Why This Loyal Apple User Switched From Apple TV To Roku

Tim Cook and Apple may be constructing their "grand vision" for television but I'm not waiting, not even if Cook announces something awesome at the company's WWDC next week. I've switched from Apple TV to Roku 3 and am happy I did. More options, more content, slightly better terms, a remote control that doesn't feel like a cheap toy and, most surprisingly, an overall superior television experience.

Exiting The Walled Garden

Truth be told, until recently I was happy living inside Apple's walled garden. Their cute, affordable Apple TV enabled me to access Netflix, Hulu+, YouTube and first-run content from iTunes.

Like all Apple products, Apple TV was amazingly easy to set-up. Even better, it played nice with my other Apple products: iPhone and iPad, in particular. Any content I rented on iPad, for example, could be accessed via Apple TV through the magic of Apple's proprietary AirPlay feature.

AirPlay turns an Apple TV-connected television into a mirror screen for whatever is presented on my iPad or iPhone. It's not limited to just iTunes content, for example. AirPlay let me beam my iPhone photo albums onto the big screen, or stream music from my iPod (app) to my television sound system with a simple tap.

AirPlay is further proof that controlling your hardware and ecosystem, as Apple does, can deliver unique, joyful customer benefits. Giving up AirPlay was tough, no doubt. All that iTunes content - several films and television shows - all now stored on my iPad, is inaccessible with my new Roku 3 device. Still, it's been worth it. Not only do I have far more viewing options with Roku, I have already saved myself a tidy sum on iTunes "late" fees. 

No More Late Fees Ever!

For all its deserved credit for putting its users needs first, Apple nonetheless imposes a rather maddening 24-hour video rental limit on its iTunes content. If I start watching a movie, even a long one like The Hobbit, for example, I must finish it within a day or pony up another $3.99 rental fee. 

This isn't just unfair, it's likely to drive customers away - like me. After all, does Tim Cook even know why Netflix exists? Because its founder, Reed Hastings, got dinged with a $40 late fee. I've probably paid Apple more than that. 

At least Blockbuster - remember it? - had a reason for exhorbitant late fees. After all, rent a DVD from their store and it's not available to anyone else. Not so in our magical, streaming, all-digital reality. If I rent The Hobbit from Apple's iTunes, I am in no way limiting anyone else's ability to watch the film. Apple even lets Canadians have 48 hours before igniting their virtual destruct button. Yes, I checked - it's in the company's rules. 

My dismay at having to pay an additional $3.99 to catch the final - unworthy - act of The Hobbit proved serendipitous. Roku is better. 

From iTunes To Amazon

The Roku 3 is available for the same price - $99 - and is about the same size of the Apple TV. Roku, however, has far more content viewing options available - the company claims over 750 "channels," including Disney and HBO+. Roku is also easier to navigate, provides a better search function and, best of all, finally delivers Amazon Instant Video to my big screen.

Amazon Instant Video has content equivalent to iTunes, is just as easy to rent from, and, like Apple, offers a free iPhone/iPad app that makes it a snap to watch rented videos on my mobile device. Plus, for Amazon Prime members, like me, there is a great deal of video content that is available for free.

Even better: Amazon's rental rules aren't quite as restrictive as Apple's. With Amazon, rentals expire in 24-48 hours. In my case, most of what I watched allowed me the full two days. Yes, including The Hobbit. More than once - as I tested this - some movies remained alive for 72 hours. Perhaps Amazon looks the other way?

The Little Differences Add Up

For both Roku 3 and Apple TV, there are no channels, per se. Rather, content is available from within various apps. To watch Netflix, for example, you select the app and browse their content. To watch Hulu+, select its app. There are, however, a few striking differences between the two platforms:

• iTunes, to no one's surprise, is available only on Apple TV.
• YouTube, much to my surprise, is not available on Roku. At least, not in a standard, accessible app format.
• Roku has a clever "one stop" search function that scans across multiple apps. No more searching for a TV program inside each app to find out if it's available.  
• Roku's remote control app for iPhone is slightly better than Apple's - in large part because Roku offers more content to choose from.
• In my personal tests, streaming over WiFi was slightly more reliable on Apple TV. 

Despite the loss of AirPlay, and the one-touch compatibility with my iPhone and iPad, I stand by my new choice. Roku is better.

Apple has allowed itself to be handily beaten by an upstart in an area that Tim Cook claims Apple is very interested in - control of the television and delivering premium digital content.

Perhaps instead of a "grand vision," the company should focus on improving its existing offering.

Images courtesy of Apple Inc. and Roku. 

View the original article here

Why Samsung's Latest Victory In Its Patent War With Apple Is Mostly Meaningless

AppId is over the quota

Samsung has won another victory in its long-running patent war with Apple. A new judgement bars Apple from importing certain last-generation iPads and iPhones to the United States. The win, however, is unlikely to amount to much more than a moral victory - while serving to highlight how meaningless these courtroom skirmishes are to a smartphone market that the two technology giants continue to dominate.  

 

The International Trade Commission said Tuesday that AT&T versions of Apple's iPhone 3GS and 4, and 3G-equipped models of iPad and iPad 2, infringe on a Samsung patent covering cellular technology. The ITC issued a limited order barring those devices from being sold in the U.S. Apple has already said it plans to appeal the decision, which it can do via Federal Circuit courts or a direct bid to White House. 

No Impact At All

Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet hit the nail on the head in a statement to AllThingsD, saying, "Today's decision has no impact on the availability of Apple products in the United States." Samsung spokesperson Adam Yates countered with a statement that included this gem: “We believe the ITC’s Final Determination has confirmed Apple’s history of free-riding on Samsung’s technological innovations.” 

 

For the unitiated, that "history" dates back to Apple's original claims from April 2011 that Samsung's early Galaxy and Nexus smartphones "slavishly" copied the iPhone's design. The original court complaint famously includes side-by-side comparisons of Apple's iPhone 3GS and Samsung's Galaxy S (i9000). That history includes a $1.05 billion judgement against Samsung, awarded to Apple last August by a California patent court. And that history also includes a UK court ordering Apple to publicly apologize to Samsung for patent infringement accusations by running announcements in newspapers and online. 

 

Just as a ban on devices that account for little of Apple's current business won't change anything, neither did the "I'm Sorry," newspaper ads nor even $1 billion judgement Samsung is still appealing. The so-called consequences levied by courts and trade commissions have done nothing but chew up legal-system resources, give the media something to write about and keep both companies' legal teams busy.

When Giants Battle, The Little Guy Loses

Apple and Samsung continue to own the lion's share of the U.S. smartphone market. ComScore says Apple still owns the #1 spot, while Canaccord Genuity claims Samsung is now on top. Either way, the two dominate the rest of the field whether you measure by marketshare or profits. The patent wars don't seem to be hurting either company's businesses. 

 

HTC, on the other hand, has seen its business crumble while fighting off an Apple patent suit. Despite shipping two of the best smartphones in the world over the past 18 months - last year's One X and the current flagship One - HTC has been bleeding money and hemorrhaging executives. HTC's profits for the first quarter of 2013 tumbled 98% from the same period last year.

 

(See also Why Samsung's Profits Are Growing As HTC's Plummet.) 

 

The company's woes are due as much to branding misfires (gone is last year's "Quietly Brilliant" slogan) and a lack of financial muscle to compete with Apple and Samsung's marketing departments. But getting caught in Apple legal's crosshairs certainly didn't help.

Executive Order To End Patent Wars?

The Apple-Samsung spat is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to technology industry patent issues, in the U.S. and internationally. Tuesday the Obama administration issued a list of recommended Executive and Legislative Actions to reform the high-tech patent system, and The Verge quotes sources claiming that the timing of the ITC's Apple import ban was "motivated in part by the Obama Administration’s new patent announcements."

 

Reaction to President Obama's recommendations from the tech community has been mixed at best. Perhaps that's because patent-related issues have become an annoying thorn in the side of a community that thrives on lightning-paced innovation.

 

(See also Inside The Mind Of A Patent Troll: If It's Legal, It Must Be OK.)

 

Patent trolls are just that, trolls. And despite their protestations, it seems clear that the big-name patent wars have become a little more than an expensive sideshow leeching the lifeblood out of industry while doing little to actually protect inventors. Apple, Samsung and the rest are spending billions of dollars and untold hours fighting in courtrooms and arguing over newspaper apologies. Wouldn't those resources be better directed towards innovation?

 

Image by Renato Mitra from Obergösgen, Switzerland (iPhone 3G S 32GB, schwarz) [CC-BY-SA-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

 

 

View the original article here

Thanks To BYOD, Apple Invades The Enterprise

There is no greater barometer on what people want than allowing them to be free to make a choice. When it comes to smartphones in the enterprise, that choice increasingly belongs to Apple.

The BYOD ("bring your own device") trend continues to alter the personal computing landscape just as it upends traditional work boundaries and IT controls. The latest mobile security report from Good Technology reveals some striking information:

• Apple's iOS devices thrive inside the enterprise - when workers bring their own device.
• Microsoft has yet to see any real gains from linking its smartphone and tablet OS with its massive PC install base.
• Despite the steady rise in smartphone and tablet sales, activations inside the enterprise are failing to keep pace. This could mean that larger companies are struggling to manage the complexities presented by BYOD.

According to Good's Q1 2013 Mobility Index Report [PDF], mobile device activations inside the enterprise were up nearly 30% from the same time last year - a sizable increase, albeit less than the overall increase in smartphone and tablet shipments.

Though the report does not offer any conclusions, the disparity suggests that the many corporate issues associated with BYOD, including security, management, cost controls and support of employee-owned mobile computers, may pose more problems than many employees suspect.

[See also: Is Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Really Good For Workers?]

Android Rising, iOS Preferred.

Despite Android's overall market share dominance, Apple's iOS remains "the preferred enterprise platform," according to Good Technology. As the report notes, Android device activations inside the enterprise increased "just five percentage points year over year." This, despite the explosive growth of Android in 2012.

Apple's iOS is the enterprise mobile leader with a 75% of total mobile device activations. Android's gains, while small, came at Apple's expense.

iPhone 5 Most Popular

According to Good, iPhone 5 is the most popular device for enterprise users, followed by iPhone 4S. The most popular Android device is the Samsung Galaxy S3, though it still trails the iPhone 3GS, which Apple no longer offers. The iPad is the most used tablet inside the enterprise.

It's reasonable to expect more iPads - and Android tablets - invading the enterprise. Good's data shows that while only 1 in 5 shipped smart mobile devices is a tablet. Inside the enterprise, one in four device actiations are tablets.

[See also: ReadWrite Survey Results: What A Typical BYOD Program Really Looks Like]

Microsoft Barely Registers

Despite Microsoft's tablet push, it was Android-based tablets that saw a significant rise in enterprise activations - nearly doubling the number of activations in Q1 2013 compared to Q4 2012.

The news gets worse for Microsoft: 99% of all mobile device activations in the enterprise over the past year were either iOS or Android devices. In fact, Good's numbers show that the Windows Phone platform actually dropped during this most recent quarter, falling from 0.5% in Q4 2012 to 0.3% in Q1 2013.

Expect to see more aggressive pricing, marketing and other appeals from Microsoft. It's clear that iOS and Android are invading Microsoft's enterprise stronghold.

Note: Good Technology is a long time rival of BlackBerry in the mobile security sector and BlackBerry devices are not included in this report.

Where Good's Data Comes From

Take Good's data with a grain of salt if you like. The company has made a significant enterprise push with Apple devices over the last several years while also partnering with Android manufacturers Samsung, HTC, LG as well as Windows Phone maker Nokia.

Good Technology analyzed activations by month among its enterprise and government customers that had at least five activated devices over the quarter. Due to the fact that BlackBerry/RIM devices use only the BlackBerry Enterprise Server for corporate email access, Good is not able to track BlackBerry activations.

Good Technology offers mobile security solutions to over 5,000 organizations in 130 countries. It claims to work with over half the Fortune 100. Good's report is based on its data.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.

View the original article here

Apple Comes Out Swinging In Its E-Book Antitrust Trial

If Apple is scared of the U.S. Department of Justice, it sure isn't showing it.

On Monday, in the opening rounds of the federal government's antitrust e-book case against Apple, company attorney Orrin Snyder called the Justice Department's claim against the company a "bizarre" case based on a "sinister inference," based on shaky evidence. During opening remarks that AllThingsD called "aggressive" and "withering," Snyder argued that federal prosecutors essentially fabricated a case against Apple out of select, decontextualized quotes and not much else.

The government claims that Apple fixed e-book pricing in cahoots with five major publishing houses: HarperCollins, Hatchett, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster. Though all five publishers have already settled with the government, Apple CEO Tim Cook vowed earlier this week to fight what he also deemed a "bizarre" case.

But Snyder, Cook, and company faced an uphill climb even before the trial started. Presiding U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote has already predicted a victory for the feds. "I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that," she wrote in a pretrial opinion.

(See also: DoJ Whacks “Self-Serving” Apple in Response to E-Book Settlement Comments)

'The Prices Will Be the Same'

The feds' case claims that Apple, led by then-CEO Steve Jobs and senior vice president of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue, conspired with publishers to drive e-book prices up from the $9.99 price point Amazon had established. In other words, Apple wanted to take pricing control away from retailers and give it back to publishers - to the benefit of Apple's own newly launched iBooks store.

An email exchange between Jobs and News Corp.'s James Murdoch has become central to the case. News Corp. is the parent company of HarperCollins, one of the publishers who settled with the DoJ last year, and in Jobs is quoted in the email suggesting that HarperCollins "[t]hrow in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.”

(See also: The DoJ's e-Book Attack Solves Nothing)

Jobs also made comments in a June 2010 Wall Street Journal interview that, to the feds, prove that Apple wanted to leverage publishers against Amazon in order to raise e-book prices. From this AllThingsD video of Jobs speaking with Walt Mossberg just after the first iPad launch:

Walt: "Why should she buy a book for $14.99 on your device when she can buy one for $9.99 from Amazon or Barnes & Noble?"

Steve: "That won't be the case."

Walt: "You won't be $14.99 or they won't be $9.99?"

Steve: "The prices will be the same."

Elsa Riven, former chief counsel to Simon & Schuster, sent an email the next day to her chief executive, Carolyn Reidy, calling Jobs’s remarks “incredibly stupid.” Reidy is slated to testify this week.

Apple says the case is based entirely on cherry-picked quotes like the above two, framed in a way that "reverse engineers a case" while leaving out scores of relevant context and other conversation amongst the key parties. Snyder said Monday, “What the government is trying to do is reverse engineer a conspiracy from a market effect.”

You can peruse the entirety of the federal case against Apple on the Justice Department website. The trial continues Tuesday in Manhattan District Court, and is expected to last three weeks.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.com

View the original article here

Apple Should Think Differently About Wall Street

Apple can't win when it comes to Wall St. Today's Street is more about high-stakes betting on fast growth than investing in the long term, and Apple's piled up enough assets to take care of their own financial well-being for years to come. Apple has a responsibility to long-term investors that, conveniently enough, matches up nicely with their own corporate DNA. 

Profits aren't necessarily driving share prices and big money deals right now. But potential sure is. So what? Play the long game, Apple, and share price will take care of itself.

Apple has exhibited staggering growth over the past decade or so, blowing out its own revenue records quarter after quarter while amassing close to $200 billion in total assets according to March 2013 filings (see chart below). That's more than twice the value of Google's assets, in case you're keeping score. Both iPad and iPhone sales continued to show year-over-year growth last quarter, and both broke company sales records during the previous quarter, which included the 2012 holiday shopping season. As Brian Proffitt noted, tablets are hot right now and they're particularly hot for Apple; Q2 iPad sales were up 65% from the same quarter last year.

But shares of AAPL are still off more than 35% since peaking at 705 last September. Meanwhile, Tumblr - a company with revenues somewhere between minimal and "underreported" - just sold for $1.1B. Instagram can tell a similar story. Why? Instagram and Tumblr had both racked up tens of millions of users churning hundreds of millions of page impressions with hardly an ad in sight. That spells potential - boundless untapped monetization potential - in their suitors' eyes. 

Shares of Tesla have spiked nearly 400% over the past year and the electric car maker literally just posted its first-ever profitable quarter. To compare, Apple posted a $9.5 billion profit in Q1 2013; Tesla reported profits of $15 million for the same quarter.  And yet Apple's share prices tumble while Tesla's climb a hockey stick growth curve. Why? Tesla's just now showing the kind of traction that could really disrupt a big industry. Again, potential. Poor old Apple has already torn up the music and wireless businesses. Unless they make a serious push to tear another dinosaur of an industry apart, there's no high growth opportunity in AAPL stock.

So what's a shareholder-accountable Tim Cook to do? Keep his poker face steady and solider on towards Apple's next game changer while continuing to grow iPad and iPhone revenues in the meantime. Cook's already done the right things in giving Jony Ive the keys to the kingdom, readying iOS and OS X updates for WWDC, issuing dividends and stock buy-backs and managing expectations ahead of a slow summer for products.

Cook even teased major disruptions during an interview at D:11 earlier in the week, naming television and wearable technology as two big markets Apple is keenly interested in exploring further. Of course Apple's been talking TV for a while now, which is part of the investor frustration Cook also acknowledged Tuesday night. And then there's the $10 billion Apple plans to spend on capital expenditures this year: $1B is earmarked for retail stores, leaving $9B for "a variety of areas," including manufacturing equipment and data centers. 

In other words, any suggestion that Apple is adrift without a plan for the future is utterly unfounded. Apple may not be telling the public what it's next move is, but it's clearly got a big thing or two in the works. 

Whether an Apple led by Tim Cook and Sir Jonathan Ive can remake a company like Steve Jobs' Apple did remains to be seen. But with nearly $200 billion to work with, there's literally no need for Cook and company to rush or investors to panic. Yes, Apple should take a moonshot soon; iPad isn't (yet) the volume product iPhone is, and iPhone's epic success might not last forever in wake of the Samsung-led Android charge. Iteration will only serve the company for so long.

Apple execs will tell you that innovation is key to Apple's corporate culture. It's in their DNA. Perhaps Apple would do well to take a page from their arch-rival's playbook when it comes to public risk taking. Whatever you think of Google's Glass and self-driving car projects, nobody's accusing Larry Page and company of resting on their laurels. Google's got a million and one projects coming and going and dropping out of the sky at developer conferences. Apple and Google are very different companies with very different philosophies around developing and shipping products, but Google has gained mindshare - and driven up their share price - at least partly due to their brash, cutting-edge experiments in the future of human-computer interaction. 

Funny as it sounds, maybe Apple should look to Google as a source of inspiration. No, I don't expect Tim Cook to skydive into WWDC next month. But Google found its cash cow in optimizing ads against search and now it can afford to experiment with basically whatever it sees fit. iPod and iOS devices have given Apple unimaginable financial resources of its own, and Tim Cook's bunch should ignore the naysayers, keep refining iOS and swing for the fences when they're good and ready.

View the original article here