Cord Cutting: You know it’s all about UX, ’bout UX. No savings.

image source

Even though it’s only April, it’s already clear 2015 will be looked back on as the year cord cutting (replacing cable TV with internet streaming) started going mainstream. HBO is finally allowing non-cable customers to stream HBO content without requiring a cable subscription. Apple is expected to launch a TV streaming service later this year. Existing internet streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, Sling TV, Hulu are all growing rapidly. Netflix alone already accounts for a third of all US internet traffic. Just this week Verizon got so aggressive in how they unbundled ESPN they’re getting sued for breach of contract. Not a move a company like Verizon would have attempted even a few years ago.

Of course, many people continue to believe cord cutting will allow them to selectively pay a la carte for only those channels they watch, and from this unbundling save some money. This is wrong but makes a certain kind of sense. Most households only watch 17 channels out of the hundreds they get in their cable bundle. This number, only 17 watched channels, has remained remarkably stable over time. The problem is each household watches a different 17 channels. So the money coming in from the cable bundle cross-subsidizes all that content. Ben Thompson notes “Cable TV is socialism that works“, pithily capturing the underlying economics. There is some nuance here, in that sports drives most of the bundle cost. See for example this article by Derek Thompson, or my post for more details. But the big picture remains simple enough. Unbundling and cord cutting will shift costs around somewhat, but it’s certainly not going to save you a ton of money.

In fact the “unbundling will save me lots of money” argument is even weaker than it first appears. Let me quote the excellent Megan McArdle on the “Great Truth About Cable Bundling“:

Here’s the truth: You don’t want your cable to be unbundled. You just want to pay less for it.

Seriously, guys, you like bundling. You know how I know this? You seek it out in your consumer products. You want your hotel to give you free Wi-Fi and you don’t want it to charge you by the towel. Many of you go on all-inclusive vacations and cruises. You buy mobile-phone contracts to get a “free” phone rather than pay by the minute. You are constantly — and I mean constantly — complaining that your health insurance is not more comprehensive, even though this would just mean you’d pay more for the insurance. And I won’t even get started on your agonized wails when airlines started charging you to check a bag and stopped providing a “free” plate of congealed mystery meat. You buy books and subscribe to magazines rather than pay by the article or the chapter. You love bundles. What you hate is the size of your cable bill.

Speak it.

But this begs the question. Why are people so excited about cord cutting if it won’t save them money, and all their content still comes in a (lightly repackaged) bundle? It’s puzzling. Let’s try a searching my twitter feed for “Comcast” to see if this sheds some light on things.

Ah! The Comcast cable TV monopoly is so hated people will line up to switch even if it won’t save them money. Or unbundle. But it’s bigger than that. Not only does Comcast customer service suck. The entire edifice of modern cable TV is a usability nightmare, layering 60 years of cruft on to an originally simple user experience – turning a dial across a handful of channels to pick what you want to watch. Now we have multiple HDMI input TVs. DVD players. Cable TV boxes. HD channels that don’t get used because people default to selecting the lower numbered poor resolution channels. Home theater. Internet connectivity. Surprise software upgrades. Gaming gear. To paraphrase, it is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a remote control must be in want of at least two more just to turn his TV on. And in many households that single person is the only individual in the household who knows the secret combination of buttons. We’ve all seen it. A group of people ready to watch a show gets stopped in their tracks so they can call the household guru over to get the sound to work and/or switch modes on the system. After 60 years, TV should be mature tech. Instead it’s user experience (UX) madness. TV desperately needs a rethink based on the usability of modern tech.

Which naturally leads us to Meghan Trainor below.

The lyrics for this earworm of a song are of course “I’m all ’bout that bass, ’bout that bass, no treble.” Hence my title for this piece on cord cutting: “It’s all about U-X, ’bout U-X. No savings.”

It’s clear by now where the urgently needed new tech usability will come from – the user interface of the smartphone ecosystem. And we won’t just get usability, we’ll likely get a market that mirrors the structure of the mobile market. From a post last year:

Apple TV disrupting game consoles is at least widely discussed. In contrast I can’t recall anyone making the broader claim that TV streaming pucks will directly replicate the smartphone ecosystem, with the same app model and market structure (Apple premium/Android everything else). Though I’m sure some people are thinking and writing about it. The internet is a big place.

By leveraging the app store and app interaction model used by mobile phones, TV streaming pucks like Apple TV have a huge leg up in terms of adoption and learning curve. They are a natural fit to enabling smartphone control of your TV. If you can use a phone, you can use Apple TV. And of course the smartphone ecosystem itself is increasingly leveraging voice interaction, which will allow voice search and commands for finding and playing shows. And I’m not alone in believing UX is the key driver for cord cutting. See this 2013 piece by Ben Bajarin. We’re not quite there yet as streaming is still fairly clunky, with loading and fast forward issues compared to a DVR like Tivo. But 2015 is clearly a turning point. And what can no longer remain in doubt is 60 years of bolted on cruft will have to go to create a simplified experience.

Winners and Losers

Netflix is obviously a winner in the new world of streaming TV. And not just because of content. Netflix has built the tech infrastructure to stream shows reliably, and created a user interface people can understand. For example I am a list maker, and like to keep a curated list of what to watch next. I’ve noticed Netflix has gone back and forth with various product versions on making their “my list” feature more or less prominent. Sometimes it’s hard to find. That’s because most people are not list makers, and just want to browse to find the show. The point here is exposing a list seems easy, but like all design, doing it right is extremely hard. Different people want conflicting things. Should you drop an entire season of shows all at once like Daredevil? Or release them an episode at a time like Game of Thrones? By having a direct connection to the end customer, and having sufficient content to create their own content bundle, Netflix is ready to keep pace with innovation in user experience. For example I’ve long wanted social media chat integrated into watching shows, particularly for sports. If that takes off, I expect Netflix has the culture and tech capacity keep up.

Contrast that with HBO, which decided to leverage MLB Advanced Media to stream their new offering rather than using their home grown system. HBO tech capability is lacking compared to their superb content. Plus HBO does not have a culture for dealing directly with customers or creating simple user interfaces. But a good analogy to HBO in TV is the New York Times in newspapers. Both institutions have such great content that even with missteps during tech disruption they should muddle through. ESPN is another monster that will do fine.

On the other hand, smaller channels like AMC will likely get folded into other internet TV providers and bundles. Content has to be part of a bundle, and those not big enough to stand alone will have to become content creators only. While there will be many many niche streaming video products, I expect the total number of service providers with mainstream content won’t be that large. People say they want a la carte, but they don’t. They want to pick amongst a handful of bundles. And then subscribe to those that match their needs.

Also losing out, many of the 500 channels currently available on cable TV will (thankfully) go away. That weak content will get burned away in the new slimmer bundles that are coming. But don’t worry about Comcast. They’ll do fine. All of their growth is in their other monopoly, broadband internet access. And as streaming takes off, they’ll leverage their broadband monopoly to be more successful than ever. And they’ll continue to benefit from what you might call the AOL effect. AOL is still has over 2 million people paying them $20 a month for internet access.  Once people sign up for a subscription service, especially if they don’t understand how the internet works or what their options are, they just keep paying. So expect a large demographic of older people to continue paying for the cable bundle even after streaming becomes far superior. And those profitable laggards will no doubt get charged a lot by Comcast.

Finally, there will be some areas that lag. The most obvious is local sports. The rights are held in complex and quirky local contracts, each of which will have to be renegotiated for the new era. This is a bit of a bummer. But hopefully once the shift really kicks in over the next year or two, those will come along and we can all start enjoying a greatly improved experience watching TV.

The best place to look for aliens is in a galaxy far, far away.

image source

The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has traditionally used radio telescopes to search nearby stars. Excellent. But I really loved a new study published last week by Griffeth, et. al, which differs from traditional radio searches in two ways. First, Griffeth and team did not look for direct signals sent by extraterrestrial intelligences (ETs). Instead they looked for excess heat produced as a waste byproduct of energy use at galactic scales. Second, they did not look nearby inside our own galaxy. Instead they looked at galaxies far, far away. 100,000 of those galaxies in fact. This approach may seem counterintuitive. But I think it’s one of the best ways to look for ETs.

Continue reading The best place to look for aliens is in a galaxy far, far away.

Retailers hate Apple Pay now, but it may work out fine for them long term.

image source

This week CVS and Rite-Aid turned off Apple’s mobile phone payment system in their stores. Apparently this was because of contractual obligations to support a yet to be released mobile payments competitor called CurrentC, created by a consortium led by Walmart. The reaction to CurrentC from tech blogs and twitter has been brutal.

Continue reading Retailers hate Apple Pay now, but it may work out fine for them long term.

There’s a lot to be said for analyzing tech eras by user interface: Gaming, Oculus, Apple Watch.


Update: Stephen Ballot pointed out on twitter this post should refer to “user input method” rather than “user interface”. Great point. With this clarification I’ll leave the rest of the post as originally published. Thanks for reading.

If you analyze computing eras by circuit type you might get: vacuum tubes, transistors, ICs, microprocessors. By architecture: mainframes, minicomputers, microcomputers. By networking: ethernet, TCP/IP. That’s all great. But there’s a lot to be said for analyzing tech eras by user interface. As in the list below, taken from this post.

Continue reading There’s a lot to be said for analyzing tech eras by user interface: Gaming, Oculus, Apple Watch.

Apple is taking biometrics mainstream. Watch out as software eats identity and payments.

image source

Identification using fingerprints dates to the 1890’s. But automated commercial biometric identification is much more recent. Some dates: automated fingerprint recognition (1969), hand geometry (1974), iris (1995), face (2000), vascular (2000). That last one is vein pattern recognition, typically done using IR sensors on the back of the hand. Continuing the trend, IBM put a fingerprint reader in a laptop in 2004, and India’s biometric identity program dates to 2009. With that said, I’d argue mainstream consumer adoption of biometric identity only happened in 2013 with the release of the fingerprint reader in the iPhone 5s. These things take time. And because they take time, they arrive gradually and unappreciated. Touch ID is more than just how to unlock your phone. Biometric identity is here. Attention must be paid.

Continue reading Apple is taking biometrics mainstream. Watch out as software eats identity and payments.

The surveillance society is a step forward. But one that harkens back to our deep forager past.

image source

Celebrity nude photos pilfered from iPhone accounts. Ferguson. Body cameras. Deemed the surveillance society or the transparent society, the rise of camera surveillance seems unstoppable. The parallel I’d like to draw is to the rise of equality, as observed by Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1835 classic Democracy in America. From Tocqueville’s introduction:

Continue reading The surveillance society is a step forward. But one that harkens back to our deep forager past.

Internet economics is relentlessly pulling ebooks and libraries towards subscription streaming.

image source

Amazon’s hard fought battle with book publisher Hachette has been widely covered, as Amazon brutally squeezes their supplier for lower ebook prices. More here. Despite all the coverage, I think the much less discussed Kindle Unlimited announcement is more important. With Kindle Unlimited, Amazon is charging $10/month for all you can read ebooks. Though the terms differ, it’s similar to other ebook subscription services such as Entitle, Scribd, and Oyster. Om Malik says he’s uninterested, since “These services’ book selection is long of total numbers of books, but is short on the books I really wanted to read. Much like Netflix in the early days, you have a lot of indie-content and old catalog content with some new stuff.” I think the Netflix in the early days comparison is exactly right. Not there yet, but a sign of things to come.

Continue reading Internet economics is relentlessly pulling ebooks and libraries towards subscription streaming.

Wall street, businesses and even developers feel the seductive allure of monopoly without consequences.

image source

Everyone loves a sure thing. And for Wall Street a sure thing is a monopoly. I’ve written about this before, e.g., The stock market blindly lusts after exploitative monopolies. But the siren call of monopoly is an evergreen topic. Especially as software eats the world, and natural monopolies become more common. So it’s worth a quick revisit.

Continue reading Wall street, businesses and even developers feel the seductive allure of monopoly without consequences.