iPad).  For those who can't quite justify buying a third full-size iPad when the iPad 2 works just fine, the slightly lower price with changed physical attributes could be enough to make this worth buying.
5) I imagine that the $329 price is strong evidence that Google and Amazon sell their tablets at cost based on Apple's 30-40% profit margin target.  This isn't really relevant to a purchase decision other than to suggest that the lower price of the Nexus and Fire shouldn't be seen as a sign of significantly worse quality.  This is #2 stated otherwise and might push a buyer towards one of those two.
6) I suspect that there will be some interesting education pricing (maybe $300) but that the iPod Touch made the $299 price almost impossible to use. So look for reduced prices for the Touch and Mini in 6-9 months.  Meaning that there's no rush to buy a Mini here - especially with an A5 that will be two generations behind an assumed A7 in 12 months or less.
7) I have thought that the product introduction cycle for iPad and iPhone was backwards - although both are suitable gifts, because of the carrier hassles, iPad makes a better gift.  And thus Apple would be better served with fall introductions than spring.  Perhaps the iPad 4th gen introduction is a sign that iPads will now get updated in the fall and phones will transition to the spring.  Now is exactly the right time to make this switch.  The next phone will likely retain the 5's design and so development time is slightly easier (one less major change to manage).  Fall 2013 iPad has a natural design direction (thinner and lighter as the current is heavier and thicker than the 2) and so has a good selling proposition.  Six month upgrade cycles are so fast as to upset purchasers (note those who have asked to return their third-gens because the fourth came out) and perpetually delay purchases.  I note this in the context of an iPad Mini purchase because one should not hold out for an iPad fifth gen in spring 2013 if the choice is between Mini now or fifth gen later.

My takeaway from my advice to myself:
- We have a first-gen that is getting laggy;
- We take the iPad with us all the time and it can be a little burdensome (it has a heavy case);
- We haven't been spoiled with the retina iPad's display (only have an iPad 2 and the first-gen);
- We won't buy a new full-size iPad until it gets thinner and lighter; and
- $329 is not great but still better than $399 for another 2.

So we will buy one for Christmas and strip down the old iPad so it runs a little faster as a pure web + iTunes machine.  Like our old iPhone 3Gs.

A last thought: the iPad 2 may have been retained to do something similar with the MacBooks: create a retina line and a non-retina line as Apple transitions to all-Retina over time.  The continued presence of the 2 without highlighting it as the "base" iPad is weird.

Amazon and Google

Amazon is getting into the loans business.  Google has self-driving cars.  What do these two things have in common?  My pet theory is that both of these companies were built to help fund the true enthusiasms of their founders and that their genius allowed them to build enormous businesses as tools to get there.  Their success in retail and search has obscured what I hope are their underlying motivations.

Amazon moved from books (among the easiest of goods to sell on-line because of almost zero concerns of customers of fraud, mishandling, etc.), to general retail, to cloud computing, and now to loans.  I've come to think that its real goal is to dominate what was quaintly called B2B.  By developing a deep understanding of retail, customer service, and branding, Amazon has built up the expertise to begin providing services to business.  Taking a few pennies here and there but across the entire value chain.  And it started with general retail because you need a big arena if your business exists to make money on the margins.  And, with the enormous scale of Amazon, it can enter into markets that seem impenetrable or daunting because of the capital demands.  And (another and), become the largest company on earth.

Google is doing something slightly different but similar in tone.  Here, the founders built a search engine, now advertising company, not because they love marketing or search but because the gold mine of google affords the freedom to try capital intensive projects.  Again, similar to the way Amazon grew based on the value created through retail.

All complete speculation but a way to explain why some very smart people seem to be so unfocused - I think the presumed focus is merely a means to reach the true goal.

Caller ID on iPhone

I'd like to see a function where the phone immediately does a google search for unfamiliar phone numbers (i.e., those not in my phonebook) where there is no associated caller ID name.  It would just be a guess but sometimes useful.

google bet

I made a (modest) bet this week that google does not want to be a search company.  Rather, Page and Brin have very large goals that they are using search to finance.  And, eventually, from all of the different efforts the company makes, it will come up with another disruptive leading product.  That could only have been financed from the outsized profits from search.  The efforts on self-driving cars, space elevators, and machine translation all point towards using the freedom that comes from improbable amounts of money to break rapidly through barriers to next generation technologies.