May 21, 2012

Apple OSX Lion & Microsoft Exchange: The End of Fanboy Days

mac-outlook

Outlook 2011

Back in April 2011 I wrote a scathing review of Microsoft Office 2011 for Mac.  I was specifically distressed by the highly touted addition of Microsoft Outlook, because after careful testing, I could reach only one conclusion: it sucks.  My solution for the total suckage of Outlook for Mac 2011 was to run Microsoft Office for Windows 2010 on the Macs around my office using a program called Parallels that (in simple terms) allows you to run Windows and Windows compatible programs on your Mac.

This sub-optimal solution became even more sub-optimal as we added more people to Microsoft Exchange.  So, some intrepid souls decided to try something radical … they used Apple Mail, iCal and Address Book to interface with Microsoft Exchange.  Low and behold … praise be to Jobs … it worked.  There were happy Mac Fanboys all over the office singing the praises of Cupertino and loving the fact that Apple was in the business of doing business.

Hallelujah, Apple got its enterprise on.  Time for Snow Leopard sock puppets! We were all thinking about making the switch.  But … just as quickly as we had fallen in love with the Apple Mail/Microsoft Exchange solution, came the End of Fanboy Days … OSX Lion 10.7.x.

There are many wonderful things I can say about Apple’s OSX Lion operating system, but compatibility with Microsoft Exchange isn’t on the list.

All of our new MacBook Air computers came with OSX Lion 10.7.x preinstalled.  As I am fond of saying, my MacBook Air is simply the finest computer I have ever owned … except for one small issue … iCal under Lion is incompatible with Microsoft Exchange.  A few minutes Googling the error message confirmed our worst fears – Apple knows about the bug and has done nothing to fix it.

The issue is subtle, but it is a deal breaker.  Under certain conditions, you can’t send and receive meeting requests and get the title of the meeting to show up in iCal.  You get a blank meeting.  When it happens the first time, you assume that you have done something wrong.  After a few more times, you ask your system admin what’s up.  By the 10th time you lose your meeting info, you type the issue into Google … that’s when the enormity of the situation hits you.  You’ve just opted into a workflow that is completely useless for the doing of business with 92% of the business world.  Want a list of compatibly issues; just search for your favorite flavor – it’s not pretty.

To say that we did everything to solve this would be to understate the issue.  No eclectic techno-geeky trick was left untried.  Bribes to friends at Apple, calls out to hackers, even a FB plea to Fanboys around the world … all to no avail. :(

The ultimate solution is so sad, I have named it the End of Fanboy Days.  We are now the proud owners of a bunch of 17″ HP ProBook 4730s running Microsoft Office Professional over Windows 7 Professional.  HP’s Value Added Reseller (VAR) channel rocks!  If you ever need a bunch of computers that are sturdy, built for business, free of bloatware and ready to use when you get them, call your favorite HP VAR.  Talk about flawless integration with Microsoft Exchange — everything works so perfectly, it’s sinful!

I still carry my MacBook Air.  For me, it is still the ultimate computer in the galaxy.  I don’t mind having the crippled Microsoft Office for Mac 2011 running on this computer because I don’t do any administrative functions with it.  But, if I didn’t have an executive admin and an administrative assistant who keep my calendar, I would have to choose between crippled Outlook functions or non-functional appointment compatibility in iCal.  Two unacceptable options.

If you don’t use your computer for business and don’t have to have a computer that is 100% Microsoft Exchange compatible, nothing here really concerns you.  However, if you are truly trying to use a Mac running OSX Lion 10.7.x as a business tool to interoperate in Microsoft Exchange environment … sadly, it is truly the End of Fanboy Days.

International CES 2012: Bigger, Thinner and Connected

CES 2012The theme of this year’s Consumer Electronics Show was “connected living.” Everything from wrist watches to toaster ovens featured ways to connect to the Internet. Why? Because they could. Do you really need your wristwatch to connect to the cloud? Well, I don’t know if “need” is the right word. In many cases, connectivity is a “nice to have,” not a “need to have.”

I like to say that there are only two kinds of people, and two kinds of devices: connected and not connected – apparently, that’s how the Consumer Electronics (CE) industry sees the world as well. But here’s the thing: hidden under the excitement of cloud-connected devices is the reality that the industry is changing, and changing fast.

If you know anything about the CE industry, you know that interoperability is not something big electronics firms are fond of. For years, Sony refused to use industry compatible SD cards in favor of its Sony Memory Stick. It even used an obscure type of Firewire connector, just to promote the sales and non-interoperability of its video and still cameras. Not to single out Sony, almost every CE company has its own proprietary ecosystem. And all of them hope you will choose their way of thinking if you want to interface with their gear.

This is not a consumer-friendly strategy, but some “old school” businesspeople believe it is the right way to do business. At one time, it may have been a good idea, but it’s over. Cloud storage, 3G, 4G, WiFi, h.264, .mp3 and other very common consumer standards have wrenched control away from big CE companies and handed it to consumers. Which begs for the question, can you market a successful closed system in 2012 and beyond? I’m pretty sure the answer is no.

If you walked around the show floor, one of the key takeaways would have been silos and unique proprietary systems are not making the cut. The consumers have won, and won big.

What was interesting at the show? Intel chips have enabled a new class of personal computers called Ultrabooks. They are all MacBook Air look-alikes, but they run Windows and they are inexpensive by comparison. This is going to be one of the big stories of the year. They are really going to sell and, I humbly submit, give tablets a real run for their money. Of course, the same technology will find its way into tablets and the arms race will continue. The winner … you! Consumers will benefit in every way. Faster, smaller, thinner and more connected personal computing experiences.

lg-oledI also liked LG’s 55″ OLED TV. The picture is indescribably gorgeous and it’s about 4 millimeters thin. No price or specific delivery date, but look for it by the end of the year.

Samsung debuted a series of big, flat screen TVs that have motion sensing and voice recognition built in. Think of it as an Xbox Kinect without any extra boxes or cables. The demo was fun, but it’s not ready for prime time.

Samsung also showed off the Samsung Galaxy Note a 5.3″ Android phone/tablet crossover. Lots of people liked the size, some said it was too big, others said it was too small. Where’s Goldilocks when you really need her.

The most remarkable thing about International CES 2012 was the number of people doing business. There were fantastic parties, everyone had an optimistic, upbeat attitude about the future and the general consensus was that things are turning around.

Of course, it’s not business as usual, everyone is trying to figure out how to be more like Apple. From operating systems to hardware, almost every pitch included some reference to iDevices, iTunes or the iTunes store – and everyone is playing catch-up. This was not 2 million square feet of Apple Fanboys, this was a town full of electronics professionals wondering how they missed the mark and what they could do about it.

Lastly, if you’re wondering if Microsoft will be missed at next year’s show? The short answer is no. CES is not about any one manufacturer; it’s about an industry. Kudos to the CEA for putting on an amazing exhibition that included the best of the best in every category – this year was truly awesome!

Apple Television: Did Steve Jobs Crack The Code?

Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs

“I’d like to create an integrated television set that is completely easy to use,” Steve Jobs told his biographer, Walter Isaacson. “It would be seamlessly synced with all of your devices and with iCloud.”

Everyone assumes that Apple is working on iTV or whatever it will be called. It’s in his biography, pundits speak about it — the only question is when will it debut?

I will be hugely surprised if Apple markets a television set, my guess is that it will bring a new device to the marketplace that will offer a Jobsian way to consume video content, play games and interact in the social space. Calling it a TV will probably be pejorative or, at the very least, a misnomer.

That said, I am fascinated by the quote from Steve Jobs’ biography. “It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine. I finally cracked it,” mostly because it makes no sense. There is nothing in the world of technology simpler than turning on a television set. Flipping channels and adjusting volume are literally child’s play. It is a behavior exhibited by everyone over the age of three who has ever seen a television. “Simple as turning on the TV,” is the holy grail of modern consumer electronics design. Did Steve come up with a way to make it simpler? Doubtful.

But the interface, simple or not, is not the problem. That’s not the code that needs to be cracked. Where we need Steve Jobs’ magic is on the other side of the system – where content transitions from scarce (on TV) to ubiquitous (online). Find a codex that solves for supply and demand: Then, and only then, will the code be truly cracked.

Supply and demand is an immutable law of our human experience. If something is scarce, it is valuable. If something is ubiquitous, it is less valuable. I challenge you to identify any ecosystem anywhere in our observable universe where this is not always true. If you find an example, please email me immediately; you will be the first person in history to accomplish this feat.

If you want to reach the vast majority of television viewers in the United States, pick a Thursday night during November, February or May and buy airtime on ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox between 09:00:00 pm and 09:00:30 pm. It will cost you a few hundred thousand dollars on each of the networks and it will be worth it. Why would you need to spend this money on Thursday evening? Because the vast amount of American TV viewers are awake and watching TV at that time. (That’s why weeknights from 8pm – 11pm is called Primetime.)

And, more importantly, Americans get paid on Friday. So, if you want to sell them something over the weekend or call them to action (Come to my weekend sale, or come test drive my car and get 10% off this Saturday) the last time you get to reach them when they are sober and might have money in their pockets is Thursday evening. They will go out on Friday and Saturday and by primetime Sunday night they will have a hangover and be broke! (Please don’t send me hate mail about my insensitivity to alcoholics or suggest that I am promoting or condoning underage drinking – I’m not.)

This makes primetime Thursday evening between 09:00:00 pm and 09:00:30 pm a very scarce resource indeed. Now, take the same piece of video content, put it online (which instantly removes both the temporal and geographic restrictions). What has to happen to the price of the airtime? Remember — supply and demand.

There is only 30 seconds available between 09:00:00 pm and 09:00:30 pm on Thursday night. It’s scarce. Once the content is online, it can be seen by anyone, anytime, anywhere. Again, what has to happen to the price? (Answer: It must go down.)

This is the code that needs to be cracked. The interface is not the problem at all. If you can’t create scarcity, you can’t charge what you need to charge to create the content – if you can’t create the content, there is no TV ecosystem.

People often confuse TV the art form with TV the platform. The television (and movie) business is about packaging content, measuring the audience and selling that audience to advertisers. If you add in the dual revenue business (like cable networks and some broadcast entities) it is also about creating high-value content that attracts and maintains subscribers. In the case of the premium content providers, it’s only about subscription revenue.

Why would content owners whose content is good enough to be distributed as a scarce resource want to unrestrict the very access that enables their remuneration?

Now, you could argue that scarcity can be created with a cloud-based video distribution system over the public Internet. That’s stating the obvious. Netflix is just such a system. So are Hulu Plus, Roku, Vudu, etc. Why haven’t these systems destroyed the cable and satellite business? They are too expensive, too limited and too hard to use. Can that code be cracked? Sure, this is probably the part Steve Jobs had figured out. But, at some point he would have been faced with the code that can’t be cracked: How do you make something ubiquitous and valuable at the same time? Steve, I’m your biggest fan and I want to be wrong, but I don’t think you cracked it.

Will Walmart Vudu Streaming Hurt Netflix?

Walmart

Walmart

Will Walmart’s new video streaming service hurt Netflix?  That seems to be “the” question about this story.  The short answer is, yes. New competition is going to drive prices down.  And increased demand for more (and newer) video content will drive margins down.  Netflix is going to have to answer with excellent marketing and management.  Will they? Time will tell.

That said, if Netflix survives (and I’m sure they will), they are going to be part of a vibrant online video services marketplace that is going to literally change the way people consume entertainment.  This may sound like hyperbole, but I assure you it is not.

The ubiquitous availability of video content, courtesy of on-demand video services, begs for the question, “What does it mean to own a video in the 21st century.”  To put it another way, “If the bits are always available for streaming or download, do you really need to store the bits locally on your device … do you really need to ‘own’ them?”

This is not going to be a subtle change, and it is not going to take very long.  If you look at the exponential rate at which technology is changing, you can calculate a time in the very near future where everything we think we know about traditional content distribution no longer applies.

Will wireless tiered pricing help save linear distribution?  Will DVD sales level off, or will they just fall off a cliff?  Will there be enough broadband connectivity for average Americans to get the content they want on the devices they want, when they want it?  How badly will piracy impact a subscription-based or pay-per-view on demand world?  Is there enough of a market to support Netflix, Amazon, Walmart, AppleTV, GoogleTV and the plethora of other online on demand services?  Will consumers actually have enough money to enjoy the content they want in an on demand world?

I have about 100 more questions, but we can stop here.  Netflix and Amazon have some competition – and competition is always good for consumers – always!

Dear Netflix

Netflix

Netflix

“Dear Netflix” is a trending topic on Twitter today and you don’t need to set up any sophisticated social listening software to get the message:

@jerrybyers Dear Netflix, I only knew you for a short time. Streaming library is limited and Redbox is a lot cheaper. See ya. #fail

The social media backlash to Netflix’s price increase was instant and voluminous.  And, not surprisingly, it was 100% negative.

Reed Hastings, CEO of what used to be everyone’s favorite video rental service, has been nicknamed “Greed Hastings” in the Twitisphere, Fasbookistan and throughout the Interweb.

In case you missed the details.  You will now pay $7.99/month for DVD rentals by mail, or $7.99/month for access to the streaming service, or $15.98/month for access to both.  That’s a 60% increase for all you Econ majors out there.

Here’s a tweet that sums up the perceived business model:

@NuAngel Dear Netflix, brilliant business plan! Run all video stores out of business, than jack up the prices so we have nowhere else to go! #fb

And, here’s a tweet that sums up brand sentiment:

@droberts0503 Dear Netflix, I got your breakup email. Sorry to hear you don’t want me to be with you anymore.

All in, I’d say Netflix has a hell of a PR problem.  It has dramatically raised prices and offered no additional services.  Additionally, the streaming library is exceptionally limited and, IMHO, not worth $7.99 per month.  There are other services like Hulu Plus, ESPN and Amazon that are more attractive.  When you figure in Blockbuster’s $4.99 month long pass for unlimited kids rentals (Kids are a big category on Netflix Streaming Service) and Blockbuster’s .49 cent Sunday rentals,  and RedBox, and the local video store (if one still exists), a $16/month Netflix bill doesn’t seem to be that much of a bargain.

Will Netflix bend to the social media pressure? Will it listen to the voice of its customers and roll back its pricing?  If it doesn’t, will its stock take a hit?  Will Netflix lose customers?   Time will tell.

If you’re wondering what I’m going to do with my account … I will not pay for the DVD service – I don’t use it anymore. And, unless the streaming library grows considerably in the next few month, I will probably cancel that service too.

All this as the Netflix “Red Button” starts to hit consumer electronics devices, remote controls and Netflix widgets and apps abound.  Oh wait, maybe this is all just social media noise and Netflix will emerge bigger, stronger and more powerful?  Maybe not.

Big Brother Is Listening Too

Copyright

Copyright

According to the Center for Copyright Information fact sheet: “In 2011 the Center for Copyright Information will be formally opened. This newly formed Center will help educate consumers about content theft on the Internet. It will help them to understand the difference between lawful and unlawful online downloading and file sharing.

How does it work? If a filter catches you uploading or downloading a file that you do not have rights to, the system sends you a warning. There are a series of six alerts that start from a simple warning and end up with some arbitrary punishments that are, well … here … read it for yourself.

Before I start ranting about this, let me state my position on the law. I think that enforcing our copyright laws is a very good thing and I believe that people who violate the current copyright statutes are criminals that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Please read the preceding statement carefully. I do not believe that our copyright laws are adequate for our time; I simply believe that until the laws are changed, we have to abide by them.

That said, the new Center for Copyright Information is on a path that will probably lead to its own destruction.

From the ISP’s perspective – it’s great to say you’ll support the initiative. Pay it lip service and wait for all of your competitors to make their customers mad enough to switch to your network.

From the customer perspective – this is really, really creepy. We know that Big Brother is watching, but now he is listening too? If you can tell what I am uploading and downloading, how long will it be until someone tries to regulate it? This is a very slippery slope indeed.

From the technical perspective – what happens when someone spoofs my WiFi router and does all of their illegal filesharing through my unprotected home network?

From a business perspective – Do I really want to wage another war with my customers?

This new Center is supposed to be about education. They probably have it right – the industry is about to get “schooled.”

The New Verizon Wireless Tiered Pricing Plan

ComScore says that there are 77 million people in the United States with smartphones and Nielsen Media Research says that in Q1 2011 data usage grew to an average of 435 MB per user/per month.  I’ve seen studies that say these numbers are likely to double every year for quite some time.

Give ‘em the razor, sell ‘em the blades? No, that doesn’t quite seem to cover it.  Get them addicted to crack for free, then start to charge them when they can no longer help themselves.  Yes, that seems like a better metaphor.

Verizon wants us to pay for what we use.  That seems fair.  One spokesperson said something like, “If you drive a car 50 miles, you expect to pay for the gas.”  All true.

Verizon Wireless’ current unlimited plan costs users with contracts $30 per month.  I am told that it is grandfathered and that it cannot be taken away unless you sign a new contract.

New smartphone users will choose between paying $30 for 2 gigabytes, $50 for 5 gigabytes or $80 for 10 gigabytes of monthly data usage. Customers who use more than their allotment will be charged $10 more for each additional gigabyte.

How much data is this?  Today, it’s a lot.  But tomorrow, it may not be enough.  As we start to use all of the features of our new smart devices, we are going to use a lot of bandwidth.  Will we be able to afford it?  Will tiered pricing slow down or diminish our collective appetite for wireless cloud-based services?

Look at it another way.  AT&T and T-Mobile already have tiered plans.  But they are very likely to merge.  Can Sprint survive?  This question may be for another column, but for the sake of this argument let’s say no.  That will leave us two carriers: AT&T and Verizon.  Both will have tiered pricing and both will have us in a vise.  There will be no market pressure on either AT&T or Verizon to lower their rates.  And, consumers will have nowhere else to go.

This is going to be a very interesting game.  Can the big carriers balance their need to increase shareholder value with the market’s ability to pay?  Only time will tell.

International CES 2011: What We Didn’t See

International CES 2011 is in the history books and it was a wonderful show. Over 135,000 attendees, over 20,000 new product announcements, over 1.6 million square feet of exhibit space — it was a non-stop tech festival that truly has no equal anywhere on Earth.

Samsung, Sony, Sharp, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Vizio, Joe, Sally, Tom, Dick and Harry all had impressive displays of Internet-connected Televisions. If you were thinking of “cutting the cord,” this was your show. Every manufacturer displayed their own version of a world where all you need is an Ethernet cable and an ISP.

I was also extremely impressed by the array of tablet computers — each ready to climb the formidable hill created by Apple and topple the iPad from its perch. And, for each tablet, there were a dozen smartphones and mobile devices that promised to reduce Apple’s dominance and offer a better version of connected living.

But for all of the technology on display, the most impressive part of CES was what I didn’t see — consumer aspiration. It was simply missing. Everywhere you looked you could find new technological solutions — but where were the problems?

The goal of the “cord-cutters” (people who wish to find an alternative to expensive cable television service) is to save money. How do a bunch of pay services like Netflix, Hulu Plus, MLB, etc. save you money? You’ll actually spend more on premium content — assuming that you can even get the sports packages you seek from online distributors.

Microsoft offered a seamless experience from desktop to handheld to laptop to gaming console to television. I play games on my Xbox and I’m sure to enjoy versions of those games on my Window Phone 7, but do I need Sharepoint or Word or Excel on my TV? The reason most people carry two phones isn’t because they want to. They carry two handhelds because, if one is issued by the company they work for, 100 percent of the content and data that passes through the company device is owned by the company. The second mobile device is for personal use. How does a seamless experience between all of your personal, business and home screens match the reality of that work/life scenario? How does it work in a household with more than one member — who gets the remote? Which computers get to sync with which devices through which cloud account?

I don’t mean to pick on Microsoft. Real problems that real consumers have in their connected worlds were absent almost everywhere. Instead what we saw were screens full of widgets and apps that offered a glimpse of a possible connected future, but no process for making it a reality. Most of the Internet-Connected TVs on display were metaphoric “concept cars,” exciting to look at, but far from street-ready.

In and of itself, there’s nothing wrong with engineers inventing solutions for non-existent problems. In fact, I love looking at the newest, fastest, coolest, most remarkable tech. That’s one of the big reasons to attend CES.

That said, I think it’s important to remind ourselves that content distribution, content creation, advertiser sales, advertising spend, Internet service providers, multi-system operators, telephone companies, the FCC, the Congress and consumers all have extremely divergent agendas.

When I looked at the real estate on the home screen of an Internet connected television, I didn’t see the new Office of Privacy Policy, nor did I see the upcoming Net Neutrality rules, nor any reference to existing cable carriage contracts on display. Most people weren’t looking for them, so they weren’t missed. But without deals being made that satisfy the needs of all of the above, those screens are just artwork.

The aspirations of consumer electronics manufacturers are laudable. They want to increase margins by adding service layers to their hardware. But I didn’t see any kind of council or consortium to bring a comprehensive solution to the content distributors or advertisers.

While discussing things I didn’t see at CES with my friend, Jeremy Rosenberg, at Music Choice, he observed that he didn’t see any note from CES or coverage by anyone that touched upon the wave of tablets likely pushing back the number of TVs per home.

He recalled that, at last glance, the average numbers of TV per home had risen to 2.5 and was still rising. His question, “Will this reverse as tablets roll out and TV Everywhere and Adaptive Streaming rise to meet them?” One of the big drivers of tertiary TV sets is folks like us who may indulge our children and/or ourselves with TV sets for viewing audiences of one in a kid’s room or a viewing audience of one at a home office desk … it will be easy to just let tablets handle that. Will there actually be less TV sets per household?

All in, I thought International CES 2011 was a great show and I am sure we are going to love all the new toys that come out over the next few months. My advice … just keep looking for the stuff that’s not on display. Shelly Palmer


    FiOS vs. Time Warner Cable SignatureHome: A Fair Fight, Long Overdue

    Time Warner

    Time Warner

    During his State of the Union address in 1930, President Herbert Hoover said, “Competition is not only the basis of protection to the consumer, but is the incentive to progress.” He was talking about railroads, but he might as well have been talking about the cable television business.

    My cable bill has been a grudge payment for my entire adult life. The bill keeps going up, the product stays marginal and the term “customer service” is an oxymoron. It is fair to say I hate my cable television provider with a passion; I just hate them less than I hate the other “competitive” options available to me.

    What are my competitive options? Well, another cable provider that offers fewer services at a lower price, which is not realistic. Or, a rooftop antenna for free over-the-air TV or satellite television. Neither are actual options because I live in an apartment building and do not have access to the roof. So, in practice, there is one cable television option. My cable provider enjoys a de facto monopoly and I hate them!

    With no competition in the marketplace, my cable television provider was able to sit back, relax and take my money. Until 2005, there was absolutely no reason to think about improving anything. No pressure to evolve. Sure, they had to come up with the triple play (video, voice and data) to keep satellite television from taking too many subs, but they didn’t improve the video product or the data product. In fact, the success of the triple play had the opposite effect. The service actually degraded because of the number of consumers contending for the limited amount of available bandwidth.

    2005 was an interesting year. That’s the year that Verizon launched FiOS in Keller, Texas. It changed everything. FiOS is real competition for the cable industry. Pundits and subject matter experts questioned whether Verizon’s leadership was of sound mind and body when they announced what they were going to spend to create a “network for the next century.” But build it, they did. FiOS is a stunning technical achievement and it is way, way better than anything the cable television industry has ever offered … until now.

    Unless you live under a pile of old hard drives, you have probably seen thousands of commercials for FiOS. The network passes over 12 million homes and they have signed up over 3 million customers. It’s big, it’s real and, most importantly, it is “real” competition for the cable industry.

    Has cable noticed? You bet they have, FiOS is growing fast. What will cable do? Can it possibly compete with a fiber-optic network built for the 21st century?

    DOCSIS is an abbreviation for Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification and, if you have a cable modem in your home, it is almost certainly a DOCSIS 2 modem. They are cheap and more than good enough for captive, ignorant consumers who don’t know any better. DOCSIS 2 is nowhere near as fast or flexible as FiOS. It wasn’t designed to be. So with very little marketing effort, FiOS could tell a speed and power story that decimated the cable competition.

    However, the cable industry has had a not-so-secret weapon ready since before FiOS was announced: DOCSIS 3.

    While everyone likes to talk about the speed of fiber-optic networks (like FiOS) the practical matter is that a DOCSIS 3 modem can deliver comparable speeds over the existing cable infrastructure. The cable guys could have installed this system in your home before FiOS even got to your neighborhood. But they didn’t have to. You didn’t know you needed it and they were under no evolutionary pressure to provide better service.

    This is all changed.

    Remember December 8, 2010. It’s the day that Time Warner Cable publicly admitted that it was no longer a de facto monopoly and launched SignatureHome – a connected living experience that rivals FiOS feature-for-feature and benefit-for-benefit. I am happy to report that New York City now has two real competitive connected living experiences. FiOS and SignatureHome.

    SignatureHome goes even farther than just a broadband speed and quality video story. Time Warner Cable has acknowledged that there are a plurality of devices in your life that need to be connected, and they want SignatureHome to be the center of your connected life. So much so, that customer service and custom installations are its central focus. They are offering a premium product at a premium price. It’s not a cable package; it is a premium service that is designed get everything in your life connected.

    Which begs for the question: Is this the right competitive approach? FiOS is great, fast and less expensive. Time Warner SignatureHome is already mostly installed and requires a simple phone call for the upgrade (and up to three hours of Time Warner SignatureHome technicians hanging out in your house to hook you up).

    Oddly enough, the answer doesn’t matter. The important thing is that consumers in Time Warner Cable/FiOS markets now have a real choice of services that can be compared and considered. Oh, but wait … what about people who can’t afford a premium connected living service and are stuck in Time Warner Cable budget-priced hell? My guess is that with two competitive infrastructures in the marketplace, the story will actually have a happy ending.

    With all of the talk about oligopolies and monopolies, national broadband plans and net neutrality — there is one small beacon of hope: “Competition is not only the basis of protection to the consumer, but is the incentive to progress.” Thanks, President Hoover. Shelly Palmer