Apple Voice will be Awesome!

The current broohahah between Apple and Google over Google Voice is only part of a larger and more interesting question that Apple has yet to answer: if they won’t allow Google Voice into the app store, what might they be building that similarly solves the problem Google Voice addresses in the market?

I’ll be honest, I think Google Voice is a superb service and fulfills a very real need.  It’s one of the most innovative ideas in telephony in a long time because it allows the consumer to manage his phone number just like an email address.  In short, it’s time has come.  Apple certainly knows this and they also know it would be foolish to assume that their long term disapproval of Google Voice won’t have consequences.  Already, the decision has caused some customers to abandon the platform in favor of Android (as Michael Arrington has), and more are likely to do so as Android continues to gain functionality and user experience parity.  Others will opt for Android from the get go for the same reasons.  Given that, I think we can view Apple’s resistance to Google Voice as a delaying tactic until it gets its own product ready, rather then a philosophical disagreement over the future of telephony.

As much as I love the iPhone, Apple’s ban on Google Voice (and the awesomeness of Gmail) just about convinced me to go Android.  I still might, if Android can get a better media player and a smarter way to sync content to the device.  Those improvements are coming, and when they do, Android will be a ferocious competitor to the iPhone.

So why do I think Apple is building a competing product?  Well, my confidence comes not from any hard evidence but rather a combination of reading between the lines, understanding the way these products could complement one another, and the realization that Google Voice represents the natural evolution of telephony and not even Apple will be able to stand in the way of that.

For the sake of argument, let’s call Apple’s competing product “Apple Voice.”  How might the service work?  

The first major question is where does the PC version of the service live?  Google Voice has a well designed web app that looks a lot like Gmail and allows users to modify settings and perform a host of other functions all from their computer.  Apple could go the Web App route and incorporate the service into MobileMe (which is in need of serious improvement anyway).  On the other hand, Apple could build Apple Voice into iTunes, or they could deploy an entirely new desktop application to handle it.

My bet is on the web app for a few reasons:

  1. iTunes already has a LOT of functionality built into it.  Adding additional features would lead to confusion about a product that at one time was strictly about managing your music and now does a LOT more
  2. MobileMe is in need of an upgrade anyway.  There is some nice functionality there, but it needs better user experience and easier synchronization between your computer and the cloud.
  3. Apple recently shut down Lala and there are multiple rumors of iTunes imminently moving to the cloud.  It only makes sense in the long run as users continue acquiring content.
  4. Functionally, you would want to be able to manage Apple Voice from any web enabled computer, not just the computer that happens to sync with your phone.

So what features might Apple Voice have?

  • It will use your existing iPhone number.  No need to port anything.  It will just work.
  • It will save all your text messages (the iPhone already does this, but you can only see so much of a chat history at a time, and only from your phone), and will save all your voicemail too
  • It will allow you to call, text or email right from Apple Voice (or MobileMe)
  • It will allow you to block callers
  • It will incorporate FaceTime, Apple’s new video calling feature for iPhone 4 (more on that in moment)
  • It will tie into the address book (again the rationale behind coupling the service with MobileMe)
  • It will be dead simple to use

Most interestingly, I think Apple Voice will be aimed at the iPhone, the iPad, and the revamped iTV and all of it comes down to FaceTime.

FaceTime is a “cool as hell” app that appears to be superbly executed.  It represents a colossal leap forward because it solves the distribution problem that has up until now plagued video calling.  But there are two large limiting factors:  The first is the small screen size.  Even with the Retina display and the increased pixel density, the iPhone still has a small screen size.  Secondly, FaceTime is WiFi only (initially).  That means the use case is likely to be someone using it on their iPhone from their home or office, and not out on the go.  The user experience would be a heck a lot better to use FaceTime on a screen that can show more area, and that brings us to the iPad and maybe to iTV take 3.

iPad

We’ve seen in (alleged) spy shots of iPad casing that Apple considered including a forward facing camera but for some reason decided against it.  My hunch is that Steve nixed the idea as being too much functionality all at once.  Apple’s logic is always to educate the consumer over time, and introduce features slowly when they’re fully baked (e.g. cut/paste, multi-tasking, video, etc) and when the consumer is ready to embrace them.  Too much, too soon is not their M.O.

Considering the leaked images, and what we know about FaceTime for iPhone and that Apple plans to make it an open standard, the only logical conclusion is that FaceTime is coming to the iPad too.  If that’s true, the next logical conclusion must be that Apple has some plan for bringing telephony to the iPad because in order to use faceTime, someone has to be able to call you and/or you have to be able to call them.  Granted, Apple could deploy an iChat client to the iPad or give the iPad its own phone number, but both these ideas seem like messy solutions and Apple doesn’t do “messy solutions.”  

iTV Take 3

Apple is almost definitely working on a TV product.  Some will tell you it’s a set top box, but I disagree.  I think it’s the whole shebang: a full TV with iOS and the App store built right in sans cable box.  Here’s why: Apple doesn’t like to do products where it can’t control the entire user experience.  It also likes to shake up existing categories. Now that it has iAd, Apple has a monetization scheme for TV and for content producers to skip the networks and go directly to the App Store.  Boxee is already thinking this way with its App platform, and it makes sense given Apple’s dominance with the App store to leverage it onto another device.  Lastly, TV is so beyond ripe for innovation and despite Steve’s comments at the D8 conference, I think Apple has figured out the Go-to-market strategy for TV, and it all boils down to FaceTime.  


Despite nearly a decade of promises of one day talking to someone through your TV, no one has yet put all the pieces together.  The problem has always been that there aren’t enough people with a device who can see you, therefore the capability has always had limited appeal (same reason video phones never took off).  It’s similar to the first person who bought a fax machine… he was an idiot, who was he supposed to fax?  Apple is solving this problem by including FaceTime on a device people are going to buy in droves anyway (600k on the first day sounds like droves to me).  As the install base for FaceTime grows, it will make it feasible to build the functionality into TVs and in order to facilitate video calling from the TV, Apple will need some mechanism like Apple Voice for calling.  

Skype has been working on video calling from your TV as well, and the company has the install base to make it happen.  But Skype doesn’t have a hardware platform to stand on, and for that reason it’s access to the TV market has been hamstrung.  Apple doesn’t have any video calling install base, but that’s about to change as people scoop up millions of iPhone 4’s.  As they do, Apple will be able to build their own TV hardware and incorporate iOS and FaceTime.  These features will be huge differentiators against traditional commodity TV’s and will enable Apple to price iTV at a premium.  This fits exactly with Apple’s overall strategy of selling high margin products, and also dovetails with Steve’s comments at the end of D8 where he states “the only way that’s ever going to change is if you can go back to square one and tear up the set top box, and redesign it from scratch, and get it to the consumer in a way that they’re willing to pay for it… and right now there’s no way to do that.”  He goes on to state that “the TV is going to lose until there is a viable go-to-market strategy.”  With iOS, iAd, FaceTime, and Apple Voice, I think Apple has that viable go-to-market strategy and that consumers would be willing to pay for an aesthetically pleasing and differentiated all-in-one TV product.

Putting it all together

Apple didn’t want Google Voice on the iPhone because they had something better in the works.  Their vision is for the iPhone to be part of a family of products that all have voice and FaceTIme communication capabilities.  In order for that to happen, Apple needs a single number telephony system like Google Voice that isn’t device specific.  My hunch is they’ve got such a system in the works, as it’s simply too good of an idea to ignore.  What’s more, it provides a lot of stickiness as a system like Apple Voice would make it more painful for people to abandon the Mac platform, as it’s unlikely that other phone systems would be allowed to work with iOS.  That makes it a brilliant move to counter the steady gains Google is making with Android.  My bet is that Apple Voice will be launching with iPhone 5 in June 2011, and then we’ll see iTV take 3 in the Fall in time for the Holiday shopping season.

Merry Christmas indeed!

Nexus One: designed to sync to the cloud, not your desktop

If we had ubiquitous wifi or 3G (or 4G) coverage here in the US, I would agree with this strategy.  Unfortunately, we’re not there yet, and the lack of a persistent signal makes the “I stream everything approach” problematic.  There are times (such as when you’re on an airplane) where you will have little or no signal, and I for one would be frustrated if all the sudden, my $530 cell phone turned into a brick.  I get it, Google’s focus is web apps, but there is still a place for a desktop app to syncronize everything much as picasa syncs up with picasa web.

nexusonenews:

Wired seem impressed with the Nexus One and give it a fairly balanced review. Their only big complaint was lack of support for syncing with your computer. But then there’s a reason for that - Google is all about the cloud.

Super syncing with Google products. The Nexus One makes use of your Google account the way a peasant farmer utilizes a pig carcass — it uses almost every part. (Except Google Docs, which you can view from the browser, but without editing.)

All you have to do is sign in to enable your e-mail, calendar, contacts, Picasa galleries (with a neat new interface for accessing photos) and Google Voice, the free application that organizes your phone activities and transcribes your voicemail. Google Voice doesn’t work with the iPhone, and I had trouble making outgoing calls with it on the Droid. But it works like a charm with the Nexus.

But when it comes to syncing with your computer, the Nexus isn’t so great. This reflects Google’s philosophy that if something ain’t in the cloud, it probably ain’t worth bothering about. Yes, you can plug a Nexus into your laptop via USB, but you have to trigger a command to mount it before the icon shows up, and then you have to drag the files over. Clearly Google would prefer that you use your Nexus One to hear music from Pandora or Last.FM and watch videos from TV.Com or YouTube, as opposed to the antiquated practice of copying and playing actual files.

That’s also probably why Google sniffs at the idea of building in gigabytes of onboard memory on the Nexus. The phone comes with a miserable 512 MB of built-in flash memory. Google’s message for those who want to store MP3 files, photos or movies? Let them buy SD cards!

Google launches the Nexus One: now available to buy online

nexusonenews:

Google launched their much anticipated Nexus One handset to a press gathering at their Mountain View headquarters today. The device, which the company has dubbed a ‘superphone’ is now available to buy from their website for shipping to four countries - the US, UK, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Google announced their intention to ship to more countries in the near future, although the only timeframe they were willing to give at the press event was ‘soon’.

The phone will cost $530 unlocked for use on GSM networks, or $180 on T-Mobile (US) with a 2-year contract. Shipping is free and customers can choose to add custom engraving to the lower bezel during the online purchase process. To buy the phone online you’ll need a both a regular Google Account and a Google Checkout account.

They also announced that they will be expanding the online store to include more carriers and devices, including handsets such as the DROID from Motorola some time in the Spring.

The Nexus One has a really fast 1GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon processor, with a 3.7-inch, 480x800 AMOLED screen. The camera is 5 megapixels with an LED flash—it also shoots MPEG-4 video with one-click YouTube upload, which should be quick over its wireless N Wi-Fi. The trackball has a multicolor LED for different notifications, and of course it’s got a compass, GPS, stereo Bluetooth, 3.5mm headphone jack, two mics for “active noise suppression,” light and proximity sensors, and an accelerometer onboard. It’s got a 1400mAH battery, from which Google promises 5 hours of 3G browsing and 7 hours of 3G talk time.

The device will be running an updated version of the Android mobile operating system - version 2.1. Google also stated that this latest version of the open source Android software will be released for use on other handsets in the next few days. We’ll be posting more details on what’s new in Android 2.1 in a subsequent post.

Notable features of the new Android software demoed at the press event included a new weather widget, new 3D framework, a photo visualisation system with Picasa web album syncing and voice recognition which works in all text fields across the device. There’s also a new Google Earth application for Android with voice integration.

We’ll have more posts coming soon as we flesh out our rough draft from Google’s announcement.

Google just scored big time with the Nexus One

The Press just doesn’t get it… they keep asking why Google needed to do its own phone and risk alienating its existing partners?  Now that you see the Nexus do you understand?  It’s because the previous phones were rather boring and Google finally decided to “take the bull by the horns” as Arrington puts it.

Designing a mobile device is about more then just an operating system or a physical keyboard or an app store.  It’s about developing a product that meshes with its users wants and needs.  Those wants and needs include performance, functionality, utility and aesthetic design, all of which have to blend together in the right way to create the user experience.

None of the previous attempts at to make Android handsets appealed to me because they all missed on the combination of these elements.  Sure they’d have one or two of them, but not the whole package.  The Nexus is the first one to truly put the whole thing together.  This is the only phone I might consider giving up the iPhone for.  Bravo Google, Bravo!

Chrome OS will be your TV’s operating system

The talk of convergence between the TV and the computer has existed for decades. Currently, there are two problems preventing this blending of technology: the TV does not have a native PC operating system AND most people use cable (or satellite) boxes to connect to content. The latter come with their own operating systems (which are pretty bad), eliminating much of the need for a native system within the TV. Even for consumers who hook up their TV’s to nettop computers, the user experience leaves a lot to be desired because you can only use one input (nettop OR cable box, but not both) at a time. Finally, the business case for convergence fails because of the requisite cost of including Microsoft’s operating system within a TV.

But Google’s Chrome OS may be about to change that. For one thing, Chrome OS is open source and does not require another operating system like Windows to run on top of (which Boxee, Jaman, and countless other TV applications do). To be clear, including Chrome OS within a TV would involve additional costs of manufacturing to include the necessary hardware to support full PC uses, but given Chrome OS’s substantial dependence on the cloud and targeting of netbook computers which represent the lower end of PC hardware, these cost increases are likely to be manageable.

As such, it will be economical for manufacturers to bundle Chrome OS within their TV’s (think of it as building a very large tablet PC), especially as doing so opens up the opportunity for additional monetization.

Premium Pricing

The digital TV space has become a low-margin commodity business. Efforts at charging premium prices have largely been tied to increased resolution, contrast ratios and other aspects of technical superiority. Yet consumers are largely ignorant of the marginal benefits offered by such technology and unwilling to pay premium prices for these technologies when lower-priced products without them appear to be “good enough.” By including the PC operating system within the TV, the manufacturers would be able to market the internet connectedness of their products (which they currently do not because they do not control enough of the value chain) and to charge a premium price for such products. Whereas most consumers have been unwilling to pay for resolution and higher contrast ratios, most consumers would be willing to pay extra to get the internet on their TV.

Better User Experience

Even though it’s technically possible to get the internet on your television, this capability is far from a mass market idea because the user experience is terrible. It requires a decent level of technical know-how and troubleshooting (particularly in display settings) to get everything set up and make it work. The inclusion of a PC operating system within the TV by the manufacturer would likely eliminate much of this leading to a dramatically better user experience. A good analogy here is using the internet on a mobile device prior to the iPhone: yes you could do it, but the experience was so bad that many people did not. Once the user experience improved, the numbers of people accessing the internet from smartphones dramatically increased.

The Tablet Market

Google rightly points out that for most people internet use is the leading activity on a computer, and this fact serves as the basis for the company’s development of Chrome OS. Much of the use-case for the tablet PC (including the CrunchPad and the iTablet) surrounds using the device in a living room setting when consumers are not in front of their computer and want something larger to interact with other then their phone. If consumers can use Chrome OS on their TV’s to connect to the internet, a leading use-case for the tablet will be effectively addressed by a different device that already exists in most living rooms, dramatically reducing the overall potential of the tablet segment. At the end of the day, most consumers would rather have a TV than a Tablet.

A Cheaper TV

Google already sells TV advertising but the product has always been the red-headed step-child to the much more expansive web advertising program AdWords. With Chrome OS on the TV, Google will have a huge opportunity to leverage its substantial advertising platform in the exact environment that people are most familar with consuming advertising: while watching television. In order to force the issue and compel purchase of these new TV’s, Google could work with TV manufacturers to subsidize the cost of the TV making them cheaper for consumers. The strategy is that by enabling the internet on the TV, more people would be performing Google searches, thereby bringing additional revenue to the company. It fits with the company’s stated strategy of “the more internet connected devices, the better.”

The need for a UI suitable for the TV

The one glaring omission in a TV strategy is Chrome OS’s GUI. As demoed, it appears optimized to run on netbook and laptop size screens. Obviously, Google or someone else would need to develop a better UI for people to use while watching TV. The challenge here is that Chrome OS is merely intended to connect to the internet, and does not allow installation of any native applications preventing applications like Boxee, Jaman from filling this void. Thus, whatever UI is developed will need to run as a web app OR Google will have to choose to allow native apps on Chrome OS.

Conclusion

Chrome OS is initially intended for the netbook segment, and while that may be the entry point into the market, I would wager that the TV segment will end up being a more lucrative one for Google and Chrome OS in the long run. People are already familiar with using a computer to connect to the internet, so users of Chrome OS will largely be engaging in activity that they likely would have done on a different device anyway. However, there is little precedent for using the internet while watching TV due to the difficulties already discussed. With Chrome OS running on your TV, Google will be able to convert TV watching into an internet-enabled activity where people are searching for content and consuming advertising as they do so, all of which generates revenue for Google.