34

• THE PULSE OF TECHNOLOGY CEA PRESIDENT AND CEO

Gary Shapiro
• SELLING THE STORIES OF OUR LIVES:
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, INDUSTRY AFFAIRS
TECHNOLOGY AND PRIVACY
Jason Oxman

• THE FUTURE OF VIDEO DISTRIBUTION

SENIOR DIRECTOR, PUBLICATIONS
AND CONSUMPTION
Cindy Loffler Stevens

• A COMPUTER IN EVERY POCKET, 4G IN MANAGER, PUBLICATIONS

EVERY TOWN Carolyn Slater 1
• IT’S NOT EASY BEING GREEN OR IS IT? SENIOR COORDINATOR, PUBLICATIONS
Mark Chisholm
• THE FUTURE OF APPS
SENIOR MANAGER, CREATIVE DIRECTION
• ARE WE DRIVING TECHNOLOGY OR IS IT Octavio Kano
DRIVING US?
GRAPHIC DESIGNER, CREATIVE SERVICES
Ian Shields

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS:
Jessica Boothe
Mark Chisholm
Jack Cutts
©Consumer Electronics Association 2010 Shawn DuBravac
Deepak Joseph
Sean Murphy
Carolyn Slater
 THE PULSE OF TECHNOLOGY

G
roundbreaking, vibrant, energetic, innovative – this is the drum beat of the consumer technology industry. Welcome to the
2011 edition of Five Technology Trends to Watch. This annual Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) publication looks at the
technologies that will impact our future.

We are part of the booming $165 billion industry that has a passion for reinventing itself. Just a few years ago, plasma TV, HDTV DVR,
HD radio, eReaders, OLED TV, 3D HDTV, Internet widget TV and mobile DTV were technologies that were on the horizon – today these
products are in homes.

Because the industry changes so quickly, CEA created Five Technology Trends to Watch to highlight five technology areas each year that show
promise. For this 2011 edition, we focused on video delivery, advances in mobile broadband/4G, issues with technology and privacy, the
latest green technologies, and the opportunities that have grown up around the cottage industry of applications (apps) for devices. Five
Technology Trends to Watch also has a forward-looking section that reveals how some of these technologies may impact consumers in the
not-too-distant future.

To learn more about the dynamic innovations that are transforming our lives, I invite you to come see the hottest products when they are
introduced at the International CES on January 6-9, 2011. While at the show, visit the Innovations Design and Engineering Showcase that
honors outstanding achievement in product and engineering design and the more than 20 TechZones that highlight new industry growth
areas.
2
Come see the newest products and services as well as the latest technology and hear from more than 500 technology experts on wireless,
mobile technology, home networking, home entertainment, emerging technologies and business solutions.

For more information, visit CESweb.org. I hope to see you in Las Vegas!

Gary Shapiro
President and CEO
SELLING THE STORIES OF OUR LIVES:
TECHNOLOGY AND PRIVACY
By Sean Murphy

I
n a recent issue of Esquire there is a humorous feature titled
“Help Us Serve You Better!” which imagines a series of cor-
respondence from various companies. The consumer to which
these missives are directed is offered, in not very subtle terms, a
variety of “helpful” suggestions. For instance, he is reminded of the
items he searched for before choosing the sale item (cheapskate!),
he is pressured into upgrading the bouquet of flowers he sent his
mother, he is “thanked” for buying a pair of shoes that had lan-
guished for months in the warehouse (fashion faux pas!), and then
he is sardonically asked about the success of his “business trip” in
Thailand. Finally, one site suggests some self-improvement books
to ameliorate his work and relationship issues.
previously sent information (a shipping address or friend’s e-mail
address). Cookies are also used for more sophisticated purposes,
such as compiling data based on where we go and what we do
(each day, over time) on the Internet. The concept of cookies, and
the ways in which they have been utilized, informs any discussion
about Internet privacy. Before we contemplate the implications
of tomorrow’s experience, let’s briefly take stock of how far—and
fast—we’ve arrived where we are today.

While this scenario is amusingly over-the-top, and of course could

never play out as depicted, many people might be surprised—and
mortified—to discover how much information regarding their
personal lives is readily available online, and how easy it is to draw
accurate (and potentially embarrassing) conclusions based on 3
relatively minimal amounts of data.

The concept of privacy and technology is nothing if not compli-

cated, intriguing and ever-changing. As is always the case, before
we can predict with any hope of accuracy what the future will look
like, we need to adequately understand both the present and the
past. It is also imperative to recognize, or accept, that technology is
never a static phenomenon; by the time we grapple with one aspect
of a particular product or progression, it has already mutated,
improved or become something else altogether.

This is not to suggest that one can’t hope to become familiar with
the processes and behind-the-scenes methodologies that transform
ideas into innovations. Indeed, whether we are talking about home
audio, portable video or eReaders, most of these products have
discernible histories that illustrate how they evolved. Speaking of
the Internet (in general) and concepts like cookies, aggregated in-
formation, behavioral targeting and data exchange (in particular)
is, understandably, more problematic. A recent study in this series
closely examined specific elements of this technology story (“The
Future Has Already Arrived: The Localization of the Internet”, Five
Technology Trends to Watch 2008).
Most of us are reasonably familiar with the technologies—or at
least their existence—that sites utilize to store and share the data
we provide. Cookies, for instance, refer to text files websites store
on your PC. They are used for such commonplace, and innocuous
tasks as automatically recalling passwords and auto-populating
THE FACEBOOK PHENOMENON
Anyone who has spent any time on a social networking site likely
has personal experience with a 21st century dilemma we’ll call
“poster’s remorse”. This is a subtle but potentially catastrophic
derivation of what is commonly referred to as buyer’s remorse.
Poster’s remorse involves the ill-advised, mistaken or accidental
disclosure of information and its aftermath. This information, sent
innocently, unknowingly or while in an impaired state, with one
click of the mouse becomes public knowledge. Examples range
from the relatively harmless to the profound and permanent. The
former might involve the inadvertent announcement (or uploaded
pictorial evidence) of one’s whereabouts: for instance, being at
one friend’s party and not out of town – the excuse used to get
out of the other friend’s party. The latter could include a Facebook
update, or picture, sent in retaliation (divorce lawyers are now
happily incorporating these types of disclosures into their cases).
 Finally, there are the sorts of indicting evidence that an employer
can see, situations that tend to end badly.
An important distinction here is that the above examples typify
shared information (however unfortunate or regrettable) that the
individual involved is aware of. What about the ease with which we
can unknowingly, maliciously or even with genuinely good inten-
tions, share information about someone else? A Twitter update,
or a re-tweet the person may have intended (however naively)
for a limited audience, or the old-fashioned forwarded e-mail all
exemplify ways we have less control than we might prefer regard-
ing what the world knows about us. Perhaps the most complicated
contemporary dilemma is the ability of relatives, friends and even
(or especially) mere acquaintances to post and tag photos on
Facebook.
If this sounds straightforward or even simple, the implications are
actually deep and ever-expanding. It is, for instance, now common
practice for HR departments to compile what amounts to a
personal dossier of any given applicant’s online history. This would
include anything from the obvious social networking posts to the
type of interaction many would assume is safe or anonymous,
such as blog posts or participation in discussion groups or
forums. Even the more savvy Internet users who actively control
and limit the people who can “see” them may find that their very
lack of transparency arouses suspicion. It can become a Catch-22
revolving around the inference that if you’ve done nothing
“wrong” you have nothing to hide. A blocked or inaccessible
identity might, in some eyes, be as provocative as having shared
too much information.
4 PRIVACY VS. PROFIT: THE NEXT BIG DEBATE
“It is, now common practice for HR
departments to compile what amounts to
a personal dossier of any given applicant’s
online history.”
Facebook’s less than transparent privacy policies, and the site’s
increasing popularity will be the front line of this debate – in its
myriad facets – for the foreseeable future. Indeed, as this piece was
being written a controversy erupted concerning “Facebook Places”
– the new geo-location feature (similar to the incredibly successful
Foursquare, which enables people to “check in” from any location).
Ostensibly these services are opt-in and self-serve, but consistent
with the less savory implications of photo-tagging, people may
find their whereabouts being broadcast to unwanted parties
(think everything from potential burglars to stalkers). Because
of the remarkable influence of these services, it seems likely that
only eventual hassles ending with legal consequences will inspire
concerted efforts to educate and even regulate their use, especially
for minors.
CEA recently undertook a study to gain a better understanding
of consumer attitudes toward Internet privacy issues. More than
half (56 percent) of U.S. adults have used a social or professional
networking site such as MySpace, Facebook or LinkedIn. Amongst
the younger adults (ages 18-24 and 25-34) the percentages are
between 70 percent and 88 percent, respectively.
Online Activities Among U.S. Adults
% of Adults Activity in the Past 12 Months
Accessed your financial information, such as bank
62%
accounts or retirement accounts
Purchased things 58
Used a social or professional networking site such as
Myspace, Facebook or Linkedin
56
Paid bills 56
Posted personal contact information such as phone
number, e-mail address, mailing address, etc.
39
Posted personal photos 36
Posted a product or service review 14
Accessed your personal health records 12
Shared your location, using a location-based service
such as Google Latitude or Foursquare 10
None of these 10
Source: CEA Market Research
Once we acknowledge the ways our activity (and the activity of
those in our close and extended networks) can have far-reaching
and unintended effects, the whole notion of what we do online
becomes more intricate and serious. Then when we consider the
fact that our personal data is being tracked and sold, the situation
becomes more than a little problematic.
Not many people would oppose the proposition that consum-
ers enjoy convenience and appreciate value. As the Internet has
expanded and advanced, free content is increasingly available
and expected. Most of us seem to be aware that the correspond-
ing proliferation of pop-ups and full-screen advertisements is the
“price” we pay for this unfettered access. In fact, free information
has, in some regards, been a victim of its own success: many people
now see the advertisements as a distraction and an imposition. Of
course, few of them would prefer a scenario where sites withdrew
the ads but began charging for content. Magazines, newspapers
and popular reference sites like Dictionary.com all rely on revenue
from advertisers in order to remain mostly or entirely free.
If the quid pro quo of enduring minor annoyance for free infor-
mation seems like yesterday’s news, that’s because it is. The latest
and more profound controversy revolves around the ways com-
panies are now using personal data. In July The Wall Street Journal
published a study titled “What They Know”, containing a series
of articles detailing the history, practices and implications of the
“cutting-edge uses of Internet-tracking technology.” This inves-
tigation adds to a growing number of similar features, no doubt
inspired at least in part by the recent Facebook controversies.
The reactions, once people get a better grasp on what exactly is
going on, are often emotional. Personal information turned into
salable data is, after all, about as intimate as it gets when one con-
siders ostensibly private and/or secret preferences and behaviors
being scrutinized, tracked and ultimately sold. It is, then, perhaps
fair and appropriate to further contemplate the “strictly business”
rationale which posits these developments as almost entirely posi-
tive signals of progress and mutually profitable engagement.
The debate, in starkest terms, seems to revolve around the issue of
free-will versus awareness. Certainly, it is fair to suggest that virtu-
ally all non-business related online behavior is voluntary. Thus, it
is ultimately the individual’s responsibility to understand the risks
as well as the rewards associated with Web-surfing, online pur-
chases and the dissemination (however unintentional) of personal
information. A strictly business advocate might make the analogy
of whether or not it is acceptable for a citizen to press charges
against an establishment serving drinks that impaired their driv-
ing ability. The complicated converse of this controversial scenario
is how quickly the culpability changes if it turns out the bartender
had placed undetectable alcohol in someone’s iced tea. All of a sud-
den, the balance of blame is considerably altered. It would not be
sufficient, legally or morally, to assert that the mere act of entering
a bar compels an individual to be aware of any possible
repercussions.
The deeper issue, in other words, extends beyond personal choice.
Facebook, to be certain, allows users to utilize an opt-in agreement
for sharing certain information. In this regard, users are obliged
to be informed and accountable—which is one reason the recent
attention Facebook’s privacy policies are getting is undeniably a
positive development. On the other hand, companies should not
require federal regulation (or even public outcry) to create clear
and upfront messaging regarding the data they collect and the
way(s) in which they intend to use and profit from it.
INTERNET TRACKING: SPYING OR STRICTLY
BUSINESS?
In a piece for The Wall Street Journal’s series titled “It’s Modern
Trade: Web Users Get as Much as They Give,” Jim Harper (direc-
tor of information policy studies at the Cato Institute) believes the
rewards considerably outweigh the risks. He suggests that “data
gleaned from (our) communications and transactions grease the
gears of modern commerce.” While acknowledging the legitimacy
of online privacy concerns, he strongly admonishes Web users to
arm themselves with information to better protect their interests.
There is little question that this is the first crucial step anyone
should take, but it inexorably shifts the entire burden of responsi-
bility to consumers.
Harper rather disingenuously compares online privacy to
smoking: it is a personal matter and it’s up to the individual to
ascertain the dangers. As it happens, the comparison is, perhaps
unintentionally, apt. We now know that for decades cigarettes
were not only considered harmless, substantial sums of money
got spent promulgating positive, even healthy associations
between smoking and lifestyle. Once contrary evidence inevitably
emerged, inconceivable amounts of dollars were allocated to try
and suppress or discredit these findings. All of which suggests that
there is a fine line between caveat emptor and the emperor’s lack of
clothes.
Today it would be unfair, or even reckless, to imply that consumers
are – or should be – fully aware of what they do (and have “done”
to them) online, particularly when substantial money is at stake to
keep these seemingly innocuous business practices surreptitious.
In a companion piece titled “Tracking is an Assault on Liberty with
Real Dangers”, Nicholas Carr (author of The Shallows: What the
Internet Is Doing to Our Brains) recalls a Sun Microsystems chief
executive, who in 1999 blithely explained, “You have zero privacy.
Get over it.”
According to a recent CEA study of 1,000 U.S. adults, to date
around one-third (39 percent) of consumers admit to having
posted personal contact information such as a phone number,
e-mail and mailing address, online. Understandably, consumers
have concerns regarding their privacy as it relates to their online
information and activities. Over half (55 percent) of adults
expressed concern about their privacy in relation to activities
such as information, comments or opinions posted on social
networking sites. 5
MEDICINAL PURPOSES
The stakes get more serious, and potentially far-reaching, when we
consider the momentum behind making medical records available
electronically. Heralded as a mutually beneficial advancement for
both the industry and the consumer, the practical implications of
a widespread transition are now being more closely scrutinized.
For more than 15 years, enterprising computer experts have
exposed how easy it actually is to uncover an individual’s most
private and sensitive information. Back in the ‘90s, medical data
was aggregated (for research purposes) after being “scrubbed” of
personal information such as names, addresses and social security
numbers.
Unfortunately, it has been proven that “87 percent of all Americans
could be uniquely identified using only three bits of information:
ZIP Code, birth date and sex” (Nate Anderson, 9-08-09). Carr
also cited research from 2006 from a team of scholars from the
University of Minnesota, who “noted that most Americans can be
identified by name and address using only their ZIP code, birthday
and gender—three pieces of information that people often divulge
when they register at a website.”
As evidenced in the chart below, when asked, seven in ten (72
percent) of adults expressed concern involving the use (and
potential misuse) of their online medical records; ranking third
among concerns such as identity theft and security of financial
transactions.

Security and Privacy Concerns Among U.S. Adults
Percent Answering Concerned or Very Concerned
Identity Theft
Security of financial transactions, such as
purchases or banking made online
Security of digital personal health records
Security of financial transactions, such as, purchases
or banking made using a cell phone 69
Privacy of personal photos or videos posted online
61
Privacy of information comments, or opinions posted
55
to social networking sites
Source: CEA Market Research
For seemingly unobjectionable items such as photos or online
movie reviews, there is the aforementioned caveat emptor element
involved. When it comes to medical records (think diagnoses,
prescriptions and family histories) the potential repercussions are
almost indescribable. To be certain, much of the impetus behind
making previously private (and in most cases, safeguarded) files
more accessible is driven by the notion of patient empowerment.
Many people have a legitimate and understandable desire for free
6 and unencumbered access to their own health histories. This incli-
nation is exacerbated by growing opinion that some doctors (and/
or hospitals) have a guarded interest in making this information
difficult to obtain.
Of course there are also undeniable practical considerations: just
as e-books are environmentally-friendly and potentially cost-effi-
cient, much of the paper and proverbial red tape is eliminated once
files are transferred online. It is then easier to imagine a best case
scenario involving increased efficiency and more affordable health
care. Or is it?
Obviously there is considerable up-front cost involved that will
presumably equate to significant savings down the road, once the
paperwork and administration costs are largely eliminated. Yet
being compelled to comply with new procedures (overseen by the
Health and Human Services Department) may prove onerous to
smaller practices. Federal funding is available, which indicates the
level of seriousness – and amount of deliberation – this project has
already generated.
Not surprisingly, widespread consumer acceptance and utilization
of this development will require each individual to measure the
rewards (easier access to one’s files) versus the risks (a computer
glitch that with one errant keystroke could publish highly personal
information). If people don’t (yet) take their Internet habits seri-
ously enough, almost everyone has a vested interest in their health.
As such, public sentiment on this matter will be measured slowly
over the next several years.
THE PRICE OF ONLINE PAYMENT
The final frontier, at least for now, where online interaction and
privacy may or may not find practical synergy is mobile payment.
Predictably, the convenience and cost-saving possibilities are
83% prompting serious discussion as well as intense debate. For anyone
late to this party, there is already technology being implemented
74 that enables consumers to make credit card transactions on their
smartphones.
72
Advocates for this progressive capability claim it’s simply the next
logical step toward increased consumer freedom. Many of us
already conduct business online, whether it involves purchases at
Amazon.com or maintaining a Netflix account. And just as digital
files have made compact discs (CDs) more archaic and e-Readers
threaten to supplant paperbacks, online banking accounts have
made the act of writing a check antiquated. All of these advance-
ments incorporate convenience and reduced costs. The caveat is
that the final costs might not be measured in dollars and cents.
A simple Google search will quickly reveal plentiful stories
exemplifying how easily technical glitches can expose credit card
information, and how simple it is for sophisticated hackers to
infiltrate the typical firewalls. We will be hearing and seeing a
great deal more about the viability, and potential repercussions, of
online mobile payment. Once again consumers are obliged to ask
themselves what types of exposure they might tolerate for the sake
of expediency.
According to CEA’s study, almost three-fourths (74 percent) of
online adults are concerned or very concerned about the security
of any financial transactions they may conduct online. This level of
trepidation extends to all age groups and income brackets. Across
the board at least 70 percent of respondents indicated a high level
of concern regarding the prospect of purchases or banking online.
Every day new articles appear attempting to negotiate the increas-
ingly complex matrix of potential pros and cons. The early adopt-
ers represent one end of the spectrum while the unconvinced and
skeptical characterize the other. But what about the majority of
us, who fall somewhere in between these two extremes? And how
many people will be influenced as more anecdotes (the good, the
bad and especially the ugly) become publicized?
Between growing awareness of how – and how much – personal
data is collected and utilized, with Facebook being the first
firestorm, a groundswell demanding accountability is inevitable.
A more transparent explication of policies and standard operating
procedures will be a welcome, if overdue development. It also
seems safe to suppose, not unlike the recent environmental or
auto safety incidents (BP and Toyota), it will require some sort of
calamity to get the public’s attention, finally compelling pro-active
accountability from the companies.
IS LEGISLATION INEVITABLE?
It is not exactly a stretch to see where some of these issues are
headed, and how they may ultimately be resolved. The question
for now is: is legislation necessary and how effective can it possibly
be? Certainly, if companies are slow or reluctant to fully disclose
their business practices as they relate to data capture, there will be
a concerted push to create and enact new laws.
This will make businesses bristle, but it should also make
consumers wary. With general sentiment toward government at a
nadir, the prospect of entrusting politicians to wrangle with these
issues is not exactly consoling. And then there is the proposition
of a clichéd “Big Brother” in charge of overseeing this bounty of
personal detail. Put bluntly, the one thing some Americans may
fear more than unregulated corporations is a feckless government
with good intentions.
As usual, one way to troubleshoot the possibility of a legislative
imbroglio is to review where we are and how we arrived here.
Considering the regrettable fact that few people inside the
corporate bubble fully grasp the nuances of Internet technology,
it is unrealistic to imagine many (if any) of our politicians having
an adequate handle on how things work – much less being able
to cultivate a balance between the entrepreneurial spirit and
consumer rights. On the other hand, the Internet in its myriad
manifestations is a massive component of the U.S. economy. As
such, it behooves tech firms to view these challenges as a potential
opportunity to engage and foster a meaningful dialogue.
According to Mike Shields, a Republican political strategist with
almost two decades of experience inside (and outside) the Nation’s
Capitol, the people most affected by policy (e.g., the tech firms)
have been very slow to recognize how powerful and important
Washington, D.C. is. In other words, despite the caricature of an
incompetent, money-spending monolith, the not-so-simple reality
is that all these moving parts making our laws are empowered by
actual people responding to what they see and hear from other
people, e.g., voters.
“Having spent a good amount of time in and around Redmond,
(WA) I knew there was a bit of a disconnect,” Shields says. “There
was a propensity to regard D.C. as archaic, and that the tech
companies were too busy creating the future to get involved in any
meaningful way with government.” Inevitably many companies
discovered, too late and to their chagrin that government really
does matter. “Now people are coming to realize that they need a
presence,” Shields suggests. “But a big roadblock remains trying to
explain (to politicians or laypersons) how some of this technology
really works in the first place.”
Whether through outreach or pro-active lobbying efforts, tech
firms will assist their causes by connecting on a more human level.
“What can happen,” Shields warns, “is that a simple law, especially
one brought about due to a situation that resonates emotionally,
can derail an entire business model.”
Right now, there has not been a critical mass, as enough emotion-
ally-resonant crises have not (yet) taken place. If, or really when,
this happens, action will occur. Helping craft sensible legislation
through communication and transparency is a viable way to en-
sure we see regulation that integrates the needs of businesses and
the rights of consumers.
THE SOLUTION TO TECHNOLOGICAL
CONCERNS? TECHNOLOGY!
Even with the most well-intended and competently administered
legislation, we must reluctantly concede that superior hackers can
– and will – easily circumvent new restrictions. Understanding that
any move to empower an ostensibly benevolent federal agency will
result in consternation, we must ensure that the effort to control a
small issue does not create a massive one.
One reasonable and equitable proposal could involve a concerted
effort by the FTC to implement a public awareness campaign.
Certainly a proactive endeavor from an official player might
very well provide the not-so-gentle nudge certain companies
require to share their business dealings a bit less begrudgingly.
Naturally, if consumers and businesses meet in the middle and
utilize autonomy and entrepreneurship it might equate to a much
better case scenario. If we see more business models inspired to
empower consumers, many of these potential roadblocks might be
seamlessly bypassed.
One such start-up, San Francisco-based Bynamite, was recently 7
profiled in The New York Times. “There should be an economic
opportunity on the consumer side,” suggests Ginsu Yoon, the
company’s co-founder. “Nearly all the investment and technology
is (presently) on the advertising side.” Bynamite’s business
model is both a commentary on the current landscape and a
predictor of where it’s headed. That is, the mining of personal
data is here to stay; there is simply too much money at stake to
imagine otherwise. Yet the precepts of a (more) free-market arena
enable – and insist upon – an exchange based on a monetized or
incentivized quid pro quo. In a potentially paradigm-shifting twist,
Bynamite is less focused on privacy protection and more interested
in consumer choice and control.
In July the company launched software that users can download
that tracks which sites are collecting (from them). The software
provides a cutting-edge opportunity for consumers to see,
and appreciate, in real time precisely what types of personal
information they are essentially “swapping” every time they visit
certain sites. “In a few years…a person’s profile of interests could
be the basis for micropayment or discounts,” Yoon predicts. “A
media company, for example, might charge a monthly subscription
fee of $10 for news or entertainment programming, but offer it for
$8 to those who exchanged their (portfolios).”
This business model seems to balance the current (and potentially
future) poles of strictly – and federally – enforced privacy control
and the unconstrained access companies presently enjoy. It is con-
 ceivable that a win/win scenario might unfold wherein consumers
use the one-two punch of awareness and advocacy, while advertis-
ers can fine-tune their targeted ads.
FIFTEEN MINUTES OR FOREVER: EVERYONE IS
A CELEBRITY NOW (SORT OF)
Anytime you talk about the future, it is irresponsible to express
certainty, particularly when it relates to the ever-changing nature
of technology. Nevertheless, it is evident that we will see and hear a
great deal more about the delicate issue of privacy. In fact, the pre-
diction is that it will be a cover story in a major magazine within
the next two years.
On a micro level, the conversation inexorably circles back to the
basic, but occasionally contradictory notions of autonomy and
access: we want updated and free content, but what are we willing
to exchange for it? Perhaps more to the point, what should we be
willing to exchange? The crux of the matter will increasingly be
concerned with personal data susceptible to advanced algorithms
and cookies that actually mine all manner of data that Internet
users are mostly unaware of. The initial indifference is primarily
due to lack of awareness: the only people likely to remain disinter-
ested about potential implications are those to whom nothing has
happened – yet.
On a macro level, this debate provides some fascinating insights
into how our social norms progress. Of course they are always in
8
some state of transition (for better or worse, depending on whom
you ask). The Internet, among many other things, has irrevocably
altered the way we interact with the concept of celebrity. Instant
and unending access has fed our collective appetite for informa-
tion and intimacy; we “know” people in ways that were simply
unimaginable less than ten years ago.
Now, along with the success and ubiquity of reality television, our
culture has gone from worshipping to manufacturing celebrity.
Recalling Andy Warhol’s infamous claim that “in the future, ev-
eryone will be famous for fifteen minutes”, the Internet in general
and social networking in particular have ensured that some of us
may have even more than fifteen minutes. No matter how banal
or momentous, deliberate or unintended, these moments will be
preserved in the electronic ledger, potentially forever.
How we process and eventually regulate the exchange and deploy-
ment of this information will be a commentary on how we are
able to exist as employers, employees, parents, children, friends, ac-
quaintances and enemies all with the data to contradict or redefine
any of those public (and private) personas. The idea that people
have different identities outside of work, whether they are teachers,
executives or attorneys, will become more acceptable the more we
collectively accept—and adapt to—a ceaselessly open window into
the lives of others. The greater challenge is likely how we reconcile
the increasingly unfettered access to those we know, and especially
those we do not know, into our own lives. n
THE FUTURE OF VIDEO DISTRIBUTION
AND CONSUMPTION
By Deepak Joseph

I
magine it’s January 2016 and you survey your home as you
wake up. The only electronics you see are thin, light, flat-panel
HD displays of various sizes. Large ones (40- to 60-inches) are
hung on walls in each room, medium ones (12- to 24-inches) are
placed on table/counter tops and small ones (four- to 12-inches)
are charging so they can be taken on the road. All of the fixed
and nomadic displays are connected to your home router via
simultaneous dual-band Wi-Fi (.11n, .11aa, .11ac) or some type of
wired network like Powerline (HomePlug, HDPLC), Coax (MoCA)
or a combination of multiple physical media (HPNA, G.hn).
When it comes to video (this implicitly means HD video),
consumers will relate more to individual programs, shows and
content, rather than the aggregators/channels that deliver them.
Proactively discovering, recommending, queuing and manag-
ing the programming/content of choice and viewing it in your
own time and device of choice rather than flipping through some
pre-arranged channel line-up will be the norm. There will be the
“channel of one” or “channel of self ” notion with a stream of
programming assembled by each consumer based on their prefer-
ences, choices and unique interests.

Absent are the cables and clutter of only a few years ago. There are WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY?
no dedicated set-top boxes and no physical media player devices. Much of what is described above can be done today with varying
The only connection to the outside world is a robust 50-100 degrees of effort. In 2016, consumers will do the same in a more
Mbps Internet connection via a fiber, telecom or cable line from out-of-the-box, seamless, unified and simplified manner. Capabili-
an operator. Phone, video, audio and data are all delivered via the ties are evolving in several dimensions. Infrastructure and last-mile
Internet connection as IP services via apps. networks, content delivery and management platforms, CE devices
(TVs, displays, STBs, DMAs, smartphones and tablets) and home
All of these services (phone calls, video viewing, listening to radio/ networks will enable this future.
9
music, viewing pictures, games and social media activities) can be
accessed on any one or all of the screens in your home. The screens INFRASTRUCTURE AND LAST-MILE NETWORKS
(large, medium and small) are all touch sensitive and include Infrastructure core networks already are in the midst of a large-
gesture reading, quality speakers, built-in HD video cameras, a scale optical with Ethernet/IP conversion process. Converged opti-
built-in microphone for calls and voice commands, an optional cal Ethernet is the watchword where the physical medium to carry
QWERTY remote control and are app- and location-capable. They traffic is optical and the information flowing within it is Ethernet
also can be controlled by any mobile device. packets, without regard to the kind of traffic, be it voice, video,
data or other forms of information.
Essentially any multi-media /command and control functions
are accomplished via apps on these displays. There is an app The waves: PDH SONET/SDH ETHERNET
for live radio, live TV, on-demand movies and music, eBooks, Carrier infrastructure spending occurs in “waves” as technology changes.
voice-calling, video-calling, home automation, energy monitoring We are $8-12 billion into what will be $70-90 billion spent on Ethernet.
and communications like e-mail, chat and social status feeds.
ETHERNET
Multi-device, multi-platform delivery of content and services, all Aggregate
SONET/SDH
delivered over IP, is the watchword of the future. You can take your carrier spend:
Aggregate
content and apps with you on any mobile devices when you leave PDH
carrier spend: $70B-90B
Aggregate
home and experience a sub-set of it on your mobile screen via 4G carrier spend: $81B Service Convergence
mobile broadband or outdoor Wi-Fi.
$68B $47B (‘96-’00)
$34B (‘01-’06)
Digitizing voice
Now this might sound Orwellian and straight out of the pages Scaling capacity
of 1984, but based on the trajectory of changing consumer
behavior, innovation in CE devices and delivery infrastructure
transformation, we can see that 2016 and beyond will indeed look
like a scene out of 1984 (with increasing privacy controls added in.
See companion article on privacy). 1986 1996 2006 2016

Source: ITU, Dell’Oro, Infonetics

 By 2016 the major carriers will have completed the optical- The ubiquity of IP-delivered services coupled with the fact that
Ethernet transformations in their core networks. The average almost all CE devices and platforms will be Internet-capable, will
last-mile Internet connectivity speeds into consumer’s homes have be a key driving force in 2016 for Internet-based video delivery.
already made steady gains increasing from an average of 548 kbps
in 2004 to ~4Mbps in 2009 in the U.S. Cable service providers now CONTENT DELIVERY AND MANAGEMENT
offer 10Mbps (download speed) at the highest tier and fiber service PLATFORMS
providers offer as much as 50 Mbps (download speed) residential This biggest movement in the content delivery space is the
service. Top tier last mile speeds will creep up with consumer migration to platforms that enable HD video delivery by
demand and competition. providers such as Akamai and LimeLight and the enablement
of sophisticated online video platforms as cloud services from
On the policy side, the Federal Communications Commission providers such as Brightcove and Ooyala. The content delivery
(FCC) has established a plan to achieve 100 Mbps download speed network (CDN) solutions allow content creators to reach
connection to 100 million U.S. households in the next 10 years. It broadcast scale in their audience and support popular video
also set a target of boosting the level of broadband adoption from formats and frameworks like Flash, Silverlight, QuickTime and file
65 to 90 percent. formats like MP4 and .MOV over IP networks to consumers on
their Internet connections. The online video platforms (OVP) are
cloud-based video management services that provide video stream
6 trans-coding for various end CE devices along with in-depth
analytics, monetization (advertising and pay walls), adaptive bit-
5 rate delivery and sophisticated syndication controls.
4.4 Mbps
4 Mbps
4 The combination of CDNs and OVPs lower the bar for any content
3.6 Mbps
creator or aggregator to deliver video, especially HD over Internet
MB/Sec.

3 to various CE device platforms at broadcast scale and with media

analytics. This capability will play a big role in disrupting current
2 distribution models and existing partnerships. For the first time,
content creators will have the ability to stand-up their own
1
streaming (even live steaming) infrastructure for delivery of HD
548 Kbps
249 Kbps
video over Internet to a wide variety of CE devices via widgets and
181 Kbps apps and maintain a relationship (subscription or ad-based) with
0 2004 2009 2004 2009 2004 2009 the end consumer. This new dynamic represents a sea change in
10 US Europe APAC the creator-consumer relationship.
Source: 2004: ITU Internet Reports, “The Portable Internet”
CE DEVICES
Below, is a snippet from CEA’s July 2010 Forecast for CE Devices CE devices have been on a steady but sustained path of conversion
that tracks the penetration of Ethernet and widgets in DTVs. from simple stand-alone content record and/or play-back
devices to connected devices with extendable platforms onto
- Ethernet-enabled: Any DTV that has LAN ports or USB ports which new apps and widgets can be loaded by consumers. For
that can be connected by LAN or integrated using Wi-Fi. a growing number of consumers, a CE device today implicitly
- Widget-enabled: Any DTV that has a framework/platform onto means a connected product with a framework – identifiable
which external third-party apps can be loaded by consumers. operating system (OS) or other embedded RTOS (real-time
operating system) and the ability to reach into the Web (via
*These do not include external boxes built-in Ethernet, Wi-Fi or mobile broadband) to load apps and
widgets from an external app/widget store. Interacting via apps
Unit Sales to Dealers 2009 2010 2011 2012
and widgets enhances the functionality of the device. It is almost
(000’s)
like a simplified laptop/netbook is embedded into CE devices like
Estimate Forecast Forecast smartphones, set-top boxes, navigation devices and digital media
Total Digital Displays 34,799 35,591 36,296 36,994 players.

Total DTVs that are HD 29,662 31,145 32,390 33,686 This transformation has been most significant with TVs.
Beginning in 2009, TVs included integrated Ethernet capability for
Total DTVs with Inte- 32,802 34,114 35,479 36,188 applications like RSS feed or social media updates. The capabilities
grated ATSC Tuners took a leap in 2010 with all the top TV original equipment
Full HD (1080p) 13,403 15,950 18,820 20,514 manufacturers (OEMs) such as Hitachi, LG, Panasonic, Philips,
Pioneer, Samsung, Sharp, Sony and Vizio releasing TVs with
Total DTVs that are 3,029 8,233 13,438 19,075 built-in Wi-Fi or Ethernet and a framework onto which widgets
Ethernet- Enabled* can be loaded. Some speculate that Apple might release a large
Total DTVs that are 1,840 3,795 6,795 8,993 display with embedded Apple-TV-like capability that can playback
Widget- Enabled streaming content. Apps such a Netflix and Pandora are almost
universal on these TV platforms and are on-deck out-of-the-box.
Source: CEA Market Research
The TV platform continues to evolve.

CEA research from August 2010 found that of those who viewed
Internet sourced videos on their TVs, a small but significant six
percent of consumers had already done so via Widgets built in to
their TVs. This is significant because Widget-enabled TVs are just
being introduced in to the marketplace. Consumers have multiple
ways of viewing Internet sourced videos on their TVs via devices
such as connected Blu-ray players, game consoles, PCs/laptops,
stand-alone over-the-top (OTT) STBs and DMAs.
The primary barrier to adoption of features in TVs is the perceived
long product life cycles of 10 or so years. However, as new TVs/
displays become thinner, lighter, larger, cheaper, more visually ap-
pealing with industrial design and screen fidelity, and embedded
with apps/app store functionality and other features like a built-in
camera, gesture/touch sensitivity and are location-capable, con-
sumers will likely look at TVs/displays as they did PCs/laptops a
few years ago when there was a shorter product replacement cycle.
This will result in consumers having a display in each room and
further accelerate the transition.
In the medium term there will be a significant opportunity for
external devices to enable the installed base of TVs to connect to
the Internet and take advantage of apps. There are several ways of
connecting a TV to the Internet and experiencing OTT apps. These
include a range of app-capable connected Blu-ray players from
various TV OEMs, Internet and app-capable DVRs like Tivo and
FiOS STBs, and dedicated OTT STBs like Roku, Boxee and Pop-
Box. CEA’s August 2010 survey found that 43 percent of respon-
dents watch content like movies and TV shows on their TVs via a
connected Blu-ray or DVR player and 12 percent watch content on
their TVs via an OTT STB like Roku and Apple-TV.
The explosion of IP-enabled CE devices will continue to result
in content providers pursuing a multi-platform video delivery
approach. Content providers and aggregators will develop their
branded app for the dominant CE platforms to deliver their con-
tent and service. The foremost examples are Netflix and Pandora,
apps that are on most leading CE platforms. Verizon recently an-
nounced an app that puts its live-TV line-up on iPads.
APPLICATIONS, SOFTWARE AND
COMPONENTS
Even as the infrastructure for ubiquitous video delivery via IP is
being laid out in networks (core, last mile and home) and devices
(app-capable connected CE devices) there is an explosion of
activity taking place in the applications, software framework and
silicon verticals that enable the delivery of content.
Apps are being developed to improve and address a variety of
needs to deliver content over IP onto connected CE devices like
user-interaction, discovery of content, recommendation engines,
applications framework, ad monetization of content, embedded
video player framework, curated stores to deliver content (video,
games and social media) and remote control. Some examples of
solutions are:
• Youtube.com Leanback, Clicker.tv and Boxee for UI design to
solve the 10-feet leanback user experience that consumers want
from their TV.
• Clicker, TV.com, Rovi and Netflix for content discovery and
recommendation engines.
• Vudu and Netflix streaming for embedded video player
framework.
• Yahoo! Connected-TV, Vudu, Samsung Apps and Google-TV for
apps framework.
• Hulu, CinemaNow, Blockbuster-On-Demand, Amazon-On-
Demand, iTunes and Netflix for curated content stores.
Silicon vendors like Intel and Broadcom are creating chipset
platforms that simplify embedding apps onto TVs and yet provide
horsepower for reception and decoding of HD video over Ethernet. 11
The role and scope of the apps store also is changing and is no
longer for simple standalone lifestyle, productivity or games.
Now it is an integral method to consume long-form content as a
subscription, pay-per-view or ad-supported service. Apps for TV
range from long-tail content video to news, social media feeds
and games to live content. WRAL a live TV broadcast station in
North Carolina, recently released a TV app for its content. Viewers
of the WRAL widget can see headlines, read local news stories,
watch streaming video and check the latest weather forecast and
animated radar. RadioTime has a TV app that tunes into any live
radio broadcast station via its live streaming service.
Curated content store vendors such as Netflix are morphing
consumer behavior by combining the lean-forward (PC, laptop
or smartphone) experience with their lean-back Netflix apps by
letting users manage, discover and create playlists on their lean-
forward devices and later view the content on their lean-back
devices (TVs).
By last count there were more than 50 video network APIs
from the likes of Justin.tv, Blip.tv and MTV that are open to
developers to port their content feeds on to various frameworks
and platforms. This portends the shift to an app-based content
consumption paradigm.
 HOME NETWORKS
Many consumers are already familiar with setting-up home net-
works. Using Wi-Fi to connect PCs/laptops to their home routers
is common. Connecting TVs to home networks will be a smaller
leap. The availability of simultaneous dual-band .11n Wi-Fi access
points/router is helping address wireless video transmission and
QoS concerns in a multi-traffic household setting. The wired home
networking technologies that have been in the works now are
available on store shelves as accessory products that consumers can
buy.
The 2010 International CES saw the release of various Ethernet
adaptor products from players like D-Link and Netgear that use
cable, phone line or power as their transport medium using vari-
ous industry consortium specifications like HomePlug, MoCA,
HPNA and HD-PLC. In the wireless home networking space,
several wireless approaches like WiGi, WirelessHD, WHDI, .11aa
and .11ac are competing to provide better Wi-Fi performance and
reduce cable clutter. All these technologies solve the challenge of
delivering HD video to multiple screens in homes over
IP/Ethernet.
USER INTERACTION AND ATTITUDES
Online or Internet video used to mean primarily watching user
generated content, sub-10 minute clips at sites such as YouTube
and DailyMotion on a PC. But increasingly in the past couple of
12 years, Internet video also means watching long-form Web videos
or full length TV shows, movies and other on-demand premium
content from the likes of Hulu and Netflix streaming service on
a TV and in many cases in HD. Consumers also are increasingly
moving away from linear and live content and consuming their
favorite content from time-shifted DVRs or physical media players
(Blu-ray and DVDs).
CEA’s August survey to gauge evolving consumer behavior around
video viewing, found that 40 percent of respondents across all age
groups had viewed Internet sourced video content such as movies,
TV shows or video clips from sources such as Netflix, Amazon On-
Demand, Hulu, Vudu, CNN and YouTube on their TVs. It found
60 percent of 18- to 24-year olds viewed the long-form Internet
videos on their TVs. In addition, 64 percent of the respondents
viewed non-linear/time-shifted content on their TV on a daily
basis. Just 14 percent viewed long-form Internet-sourced video
content on their TVs on a daily basis. SNL Kagan, also in August,
reported that the combined multichannel video marketplace de-
clined for the first time in history in 2Q 2010. Subscriber gains by
cable competitors were offset by cable subscriber losses resulting
in a net loss of 216,000 subs in the multichannel marketplace as a
whole compared to a gain of 378,000 in 2Q 2009.
Here is a summary of other CEA findings:
User Interaction
Over the past 12 months, consumers have cut
23% back on the number of paid channels from
cable or satellite providers.
Consumers are using online streaming video
services to watch movies or TV shows instead
27 of watching movies or TV shows on physical
media like DVD, Blu-ray or VHS.
Would consider cancelling their current sub-
scription to a television service provider, such
46 as cable or satellite, if they could watch equal
quality broadcast television programming on
their TV via an Internet connection.
Watched Internet video content, such as mov-
ies, TV shows or video clips from sources such
23 as Netflix, Amazon On-Demand, Hulu, Vudu,
CNN and YouTube on a daily basis or several
times a week.
Watched full episodes of TV shows online
36/75 in the past 12 months - responses of all-
ages/18-24.
Watched full length movies online in the past
20/46 12 months - responses of all-ages/18-24.
Source: CEA Market Research
Consumer attitudes will shift to a point where they will subscribe
to just Internet access from their local service provider and then
separately buy content services from the likes of Netflix, Hulu-Plus
and Amazon On-Demand as well as other content owner/aggre-
gator sites like Comedy Central and HBO as live TV makes the
transition to TV apps.
The combination of TV content video sourcing, viewer demo-
graphics and proclivity to time-shifted content indicates that
consumers are migrating to primarily on-demand Internet sourced
video viewing behavior. Certainly some types of content like
sporting events and live breaking news will remain in the realm of
live broadcast, however, even in these cases live content will be de-
livered via Widgets on TVs over Internet. TV broadcasters already
have a live streaming service on their respective sites and making
the leap to delivering this live stream to TVs via OTT apps will be
made easy by cloud services offered by CDNs and OVPs.
Because of developments underway in core networks, last mile,
content delivery, video management, CE devices, applications and
behavior changes, consumers will expect their content sources to
be different from their pipe provider and will demand flexibility
of content consumption from their aggregators across multiple
devices.
A LOOK BACK
In 2006, a host of companies we now closely associate with new
video distribution models were not yet founded. Here is a sam-
pling of the current players, Hulu launched March 2007, Netflix
streaming service launched January 2007, Apple-TV launched
March 2007, Vudu Box launched August 2007, Amazon On-De-
mand launched July 2008, Yahoo! Connected-TV launched January
2009, YouTube LeanBack launched July 2010 and Google-TV is
launching this fall. It is safe to say that the dominant players of the
next IP-based video distribution world are just getting started or
are in stealth mode. The next five-year period until 2016 will be
an intense learning and alignment phase for IP and Internet video
delivery as the pieces of the entire ecosystem fall into place.
In 2006, it would have been farfetched to think that 10 million
people would view streaming on-demand movies and TV shows,
many in HD over their Internet connection on their TVs on a
regular basis, yet that is exactly what consumers are doing today
with Netflix streaming service.
RISKS AND VARIABLES IN THE MARKETPLACE
There are several risks and variables that might affect the trajectory
of the evolution we are charting. The evolution thus far has been
organic based on disjointed but significant developments in differ-
ent parts of the ecosystem. However as the bigger picture emerges
and starts to look more real, risks can pile on in the form of regula-
tory, incumbency and/or partnership/revenue share risks.
Regulatory actions like the debate over net neutrality, definition of
TV and Tuner mandates, FCC’s 100 Mbps in 100 million homes
initiative and AllVid proceedings will have a significant impact on
how individual companies react to the changing environment. As
IP video becomes truly portable across devices and geography, ex-
isting licensing and partnership terms could become impediments
to achieving IP video ubiquity, like the current debate on what
qualifies as a “mobile device” since some aggregators today are
licensed by content owners to distribute their content on “mobile
devices”.
COMPETITIVE RESPONSE AND ACTIONS
The coming large scale change in content consumption patterns
provides unique opportunities for all involved to shape it to their
advantage. Below are some recommendations for several key con-
stituents of the video ecosystem.
FOR DEVICE OEMS
OEMs clearly need to think about platforms that can support apps
as much as they do about their devices’ physical features like pro-
cessing power or industrial design. OEMs that can create a single
platform that works across their entire product portfolio spanning
various screen sizes will be best positioned for success. This creates
scale for app developers, and they will be more inclined to port
and develop apps for a particular device or platform. Device OEMs
need to think of their device portfolio in terms of a continuum of
app usage interrupted by screen size transitions – mobile devices
(phone, PMP), portable device (eReader, tablet), nomadic device
(netbook, laptop), table/counter-top (bedside, kitchen) device,
large-screen device (TVs, displays) that can run the same apps and
will allow consumers to switch from device to device without los-
ing app context.
We are seeing the beginning of this transformation from several
vendors like Samsung using Samsung Apps as a platform for mo-
bile and TVs. HTC, Motorola and Sony are using Android and the
Android Apps store as their platform for phones and tablets. Apple
is using iOS and iTunes App Store across PMPs, phones and tablets
which could extend to displays/TVs.
CE device OEMs also need to either build out or enable via cloud
services back-end data infrastructure to support the platform,
framework and app stores across their devices. There already is
movement in the space with Apple building a significant data
center in North Carolina and HP’s various data center acquisitions.
Vendors like force.com, Google App Engine and Amazon Web 13
Services are lowering the bar to create such capability.
FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS, AGGREGATORS,
AND RETAILERS
Since the traditional video consumption model will undergo a
change, there will be a race to acquire customers in this new world.
Service providers, aggregators and retailers must focus on develop-
ing their branded curated stores as apps that showcase and play
the content from their partnerships/deals with unique discovery,
queue management, recommendation and social features that can
run as apps on as many devices and platforms as possible. They
should also develop/enable robust advertizing platforms within
their apps as well as pay walls that will enable them to monetize
the apps.
MVPDS
Multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) need to
think of their content and physical networks as two separate assets
and de-couple them completely. The IP-based content should be
portable across devices and network access should be just that.
Instead of the classic triple-play of “VoIP + video/TV-channels +
Internet-access”, their service bundling should migrate to “Inter-
net-access + branded-content-store-as-app + number-of-devices-
supported”. Some initial movement is occurring in this direction
starting with Comcast’s TV-Everywhere service trials and Verizon’s
Live-TV iPad app.
 BROADCASTERS
Similar to MVPDs, TV and radio broadcasters need to transition
to an app-based content delivery world and connect with their
audience across device platforms. They also need to view their
network infrastructure separately for their content creation and
distribution business. WRAL has already set the precedent and
several other TV and radio broadcasters will/should be launching
their branded apps on various CE device platforms. The goal is
to convert current brand mindshare among consumers into apps
brand and mindshare. There will be a finite window to accomplish
this in the next couple of years. Otherwise, other app developers
will create stores and capture consumer mindshare. Being discov-
ered in a crowded marketplace will be an uphill and expensive task.
need an ad platform that targets their unique customer’s individual
profile. Advertising in the app delivered video world will always be
targeted since the consumer is known, hence analytics and process-
ing scale will be critical in creating and delivering customized ads.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OR SOURCES
1 www.akamai.com/dl/investors/akamai_2009_analystday_presen
2 www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns827/networking_solutions_sub_
solution.html#~forecast
3 http://ciscovni.com/vni_forecast/advanced.html

4 http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/CMCSA/992869894x0x3
AGGREGATORS 37099/37f96c28-6c99-49e2-9756-54354daf0354/UBS120709%20
Aggregators such as Hulu, Netflix, Blockbuster-on-Demand, You- FINAL.pdf
Tube, Amazon On-Demand and iTunes are on the forefront of cre-
ating curated stores as an app that can be used on multiple devices. 5 http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ABEA-
26H477/972559150x0x367726/bdd65d62-b66c-4e16-98cf-
Companies in this space need to focus on aggregating the largest a2183fe78361/Mike_Aquino_Presentation.pdf
and/or most relevant content library with as many partnerships
with content owners as possible. This allows them to deliver a wide 6 http://investor.ciena.com/events.cfm
choice of content to their customers across numerous devices.
They should also develop tools and features within their stores/ 7 http://newteevee.com/2010/08/17/web-to-tv-video-content-
revenue-to-hit-17b-in-2014/
apps that create network effects among their customers, consump-
tion memory and other means that will raise the switching barrier 8 http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/
to protect their customer base. NFLX/992738232x0x388338/f8a60f60-03df-4c69-9315-
761848f9db11/Q2%2010%20Management?s%20commen-
RETAILERS tary%20and%20financial%20highlights.pdf
Retailers need to get involved in the electronics distribution of 9 http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/21/netflix-users/
content as physical media sales will fall, as well as upsell their
14 current customer base as this video viewing transformation pro- 10 http://newteevee.com/2010/07/09/why-the-world-needs-
gresses. In an era where retailer’s brand devices (like Dynex and google-tv/
Insignia) are maturing, developing a branded content store app is
11 http://www.pcworld.com/article/200704/youtube_leanback_
to be pursued. Walmart’s Vudu acquisition and Best Buy’s Cin- youtube_that_looks_like_tv.html
emaNow partnership are two examples of creating such capabil-
ity among retail players. Retailers should also try to expand their 12 http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/07/06/replacing-the-apple-
platform across other devices they sell similar to Verizons’ Droid tv/
strategy that spans device OEMs.
13 http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/07/02/apple-well-positioned-
to-enter-the-connected-tv-market-in-2-to-4-years/
FOR CONTENT CREATORS AND OWNERS
Content creators and owners will now have a wide choice of distri- 14 http://www.cedmagazine.com/News-Cable-FCC-Cable-
bution for their content. They can create their own branded store Card-062910.aspx n
as an app and/or get on-deck with aggregators, retailers or MVPDs.
Creating the right partnership blends and revenue share models
will be critical. Content owners have historically viewed distribu-
tion method and resolution as key dimensions to drive licensing
deals. These will need to be revisited and perhaps factor in other
metrics like audience profile, and the value-added functionality of
each re-seller store. There might even be an open marketplace to
bid for content to channel it to each re-seller store. Content owners
should make their library search engine friendly, list all the ways
each title can be consumed and let consumers choose the best way
to access it.

FOR ADVERTISERS
This sector of the ecosystem will likely go through the biggest
change in business process as new tools and services will automate
ad creation, sales and management for online publishers. There
will be enormous opportunity since every app in an app store will
A COMPUTER IN EVERY POCKET, 4G IN
EVERY TOWN
By Jack Cutts
A
wise person once said that when calculating the true time-
to-market for any new technology, take whatever time
frame the industry puts forth and then double it. While
perhaps cynical, this truism reflects the fact that the CE industry’s
reach has always exceeded its grasp and that the industry never
ceases to innovate, breaking new boundaries with amazing
regularity.
In a world where many industries have stopped innovating, it is
refreshing to ponder the CE industry and all that it has created
over the last century. And for every cynic who ever questioned
the need for terabyte hard drives or MP3s or smartphones, there
are dozens of bright minds in the industry ready to prove them
wrong. No single technology ecosystem has garnered as much
attention over the last three years as that of the smartphone. So in
that same spirit, what follows is a brief glimpse in to five areas that
will become major drivers of wireless device and platform growth
over the next five years.
2011: LET’S KEEP THINGS CASUAL
In the early days, smartphones didn’t come with much in the way
of apps. Those that did exist for early platforms like Windows
Mobile, Nokia’s Series 60 and PalmOS were either pre-loaded by
the carrier, part of the operating system themselves (like integrated
e-mail or browsing) or “side-loaded” from any one of a number of
dark corners of the Internet.
Although not technically the creator of the first app store, Apple
came along in 2007 and institutionalized the app world by creating
a central repository for apps that was accessible on the handset
itself. Users could pay, download and install in two or three clicks.
A revolution was born.
Now that the app ecosystem has had a few years to marinate,
virtually every platform has its own app store. While each is dif-
ferent in terms of quality and quantity of apps, the casual gaming
category in particular has experienced something of a renaissance.
App store analytics firm Distimo estimates that nine of the top ten
free applications for the iPhone are games, while eight of the top
ten paid applications for the platform are also games1.
In fact, a 2010 CEA research study shows that among smartphone
owners, 82 percent play videogames on their smartphone at least
15 minutes per week. Nearly 10 percent of those consumers play
at least 16 hours or more per week.
Time Spent Gaming on Smartphones
16-19 hrs 20+ hrs
Less than 15 mins
11-15 hrs
6-10 hrs
15-29 min
3-5 hrs
30-59 min
1-2 hrs
Source: CEA Market Research
What’s striking is not that people like to play games; it’s that
they seem to enjoy so-called casual gaming in smartphone-type
devices as much, or more, than more graphically rich and intricate
console-based games. It seems clear that somewhere between qual-
ity gameplay and high portability, there is a huge market. So what
15
if smartphone manufacturers and app developers could combine
the two?
Until now, few immersive, three-dimensional and graphically
intensive games have existed for mobile platforms. This dearth
of high-end games can readily be explained by limitations in
hardware technology as well as the will to create or re-program
(“port”) complicated games onto other mobile platforms. How-
ever as the stakes grow higher and the need for product differen-
tiation among smartphone platforms increases, companies with
smartphone business units as well as console gaming units (Micro-
soft and Sony, for instance) will begin to leverage their positions in
the console gaming market by offering a high level of integration
between mobile gaming on the handset and console gaming in the
home.
Early indications are that Microsoft in particular will integrate
certain features of its Xbox Live platform in to its forthcoming
release of Windows Phone 7. Imagine the possibilities when one
can pause a game in the home environment and instantly restart
that game on-the-go on a smartphone. To put a number to it, Mi-
crosoft has sold more than 40 million Xbox 360 consoles since its
release in 2005. If even a fraction of those Xbox users decides that
mobile gaming on a smartphone is compelling, the company has a
real chance to boost its market share tremendously.
 Reports also suggest that Sony may offer a smartphone version
of its popular Playstation Portable (PSP) device in the coming
months, meaning its roughly 40 million users may have a chance
to get in on the gaming action as well. All told, the smartphone
gaming market is enormous2. Research firm iSuppli estimates that
handset manufacturers will ship nearly 1.3 billion gaming-capable
mobile phones in 20103. As the current generation of high-end
phones becomes tomorrow’s crop of mid-range phones, the num-
bers will continue to soar.
Hardware is only half of the equation, however. Since many games
played in the home environment are multiplayer in nature, it
stands to reason that more mobile games will integrate multiplayer
features in the future. Fortunately for gamers, forthcoming 4G
wireless technology solves one of the major hurdles to glitch-free
mobile multiplayer gaming – low latency. In gaming terms, latency
refers to the time it would take a user’s button press to be regis-
tered by a mobile handset, sent to a central server and rendered
in real-time for other gamers to see and react to. In general, 3G
technologies are not capable of offering latency times low enough
to make a multiplayer video game enjoyable but the promise of
4G makes it possible. While Microsoft does not plan to incorpo-
rate multiplayer gaming via Xbox Live in the first iterations of
Windows Phone 7, most analysts expect the feature to appear in
subsequent revisions of the operating system.
Just as the pace of change in smartphone hardware has begun to
accelerate, telecommunications providers are giving consumers
much to be excited about in the form of new, faster and more
ubiquitous wireless broadband networks.
16 2012: BEGINNING TO CUT THE CORD
As 3G and 4G technologies further insinuate themselves into
people’s lives, the next logical leap is for more broadband provid-
ers and consumers to go completely wireless. Having weathered
more than a year and a half long recession, consumers are search-
ing for ways to trim their monthly expenses. Responding to this
trend, new and established providers of next-generation wireless
broadband services such as Clear have begun offering broadband
connections for at home and on-the-go. So how easy will it be to
go all wireless both in and out of the home?
The difficulty of making the leap of course depends on your par-
ticular use case. Users who are currently subscribed to a standard
speed DSL connection of around 2 to 4 megabits-per-second
(Mbps) could potentially switch to a 4G provider (assuming
coverage is available to them) without noticing much of a differ-
ence in speed or throughput. Early returns from LTE trials hint at
downlink speeds of up to 10-20 Mbps with uplink speeds clocking
in at around 5 Mbps. Customers who frequently use broadband-
based streaming services or watch a lot of Web video may find that
such applications test the limits of early 4G networks as they exist
today. However, customers that demand the ultimate in portabil-
ity without necessarily sacrificing high speeds will quickly find 4G
indispensible.
Reviews of current-generation 4G services generally report down-
link speeds of 2 to 5 Mbps. Why are megabits per second so im-
portant and what do they mean in everyday use? The answer lies
primarily in the evolution of Internet traffic in and of itself. In the
early days of the Internet, traffic was highly asymmetric. That is,
most of what was being transferred in and around the Internet was
being consumed on the user’s end. As average folks became more
adept at creating content, traffic began to become more symmetri-
cal with activities like voice-over-IP (VoIP), video conferencing,
file sharing and multiplayer online gaming, as each of these uses
resulted in the user sending more bits than before. CEA research
shows that over the next two years, roughly half of consumers
surveyed expect to do more online video conferencing, sharing of
photos and social networking. Each of these activities places more
of a burden on the upstream portion of the data network they are
using.
Activities Users Expect to Increase in the Next Two Years
More Same Less
Downloading e-books and periodicals* 56% 41% 3%
Sharing photos 51 43 5
Browsing the Internet 51 40 10
Social networking 50 43 7
Video conferencing 48 45 7
Source: CEA Market Research
As the balance between downlink traffic (that which is destined for
the user’s computer) and uplink traffic (that which is emanating
from the user’s computer) becomes more equal, such fundamental
differences in access technology play a larger role. Fortunately,
technology is evolving quickly to meet the needs of the next-
generation of broadband users both in terms of speed and
network design.
According to analysts, a more accurate timeframe for viable
wide-scale adoption of wireless broadband as the exclusive
broadband provider in the home is at least three to four years from
now. While it is tempting to assume that the future of wireless
connectivity begins and ends with the smartphone, the evolution
of wireless broadband access in the home must play out on a path
completely separate from the smartphone.
More users than ever expect that there will always be an Internet
connection back to the home whether they are at home or not.
Technologies like home alarm systems, webcams, content serving
devices (like Slingbox) and remotely programmable DVRs
continue to require and drive demand for high-capacity, always-on
home broadband connections. According to Stacey Higginbotham
of telecom blog GigaOm, “Next-generation service will be better,
but they can’t eliminate [bandwidth issues] completely, so all those
watching HD video on the Web should keep their wires4.”
While it is perhaps too early to tell how many consumers will go
all-wireless in the future, it is clear that improvements in wireless
broadband technology have given consumers a variety of attractive
options for broadband access no matter where they live, work or play.
2013: DON’T SHOW ME THE MONEY
In the past few months, rumors and news from the consumer
electronics world suggest that mobile payments via smartphone
are poised to explode in the next two to three years.

Mobile payments usually take four forms. First, the most basic
form of mobile payment is known as Unstructured Supplemen-
tary Service Data (USSD) and works similarly to text messaging.
USSD is a function found on all GSM handsets and is widely used
for mobile payments in Africa. A second form is when the user
purchases something by typing a credit card number into a mobile
browser. Third, users can pay with payment services like PayPal by
sending a text message or e-mail to the intended recipient. While
mobile, payment systems like PayPal require the merchant to ac-
cept them as a valid form of payment. Frequently accepted in the
online world, the vast majority of brick-and-mortar merchants
only accept credit cards, checks and legal tender. The fourth type
of mobile payment uses a secure technology called near-field com-
munication (NFC).
NFC chip in American Express card
NFC works by embedding a separate, secure short-range wireless
radio into the mobile handset. Through software and communica-
tion with the “cloud”, this communications path could be linked
to any number of payment sources including bank accounts and
credit cards requiring only that the user input a four-digit PIN
code to access their funds. For a few years now, U.S. consumers
could use NFC technology via MasterCard’s PayPass system or the
American Express ExpressPay system. These technologies embed
NFC chips inside the plastic of the credit card itself. One draw-
back, of course, is that you still have to carry the card to use the
technology.
Outside the U. S., some lucky mobile phone users have been enjoy-
ing mobile payment systems for years. For example, McDonald’s
in Japan has been conducting a multi-year trial of contactless
payments that integrates online coupons and points systems to
entice consumers to use mobile payments. McDonald’s customers
in Japan have proven to be quite taken with the conveniences that
come with highly integrated payment systems.
Now that U.S. wireless carriers have announced plans to begin
supporting mobile payment features in their handsets, the tech-
nology should only be a year or so away from the trial phase and
three to four years from more extensive deployment. Major U.S.
banks have also announced plans to trial the technology. More
traditional banking powers like Visa and Bank of America have
teamed up to explore the possibilities.
Imagine a world where you can go for a jog and only take your
mobile phone, using it both as an MP3 player and a wallet. One
of the biggest barriers to mass acceptance of this technology is for
wireless carriers and handset makers to forge the right agreements
with payment processors like Visa and MasterCard or to become
payment processors themselves. Regardless of which path is
chosen, mobile payments will only gain large-scale adoption if
merchants can continue to do business with known and trusted
payment processors as they have since credit cards became
common.
The wireless carriers are perfectly positioned to become a payment
gateway. As Steven Klebe pointed out to VentureBeat on this topic,
“Carriers already have billing relationships with the roughly 90
percent of us that choose [post-paid cell phone] accounts, and by
adding payment processing services, they’d increase the utility for
their customers, rather than asking them to establish, manage and
carry something new5.”
Just as credit cards are now almost universally accepted, mo- 17
bile payments will also become a fixture in retail environments.
Consumers have grown accustomed to being able to purchase just
about anything online, so it’s no wonder that they will jump at the
chance to purchase real-world goods with mobile money.
2014: FASTER THAN A SPEEDING LAPTOP?
Smartphones may be a few years away from replacing your wallet,
but what if they could replace your laptop? The explosion in the
growth of smartphones has let consumers become prodigious
consumers of Internet bandwidth. From Slingbox to YouTube to
iTunes, smartphone users consume far more than their share of
wireless capacity. Up to now, the only limiting factor in increas-
ing this bandwidth consumption has been smartphone hardware.
What if those constraints were no more? What if the smartphone
could replace the laptop as the in-home and out-of-home com-
puter of choice?
Devices like Apple’s iPad and the Motorola Droid X have begun
to re-define what consumers see as a computing device. “Super-
phones” like the Droid X and Samsung Galaxy S contain enough
horse power to do just about everything a netbook can currently
do. The iPad (though not a smartphone) sells with an optional
dock that allows the user to connect a keyboard and mouse for
a more traditional computing experience. Nokia’s high-end
developer handset the N900 includes support for USB on-the-go
devices, allowing a user to connect a keyboard and mouse as well
as storage devices directly to the phone. Devices like the Droid X
and the forthcoming N8 handset from Nokia even include full-
 sized HDMI ports for connecting the device to an HDTV. Put each
of these features together and you have a potential laptop replace-
ment that fits in your pocket.

Perhaps four years away, it is not at all difficult to envision a future

where laptops are only required for the most processor-intensive
applications. Instead, the future seems to indicate that high-end
smartphones will begin to sell with docks (akin to the port replica-
tors sold with most laptops) that will let users transfer the smart-
phone screen onto a full-sized monitor while also using a full-size
keyboard and mouse.

Several hardware limitations in the smartphone ecosystem have

been, or will be, addressed or mitigated in order to make smart-
phones true laptop replacements. The first and most obvious is
processor power. As recently as 2008, smartphones were shipping
with processors that clocked in at a now-quaint 300 MHz. Today,
super phones routinely ship with processors from manufacturers
like Samsung, Texas Instruments and Qualcomm that operate at
one GHz and beyond.

Consumers who demand more performance can even “overclock”

their devices for added punch. Second, storage is no longer at
a premium. Manufacturers have learned how to cram dozens of gi-
gabytes of storage into micro SDHC cards the size of a fingernail.
Phones with 16 or 32 GB of on-board storage are common now
and certain handsets offer the ability to even double that amount
with external card slots.

Further driving this trend is the fact that consumers do not like
to be “siloed” into using certain applications and functions at set
18 times depending upon whether they happen to be sitting in front
of a computer or a smartphone. For example, an iPhone user who
has purchased hundreds of dollars in applications might appreci-
ate the ability to play their iPhone games one minute and then edit
a Microsoft Word document the next. Even better, the evolution of
this trend does not require everyone to standardize around one or
two competing smartphone platforms. It merely requires devel-
opers for those platforms to evolve their software to support the
most common file formats while building in core operating system
functions like printing, the aforementioned USB support and the
ability to scale up to higher resolution displays when docked.
Consumers have shown that when two devices can be replaced
with one, they are willing to make the switch. Netbooks have
admirably filled a previously ignored niche in the consumer elec-
tronics ecosystem but perhaps the time has come for higher-end
smartphones to take portable computing to the next level.
2015: GETTING THE INDUSTRY ON THE SAME
WAVELENGTH
Who is going to pay for these innovations? The answer is still
the consumer. However, consumer expectations, technological
progress, economic realities and shifting business models foretell
potential changes in mobile rate plans and the purchase of devices.
For years, mobile phone users in many countries outside the U.S.
have enjoyed high levels of price and technological competition
in the mobile phone space. A key enabler of this competition is
the fact that mobile phone networks in these countries almost
exclusively employ Global Standard for Mobile (GSM) technol-
ogy whereas the U.S. market is bifurcated into a mix of GSM and
Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) technologies. While there
is no major difference in how the two technologies perform, key
technological differences have shaped how the U.S. mobile market
has evolved.
In a GSM network, handsets are highly interchangeable between
users and require only that the user swap a subscriber identity
module (SIM) card to transfer their telephone number from one
handset to another. A CDMA network, by contrast, requires the
user to contact their mobile provider to activate a different hand-
set. While not burdensome, this core difference between CDMA
and GSM has created a system in the U.S. in which a consumer’s
choice of mobile device is determined primarily by which carrier
the consumer has chosen. Beyond handset choice, the hybrid GSM
and CDMA operating environment means that different networks
use different spectrum bands, resulting in handsets that work on
the network of Carrier A, but will not work on that of Carrier
B, C or D. In practice, this lack of technological and spectrum
harmonization means that consumers that are unhappy with their
mobile handset or choice of carrier often must make a choice
between switching mobile carriers and paying an early termina-
tion fee or purchasing a new subsidized handset with the potential
for extending their service contract even longer. Opportunities for
consumers to purchase unsubsidized, unlocked handsets and use
them on a U.S. mobile carrier’s network are extremely limited.
Technological and spectrum harmonization hold the key to chang- BIBLIOGRAPHY OR SOURCES
ing the dynamic completely. Currently, the four major nationwide
1 Distimo, “Distimo Report.” July 1, 2010. http://blog.distimo.
carriers in the U.S. have thrown their support behind either GSM
com/2010_07_distimo-publishes-latest-report-june-2010/
or CDMA technology. However, the next round of upgrades to
LTE and WiMAX technology offers a chance for carriers and 2 Engadget, “Exclusive: Sony Ericsson to introduce Android 3.0
handset makers to make real-world changes that will have imme- gaming platform and PSP Go-like smartphone.” August 11, 2010.
diate and long-term benefits for consumers. http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/11/exclusive-sony-ericsson-
to-introduce-android-3-0-gaming-platfor/
Specifically, if mobile networks are designed in a way that each
network uses the same underlying technology (WiMAX or LTE, 3 Reuters, “ANALYSIS-Is the smartphone gaming challenge real?”
most likely) in the same general band of spectrum (700 MHz, August 19, 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE-
for example) and uses a compatible device identification system 67I03T20100819
(like the SIM card system) then handset manufacturers can begin
producing handsets that work for a broad swath of consumers 4 GigaOm, “Will 4G Wireless Really Threaten Wires?” August 13,
worldwide. Consumers stand to benefit tremendously if phones 2009. http://gigaom.com/2009/08/13/will-4g-wireless-really-
manufactured in Russia or Australia function more or less the threaten-wires/
same for voice and data service in the U.S. as they do anywhere
else in the world. 5 VentureBeat, “What will it take to make mobile payments
mainstream in the US?” March 10, 2010. http://venturebeat.
This will result in pricing benefits for consumers. A world in com/2010/03/10/what-will-it-take-to-make-mobile-payments-
which consumers can change handsets as quickly as hairstyles or mainstream-in-the-us/ n
purses is one in which consumers can exercise the right to switch
seamlessly between mobile carriers to take advantage of new
devices, better prices or enhanced services. The freedom to switch
necessarily brings with it lower prices and/or more and better ser-
vices as carriers compete to win new customers and keep existing
ones. Trends in the adoption of mobile services have shown that
some Americans are willing to pay more for better service and oth-
ers are willing to trade certain value-added services like high-speed
data for a lower monthly charge. In either case, both spectrum and
technological harmonization must occur for consumers to benefit
the most. 19
It is impossible to identify everything that the brightest minds
in consumer electronics can dream up, whether it’s five, 10 or 50
years into the future. However, one thing is certain: consumers will
always crave the latest and greatest devices and few industries are
able to consistently deliver top-notch and innovative products year
after year like consumer electronics companies.
 IT’S NOT EASY BEING GREEN, OR IS IT?
By Jessica Booth
W
ith daily news feeds of the Gulf oil spill and the rising
cost of petroleum and electricity, it is no wonder
that “going green” is at the forefront of our nation’s
collective consciousness. This increased consumer awareness
(and motivation), coupled with the unprecedented support for
green technologies from the current Administration, means that
“going green” is not only good for the environment but also good
business.
The CleanTech Association (nvca.org/cleantech) recently reported
that the first half of 2010, and in particular the first quarter, saw
a vast increase in investments in green technologies, including
investments in SmartGrid infrastructure, energy efficient
technology and alternative energy sources (solar, wind and
biofuels). All of the investments are increasingly in demand, in
large part, due to government funding and incentives. This chapter
will explore four trends in “going green” and how the consumer
electronics (CE) industry can benefit from these trends.
20
A BRIEF HISTORY
While it seems as if green is the topic du jour, it has actually been
around for quite some time. Dating back to 1200 AD, ancient
civilizations were cognitive of air and water pollution and
implemented city codes and devised sewage lines to accommodate
and move waste away from the city1. Moving along to the 1800’s,
green – or environmentalism as it previously was called – came
in the form of reform and conservation of land1. In the 1920’s the
National Coast Anti Pollution League was formed to protect the
coast against pollutants1.
Fast forward to the 1970’s when the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) was founded and government signed into law the
Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. Then, five years ago in 2005,
former Vice President and Nobel Laureate, Al Gore, set out to
raise awareness on global warming with the documentary An
Inconvenient Truth. Jumping ahead to today’s headlines much of
the focus centers around the Gulf oil spill, dependency on foreign
oil, depletion of non-renewable sources, carbon footprint and
energy efficiency, all part of an underlying and historic trend to
reduce and conserve.
While historically the idea of being green is not new, the 21st
century has seen much advancement in the field, from the
appointment of the assistant to the president for climate and
energy, to unprecedented government backing for renewable
energy initiatives through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009.
BRINGING GREEN HOME – A CONSUMER
PERSPECTIVE
The idea of “going green” is far from a foreign concept to
consumers; in fact they have implemented green practices into
their lifestyles for years. “Going green” encompasses simple actions
such as recycling or opting for reusable grocery bags (which is
mandated in some jurisdictions). It also includes the use of energy
efficient technologies and products which many consumers are
purchasing for the first time. The most well-known example is
ENERGY STAR™, an EPA program that sets energy efficiency
standards for manufacturers and allows them to affix the ENERGY
STAR label to their product if they voluntarily meet those
standards. The incentives for manufacturers to participate in the
program are huge: one in seven U.S. adults are familiar with the
term, ENERGY STAR.
Net Familarity of Green Terminology
Very familiar + familiar
Recyclable 97%
Energy efficiency 93
Organic 93
Global warming 93
Biodegradible 88
EnergyStar 70
Environmental 61
Carbon footprint 60
Carbon offset 36
Smartgrid 28
Source: CEA Market Research, Shades of Green Study, 2010
Introduced in 1992, the ENERGY STAR program has expanded
labeling to more than 60,000 products in its fairly short history2.
Expanding beyond appliances to household goods when the
compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb took center stage in the past
five years by offering consumers a low cost approach to going
green as well as saving money.
Another green technology gaining acceptance by consumers are
hybrid and electric vehicles. This particular green advancement,
once only accepted by the wealthy or extremely green-conscious
consumer, is gaining widespread interest due to attractive tax
incentives and rising gas prices. CEA reports that one in three (32
percent) online American adults are familiar with hybrid vehicles
and one in four (25 percent) are familiar with electric vehicles.
While general awareness is still fairly low, interest in the category
is high with 42 percent expecting to follow news stories on electric
vehicles and 40 percent likely to test drive an electric vehicle.
In each of these cases, the green concept was integrated slowly
into American homes (over the course of ten years or so) but was
widely accepted once there. Each concept empowered consumers
with the decision to take energy cost savings into their own hands.
While penetration of these products has been slow, the biggest
component for swift integration into the American home is
education, ease-of-use or – plug-and-play – and price. As seen in
the following chart, when considering the purchase of their next
CE device, consumers indicate green is one of the top five elements
they’ll consider.
Purchasing CE
Importance of Attributes
Important Very important
Price 40%
Warranty 47
Variety of features included 51
Enviromentally-friendly attributes 50
Size 45
Brand 42 17
Color 26 11
Source: CEA Market Research, Shades of Green Study, 2010
TREND NUMBER ONE: A NEW GRID AND THE
ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY
SmartGrid infrastructure is the next big thing in the field of green
technology. Before it can be successfully integrated into American
homes, however, industry and government will need to make
massive investments in infrastructure upgrades.
The current electrical infrastructure, known as the grid, as it
stands is outdated (think Edison in the late 19th century) and
cannot support advancements in renewable energy sources and
technology that will satisfy our current and future electricity
demands. The present grid is not capable of supporting the
fluctuations that come with renewable energy sources such
as wind, solar and geothermal. Technology will be needed to
help regulate the ebb and flow variance of renewable energy.
For example, the grid needs storage technology to capture and
contain excess energy from renewable sources, which can then be
distributed at times of peak demand.
Compatibility is another dilemma thwarting an update of the
infrastructure, specifically, the lack of interconnectivity within the
grid (from state to state or even within counties within a state).
This hinders distribution of energy between the windy fields of the
Midwest or the sunny deserts of the southwest to other areas of
need around the nation.
If these investments can be made, SmartGrid benefits will include
a reduction of greenhouse gases and carbon footprint as well as
optimizing energy usage on the demand side. The SmartGrid
will also be beneficial for utility companies by providing two-way
connection between utilities and on the demand-side, thereby
reducing the need for service calls and manual meter reads. The
connection will provide up-to-date information on outages
reducing downtime for consumers and business alike. A two-way
connection between utility and sources would also allow for a new
concept, an opportunity for the end-user or the consumer to store
and sell electricity back to the grid.
Some test cases, such as the famous SmartGridCity test case
in Boulder, Colorado, have produced negative press with
participating consumers (connected to SmartGrid and SmartMeter
technologies) reporting higher electricity bills than before the
SmartMeter was installed. However, many studies have shown that
when consumers are aware of their energy usage, they will tailor
their habits to improve and reduce their energy consumption.
Through the continuation of tests, utility companies, technology
companies and government agencies must all work together to
perfect the system before nationwide implementation.
54%
38 While the obstacles continue to be worked out, advancements
32 continue fueling innovations for products that will one day
24 connect to the grid. From control panels to kinetic energy, green
19
technology will be abundant in the coming years. Here’s a look
at some of the top trends to watch from now until 2012 that will
benefit from the further development of the SmartGrid and help
consumers go green.
TREND NUMBER TWO: THE FACE OF ENERGY
USAGE
For a society constantly connected to the Internet to update a
status, post photos, view the latest news or videos, monitoring 21
our energy consumption online is not an unwelcome idea for
most consumers. Just as the Internet revolutionized the world of
online banking, telecommuting and shopping, SmartMeters and
their interface will modernize energy consumption and allow
consumers to be more in tune with their consumption habits.
Poised to enter more than 40 million U.S. homes by 20153,
SmartMeters depend the most on the successful development
and implementation of the SmartGrid. As grid advancements
continue, software and hardware manufacturers hustle to
become part of the face of energy management – an interface or
dashboard that consumers interact with to monitor and control
their energy consumption. One big name lining up includes
a Web-based solution from Google, called the PowerMeter.
According to Google’s webpage, the Google PowerMeter will
be a free monitoring system to help consumers save energy and
money. From Microsoft’s website, another Web-based solution, the
Microsoft’s Hohm interface provides consumers with monitoring
capabilities and provides a free energy report that will then provide
recommendations for how to save.
While this doesn’t begin to cover the array of interfaces that will be
available, they do provide a glimpse at the offerings for consumers.
The core functionality interfaces such as PowerMeter and Hohm
provide consumers with real-time energy consumption and price
data, empowering them to make smart decisions about when to
run their dishwasher or turn down the air conditioning. Ideally
these products will be able to go beyond energy consumption
 figures and can incorporate operation of appliances and other
household items so that when energy prices are lower, regardless of
a consumer’s location – work, vacation – they can take advantage.
For many, home automation control is a familiar concept but the
ability to incorporate energy data and real-time pricing will be new.
While this concept will be more easily incorporated into new
homes, a bigger market will be the retrofitting of existing homes.
The ability to connect one’s current appliances and other
household products to this 21st century network will be very
appealing to the mass market. From installers to do-it-yourselfers,
many consumers will rely on CE companies to come up with
solutions to fit their pre-green revolution housing needs.
TREND NUMBER THREE: CONSUMER
BECOMES PRODUCER
Not only will consumers be able to purchase electricity from
utility companies, they will also be able to generate, sell back
excess energy and store their own energy needs as the SmartGrid
progresses. From solar roofing shingles to wind turbines,
advancing technology has made these ideas into a reality by
offering consumers the ability to purchase affordable energy
producing products for the home.
Cutting back on dependency from the utility companies and in
addition earning money, the at-home energy producing products
will no longer be as grueling as the Flintstone’s foot-powered
car. For example, solar shingles (solar panels) provide a way
to capture energy with little to no effort, after installation. As
another example of the consumer becoming the producer, many
22 have speculated on the possibility of using home water heaters
as a possible energy source. Again, with little to no impact on the
consumer side, the idea of becoming a producer becomes more
and more attractive and lucrative.
When consumers begin to better understand their energy needs
and have the ability to produce some, if not all, of their own energy
they open up the possibility of being energy producers by selling
excess energy back to the grid. While the idea of selling electricity
and the functionality to actually feed energy back into the grid is
still far from a reality, with the advancements of the grid, it will no
doubt be a popular idea that will encourage consumers to equip
their houses to capture renewable energy sources.
Beyond producing energy at home, harvesting energy produced
by movement – also known as kinetic energy – is increasing
in popularity. From walking, biking and even jumping, many
new products are being created to capture a body’s movement
throughout the day or through exercise. One company sporting
kinetic energy products is High Tide (RollerGen.com), a
California-based company offering energy solutions that fit on a
bicycle.
While enjoying a leisurely ride on your bike you’ll be generating
energy to power your cell phone (or other small electronics
gadget). For the less bike-savvy consumer, Tremont Electronics
offers the nPower®PEG. According to the company’s website
(npowerpeg.com) “the lightweight device generates energy while
you walk, run, or bike).” By carrying this “peg” in your bag, purse,
or backpack you’ll be producing energy from your daily routines.
While technology is still far behind in providing more than a
single charge for a cell phone or other small electronic gadget, the
technology is moving to free consumers from wires and adaptors
joined to the wall.
On a larger scale, kinetic energy harvesting has been tested in
Japan and implemented on a small scale such as to power holiday
signage. Back in 2008, the firm Soundpower installed piezoelectric
power mats in popular subway stations to garner energy from
walking pedestrians. The project estimated that 2.4 million
people passed through the station and for each person (based on
an average weight of 135 lbs.) walking on the mat, 0.1 watts was
produced4.
While implementation of kinetic energy harvesting is mainly being
tested for military purposes at this time, the implications of kinetic
mats or bikes on a public scale, such as in malls, subway stations,
or concert venues could possibility produce enough energy to
power lighting and signage across the nation. That said, all of these
scenarios are highly speculative.
TREND NUMBER FOUR: ENERGY, STORAGE
AND BATTERIES
From supplying excess energy to utility companies to storing
energy to power (additional battery) your electric vehicle, storage
will become a premium in the coming years. Currently, many
projects are in the works in the power storage and battery arena,
from longevity solutions to those that provide quick bursts
of energy. At this time the ultracapacitor is the predominant
technology in the storage market. While the technology has proven
to have the ability to be recharged many times over it has limited
storage capabilities. Other battery technologies under development
derive from natural components, like paper.
Regardless of chemical or component, the importance of
developing the storage market will not only benefit the electric
vehicle market and utility companies but the technology will
improve the battery life of other CE devices providing them
longer “on” times than previously seen with little charge time.
The improvement in the battery sector will also cut down battery
replacement with batteries capable of recharging many times over.
PARTING THOUGHTS
Like most innovation, the goal of green technology is to empower
consumers with choice. In the case of green technologies however,
it is providing consumers with a solution to their energy gluttony
in the face of an energy crisis. Beyond money-saving solutions,
green technology will provide a better world for future generations.
As seen in CEA’s Shades of Green study, nine in ten American adults
indicate wanting to provide a healthy environment for future
generations as a key motivator for “going green”.
What does this mean for the CE industry? Consumers will
be looking for CE devices to have greener options such as
compatibility with current energy management systems, the ability
to produce its own energy and/or act as a storage device. That said,
green will be a key consideration by consumers when purchasing
their next CE devices.

Reasons for “Going Green”
To provide healthy environment for future generations
To reduce pollution
To save natural resources, such as water or oil
It’s the right thing to do
To ensure a livable habitat for plants and wildlife
To improve your health by reducing your exposure to
chemicals
To improve your children’s health by reducing
exposure to chemicals
To save money
To slow global warming
Your friends and/or family members are doing it 45
Source: CEA Market Research, Shades of Green Study, 2010
While eight in ten (78 percent) consumers look to reduce energy
consumption in favor of their pocketbooks, most wish to do
so without sacrificing any convenience, thus placing greater
importance among utility companies for easy integration into
the consumer’s daily life. One solution for providing seamless
energy reduction to consumers is to grant utility companies access
to the controls. In early test cases, consumers have signed up to
allow utility companies access to their home appliances, such as
the air conditioner unit, so that the utilities can power down or
reduce settings during peak times of energy demand. While many
consumers balk at the idea of having an outside entity controlling
systems within their home, test cases have shown that consumers
experience little to no difference in settings.
We anticipate that as the nation continues on the road to a
greener horizon, the market will continue to evolve around
innovation. With increased awareness of the myriad and positive
89% manifestations of “going green” we are likely to see the momentum
88 continue. The combination of innovation and awareness will, as
88
always, put the CE industry at the forefront of a more progressive
and inclusive environment. Poised at the center of these
86
advancements the CE industry which lends itself to an adage from
85 the popular 1990’s movie Back to the Future III – “The future is
83
what you make it. Make it a good one”.
80
BIBLIOGRAPHY OR SOURCES
78
70
1 Kovarik, William. “Environmental History Timeline.” Radford
University Home Page. 10 Aug. 2010. runet.edu/~wkovarik/
envhist.
2 “History: ENERGY STAR.” Home: ENERGY STAR. 10 Aug. 2010.
energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_history.
3 Schomer, Stephanie. “The Home Energy Management Market
Heads Up.” Fast Company 1 Apr. 2010. Fastcompany.com.
10 Aug. 2010.
4 Fermoso, Jose. “Power Generating Floor in Train Stations
Light Up Holiday Displays | Gadget Lab | Wired.com.” Wired
News. 27 Aug. 2010. wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/12/power-
generatin/#more-11154.
FUTURE READING
For more information on Green from the Consumer Electronics
Association, turn to CEA’s Shades of Green - Consumer Attitudes
Regarding Green CE and Electric Vehicles - The Future of Driving at
http://spmembers.ce.org/Research. For more information on the 23
SmartGrid see 2010’s Five Technologies to Watch – Smart Grids:
The Future for Electricity Distribution? n
 THE FUTURE OF APPS
By Shawn G. DuBravac, CFA
THE BIRTH OF APPS
In 2002 Handspring launched the Treo line of handheld de-
vices – the precursor to today’s smartphone. In addition to a full
keyboard, wireless Web-browsing, e-mail, contact and calendar
support, the Treo devices allowed users to download or sync
third-party applications (apps) onto the devices. The beginnings of
phone customization and personalization had begun, but it would
be a full six years before apps as we know them today would come
to fruition.
On January 9, 2007 Apple launched the original iPhone. In its
iterative stages, the focus was still largely on the phone aspects of
the device. Early commercials and other marketing materials for
the iPhone center on the device first and foremost as a phone. Each
of the first four commercials Apple released prior to the launch of
the iPhone ends with a call being made on the device. Across these
four early iPhone commercials the following activities are high-
lighted: listening to music (stored on the device), watching videos
24 (stored on the device), viewing photos (stored on the device),
checking e-mail, viewing and searching a map, and browsing the
Web. Only the latter three require Internet access.
When highlighting actual Internet access through the browser
capabilities the narrator reads, “This is not a watered down version
of the Internet…or the mobile version of the Internet…or the
kinda-sorta looks like the Internet Internet…its just the Internet…
on your phone.” The focus remains on the phone aspects of the
device followed by adjacent features like Internet access. Moreover,
any discussion of Internet-enabled activities was framed within the
historical context of the day – a browser.
At the time of the iPhone launch a software development kit
(SDK) enabling developers to build native applications capable of
taking advantage of the underlying hardware features and elements
of the device was not available. It can be surmised that third-party
app development was clearly not Apple’s original strategy with
the iPhone. Engadget, the popular technology blog, went as far as
to write that the iPhone was “not a smartphone by conventional
terms, being that a smartphone is a platform device that allows
software to be installed” and at the time iPhone did not allow soft-
ware to be installed by users.
As Steve Jobs explained to the New York Times shortly after the
announcement of the iPhone, “We (Apple) define everything that
is on the phone. You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The
last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone
and then go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are
more like iPods than they are like computers.”
In another interview with Newsweek, Jobs elaborated, “You don’t
want your phone to be an open platform. You need it to work
when you need it to work. Cingular doesn’t want to see their West
Coast network go down because some application messed up.
These are devices that need to work, and you can’t do that if you
load any software on them,” Jobs continued. “That doesn’t mean
there’s not going to be software to buy that you can load on them
coming from us. It doesn’t mean we have to write it all, but it
means it has to be more of a controlled environment.”
After skirting the issue for several months, encouraging app devel-
opment for the iPhone to focus on Web apps, and attempting to
combat hackers with software updates, in an open letter published
on Apple’s website on October 17, 2007, Jobs announced that an
official SDK would be available for third-party developers. Apple
subsequently released the official SDK on March 6, 2008 and on
July 10, 2008 the Apple App Store opened.
Following the success of Apple’s foray into apps, a multitude of
other companies across a variety of devices have entered with
app stores of their own. While they might go by a different name,
today apps are trying to take hold across other hardware devices
as diverse as printers and televisions. Estimates suggest the mobile
app ecosystem alone represents more than $4 billion annually and
could be worth four times that as early as 2012.
VALUE IN APPS
When Internet access first reached mobile devices the browser was
king. The early focus was to create a better browsing experience on
a device with less processing power, a slower connection, and less
screen real estate than individuals were using on other Internet-
connected devices like the PC. Developers centered their attention
on creating focused mobile browsers and scaled-down mobile
websites. One of the fundamental benefits of Internet-connected
mobile devices is the ability to retrieve specific information or
perform well-defined tasks. Attention and time are more inelastic
when using mobile devices, making browsing more costly from a
user perspective than it is on a device like the PC.
The value in apps is found in their focus on a discrete – often nar-
rowly defined – task. They allow users the ability to retrieve very
specific bytes of information or perform certain tasks that are rel-
evant and contextual to their current state. In this way, apps reduce
one of the largest scarcities of mobile device users: time. As mobile
devices became Internet-enabled the early focus was to make them
useful by marrying the Internet and a browser. In this way, users
could find the information they were seeking or perform most
tasks available to them through the Web, like banking or non-voice
communication. Apps allow users to turn their mobile devices into
the equivalent of user-defined Swiss Army knives – transforming
the device at the whim of the user.
Native apps, which can take advantage of the underlying hardware
features of the device, take things a step further. Apps did a better
job of providing rich functionality. Today apps allow users to adapt
a single mobile device into a myriad of devices depending on the
use-case most meaningful at the moment. For example, apps turn
mobile phones into newspapers, photo editing devices, portable
gaming devices and mobile concierges for innumerable informa-
tion requests.
“The future of apps is less about where
apps reside and more about the value
proposition they present.”
The value of apps largely lies in data. What makes apps meaningful
is the data behind the icon. As Tim O’Reilly recently wrote, “data is
the Intel Inside…companies like Google, but also now Facebook,
Twitter, Amazon, PayPal, LinkedIn and many others, have been
quietly building those enormous data back ends that drive their
websites, but more importantly, also drive a vast array of Web
services. Google Maps in the browser is still Google Maps, with all
the intelligence, all the deep data layers, that make it a success on
either front-end. What the mobile ecosystems of today have done
is to unmask the reality that it’s the back end that matters.”
The future of apps will be driven by value. Two years into the
app experiment the novelty is beginning to wear off. A growing
percentage of individuals now have firsthand experience with apps.
Simple curiosity will no longer compel individuals to try diverse
apps. These individuals – and eventually most mobile phone us-
ers – will have reference points by which to judge new apps. These
apps must present a value position relative to other apps within the
ecosystem. Apps that don’t differentiate and provide tangible value
will find minimal, and certainly not sustainable, success among
users.
Creating this value position will increasingly also be data driven.
The presentation of this data can be simple, as many of the suc-
cessful apps are, but the apps that will achieve high levels of success
in the future will provide complex back-ends that provide meaning
for consumers. The future of apps will increasingly rest on data.
WEB APPS VERSUS NATIVE APPS; OPEN
VERSUS CLOSED APP SYSTEMS
There are two potential paths for app development: Web apps
that operate within a browser environment and store all relevant
information on servers accessible through the Internet and native
apps which are stored locally on the device. Prior to releasing a
SDK, Apple encouraged third-party developers to focus on Web
apps. As Apple announced shortly before the release of the original
iPhone, “developers can create Web 2.0 applications which look
and behave just like the applications built into an iPhone, and
which can seamlessly access iPhone’s services, including making a
phone call, sending an e-mail and displaying a location in Google
Maps. Third-party applications created using Web 2.0 standards
can extend iPhone’s capabilities without compromising its reli-
ability or security.”
The difference in capabilities between these two divergent paths is
minimizing quickly. Web apps typically require a constant Internet
connection, though more Web apps are allowing offline use. The
major difference is the ability of native apps to utilize the under-
lying hardware elements and sensors of the device including the
accelerometer, camera, GPS and microphone. Today the number
of native apps significantly outnumbers Web apps – though many
native apps could function similarly as Web apps because they do
not rely on the underlying hardware.
While many continue to make a clear distinction between native
apps and Web apps, drawing lines in the sand, and suggesting
some ongoing battle that will end with a winner-take-all, the lines
between native apps and Web apps are blurring into oblivion. A
growing number of apps are Web-based and native at the same
time. They share information over the Web but are also able to take
advantage of the device features. The future of apps is less about
where apps reside and more about the value proposition they pres-
ent. It is likely successful apps moving forward will be hybrid in
nature – native so they can leverage all of the features and func-
tions of the underlying device hardware but also Web-based so
they pull in or push out information to further drive relevancy.
A second major decision confronting developers is which app eco- 25
system to develop apps for. Today there are myriad app ecosystems
operating across a diverse set of devices. As the popularity of apps
increases so does the number of app systems. Developers have fi-
nite resources and are therefore constrained to the number of plat-
forms they can support. Time, energy and financing suggest two to
three different platforms is the logical upper limit of platforms all
but a few developers will be able to support.
Current app ecosystems present a variety of choices and a mul-
tiplicity of issues to consider. Developers must effectively weigh
the pros and cons of each app platform. For example, today’s two
largest app ecosystems – Apple and Android – are very different.
Apple is largely a closed system while Android is considered gener-
ally open. In a closed system like Apple, app submissions must go
through an approval process. Moreover, the underling operating
system (iOS) is controlled by Apple and at this point only available
on Apple devices.
In an open system like Android, the operating system is available to
multiple and diverse device manufacturers. This can result in im-
plementation differences across devices. Mobile analyst, Danielle
Romain argues fragmentation is the logical end state of open plat-
forms. This would suggest closed and open platforms fall within
the same Pareto distribution and open platforms are all within the
tail of the distribution. This has important ramifications for the
future of apps because fragmentation usually increases costs and
development resources. It can also potentially reduce the quality of
the user experience and narrow the target market.
 Here again, current discussion often suggests one app platform, or
at most a select few platforms, will reign supreme. Most impor-
tantly, today’s discussions suggest app platforms with limited app
selection will cease to survive as app ecosystems mature. But app
ecosystems do not by necessity need to collapse for lack of a high
number of available apps. There are abundant examples of indus-
tries where niche players have proven both successful and viable.
In many, if not most of these cases, the niche player thrives not on
volume but by having a well-defined target audience and provid-
ing a premium experience. Just like a well-defined audience is
more attractive to marketers and advertisers than a large undefined
audience, so a well-defined audience will also be lucrative for app
developers.
Multiple app platforms will likely survive well into the future
suggesting apps will not be defined by mass platform consolida-
tion. As the app environment matures, the ability of developers
to decipher their return-on-investment (ROI) will also improve.
Multiple elements will influence ROI including aspects like time-
to-market, guaranteed revenue or an identifiable target audience.
In order for any platform to attract the attention of app developers
these platforms must provide developers with a clearly identifiable
and addressable user-base.
WHAT A BUBBLE IN APPS MEANS FOR
FUTURE MONETIZATION
With the rapid adoption of apps there is increasing speculation
that apps are the next over-heated area within the technology in-
dustry. Certainly there are signs suggesting a bubbly environment
is building. Many point to the large amount of venture financing
pouring into the broad app ecosystem. Firms like Kleiner, Perkins,
26 Caufield & Byers have not only begun app-focused investment
funds, but also doubled the original fund-raising targets for their
iFund to $200 million.
The sheer growth in the number of apps highlights the popular-
ity but also the bubbly potential. Duplication reduces relevancy,
increases user frustration, and leads to lower values – consistent
with a deflating market. This suggests individual discovery is key
for apps to be viable and avoid a bubble. Users have to be able to
sort in order to decipher good options from bad options.
While Apple touts more than $1 billion going to iOS app develop-
ers alone over the last two years, many pundits and commentators
posit that real financial success is difficult to achieve. More than $1
billion divided by a large number of apps and a large number of
developers suggest the average revenue per app or per developer
is disappointing. This further suggests excitement around app
stores and apps in general as a viable business model is overblown.
However, there are several ways to monetize apps and these have
important implications for the future of apps.
Manufacturers of devices can monetize app ecosystems through
device sales as well as a share of the purchase price. App develop-
ers can monetize their work through their share of the purchase
price, in-app advertising, adjacent markets, and what I refer to as
financial guarantees. Juniper Research believes total revenue from
the app ecosystem – including pay-per-download, value-added
services, and advertising will grow from $10 billion in 2009 to $32
billion by 2015.
Apps feel more like a gold rush than a bubble. Developers hop-
ing to monetize their apps through a high volume of purchases
or in-app advertising surely recognize that not every app will be
a hit, but rather that there is some probability of hitting it big.
Similarly, mobile device manufacturers have enthusiastically built
app ecosystems to support their device platforms but this too, is
akin to a gold rush. These device OEMs are focused on providing
the infrastructure in the same way Levi Strauss became successful
selling clothing and equipment to early gold miners.
Several estimates suggest paid apps only represent five to 15
percent of total apps so the bulk of app monetization today comes
through in-app advertising, adjacent markets and guarantees. Early
results suggest a maturing app platform brings with it a higher
portion of paid apps so the future of app monetization will likely
be more influenced by paid apps than it is today. For free apps,
in-app advertising will continue to be a key to monetization. For
example, research firm and consultancy SNL Kagan believes ad-
generated revenue from streaming radio apps will surpass $500
million by 2015.
Moving forward, apps will derive more revenue by serving adjacent
markets. One of the obvious adjacent markets is selling virtual
goods within game apps. Data from Flurry, a mobile analytics
firm, suggests this market is already growing rapidly. By the sum-
mer of 2010, the games tracked by Flurry were generating average
revenues of nearly $15 per user per year. This figure is up from $9
at the start of 2010.
Finally, the future of app monetization will be heavily influenced
by financial guarantees. When developers launch a new app:
regardless of their monetization approach, they do not know with
certainty the level of revenue they will garner from the purchase
price, in-app advertising or by servicing adjacent markets. An
increasing number of firms are paying to have apps developed.
They are not interested in deriving revenue from the app, but are
interested in positioning themselves and strengthening their brand.
For example, numerous consumer goods companies have already
created apps to extend their brand. They are paying developers a
fixed fee to develop the app for them. These act as financial guar-
antees and remove the downside revenue risks for app developers.
In the future app platforms will also likely pay app developers to
develop specific apps for their platform, providing developers a
similar financial guarantee and minimizing downside uncertain-
ties.
Money flows will influence not just the type of apps that are devel-
oped but also upon which platforms these apps appear. Following
developments and changes in app monetization is a key indicator
in deciphering the future of apps.
USAGE AND THE BATTLE FOR ATTENTION
More individuals have access to apps on their mobile devices than
ever before. According to Pew, 35 percent of U.S. adults have mo-
bile phones that can take advantage of apps and about two-thirds
of these individuals actually use apps. CEA forecasts suggest this
number will continue to grow over the next five years. A recent
Nielsen study looking at adult mobile phone subscribers who have
downloaded an app in the 30 days prior to the survey found that
57 percent report using apps daily and 24 percent report using
apps for more than 30 minutes a day.
Games continue to dominate app downloads with Nielsen report-
ing games were downloaded by 61 percent of those who down-
loaded any app. Weather, maps/search, social media and music
apps round out the top five app categories.
A world in which apps are continuously launching compounds the
difficulty of making apps sticky. As the future of apps evolves,
developers and others must discover how to leverage growing own-
ership while combating declining engagement. Apps provide the
most compelling value position when (1) users are mobile, (2) the
app provides information or services not readily mimicked by
other devices, and (3) the app seamlessly integrates into the
lifestyle of the user.

DISCOVERY
Most Popular Category of Apps Today there are more than 250,000 apps in Apple’s iTunes, 100,000
(among those who reported downloading an app in the last 30 days) apps in the Android Marketplace and thousands of apps across a
multiplicity of other platforms. What happens when there are two
Weather million apps to choose from on each and every platform? What
Social Networking
about 10 million apps? How do users become aware of given apps?
News
Banking/Finance
Sports Technology is increasingly a world of Pareto distributions, a power
Video/Movie
law probability distribution where the frequency for a higher num-
Travel
Communications (IM, VoIP, etc) ber of observations is below the mean. In other words there are a
Household/Personal Care few hits and many that are not; the proverbial 80-20 rule. In the
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% case of apps, this suggests the frequency of downloads is relatively
high for a few number of apps and relatively low for the vast ma-
Source: The Nielsen Company jority of apps. Usage likely follows a similar pattern. In the parlance
of Chris Anderson, app distribution likely follows a long tail.
Many signs suggest access to, and usage of, apps is growing.
ClearChannel for example, recently reported that the average Top 10 lists likely exacerbate a Pareto distribution ensuring a small
user of their iheartradio app listens for 137 minutes, a 14 percent number of items receive the bulk of attention. In a world of digital
increase from 120 minutes at the end of 2009. However, there also goods like apps, shelf space is not the key constraint. Today’s scarce
are signs that retaining consumer attention is difficult. Research by resource is consumer attention. Technology can make working
app analytics firm Flurry suggests users stop using the average app within the long tail worthwhile because technology can level the
relatively quickly with long-term audiences generally one percent
of total downloads. Pew reports that app use remains low relative
playing field around discovery. 27
to other non-voice activities on the cell phone and even Nielsen’s As markets mature, consolidation happens. But today there are still
research suggests that 43 percent of those who have downloaded hundreds of app developers, so brands provide minimal help in
an app in the last 30 days do not use apps daily. sorting and sifting. There are apps from more than 40,000 differ-
ent developers in the Apple App store alone. Signals provided by
Percentage of adult cell phone users who do each brand names are not yet applicable to the app ecosystem. Internet
of the following on their phone search firms like Google have successfully created order from chaos
and aided discovery by creating meaning from existence. In other
Take a picture 76%
words, because a given packet of information exists in relation to
other packets of information dispersed across the Web, algorithms
Send or receive text messages 72
can create meaning from this existence.
Access the Internet 38
As Google’s Tim Bray recently wrote, “Google and its competitors
are astoundingly effective at taking a vaguely-worded request —
Play a game 34
for example ‘Vancouver travel’ — and returning results that are
rich in structure and supporting apparatus. This works partly be-
Send or receive e-mail 34 cause the Web’s resources are richer in content and metadata than
your typical online app listing. But even more important is the rich
Record a video 34 network of links that serve as grist for the search algorithms’ mill.”

Play music 33 One of the great hindrances of app discovery is that these relation-
ships – a rich network of links in the world of the Web – don’t
Send or receive instant 30 exist. Moreover, there are subtle and important differences between
messages finding and discovery. App discovery is different than the discov-
Use an App 29 ery that occurs through search. Finding sought-after information
through search requires user input. App discovery goes beyond
Source: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project identifying apps that fit a given set of parameters. Meaningful app
 discovery is more than simply finding apps adjacent to a user-
specified keyword.

Experimentation is driving the app discovery occurring today.

As discussed in the last section, while an increasing number of
apps are being downloaded, research also suggests engagement
diminishes quickly. Apps going unused in the weeks following the
initial download support the premise that discovery is happening
through experimentation.

As the number of apps explodes, app stores will become over-

run with selection. Categorization will not be enough to improve
discovery and much of discovery will move outside App stores.
There are a variety of app directories available today on the Web.
These directories typically provide rankings, ratings and reviews
for thousands of apps. Sites like GetJar seek to become the clear-
inghouse for apps across platforms while sites like AppsFire and
Yappler are providing platforms to aid discovery.

The future of apps will largely be decided by discovery. As the

number of apps explodes, there will be a more siloed and nuanced
approach to discovery. This siloed approach will materialize
through the development of app marketplaces, stores or other
discovery zones centered on specific categories like outdoor
fitness or personal budgeting solutions. In this way, discovery will
happen around communities. Discovery is ultimately a problem of
visibility.
APP TRENDS TO WATCH: 2012-1015
While apps might give the impression of an established distribu-
tion platform, it is still a nascent technology. Here are a few key
28 things likely to change over the next two to five years.
Proprietary Apps
Most apps today target a general consumer audience. While certain
apps will naturally appear to different segments of the population
in different ways they are largely available to all users. As the app
ecosystem continues to develop expect to see more proprietary
apps and apps focused on niche markets. A simple example: expect
to see more apps for both large and small law enforcement agen-
cies. These will only be relevant and likely only available to profes-
sionals employed within these agencies. They are niche. They are
proprietary. Apps will become more vital in markets where mobile
devices are increasingly woven into the occupation. Mobile devices
– and apps through extension – will become another tool of the
tradesman. To be viable, apps must create stickiness and therefore
must provide a meaningful experience.
Niche Apps
Some of the same drivers pushing developers into propriety apps
will also drive them into apps more appropriate for niche markets.
The target market for niche apps is smaller than general purpose
apps and the use-cases will be more narrowly defined. Niche offer-
ings should be more valuable to users because they deliver a spe-
cialized offering. In a recent announcement, Apple stated, “we have
over 250,000 apps in the App Store. We don’t need any more Fart
apps. We have lots of serious developers who don’t want their qual-
ity Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour.” This suggests Apple
will take the latitude to exclude new app submissions that fail to
provide a unique experience or offering. The need for discovery
will also drive developers to more niche offerings.
Greater use of Sensors
A key element enabling apps to provide a rich user experience
is the ability of the software to take advantage of the underlying
hardware specs. Apps provide richness because they take advan-
tage of the sensors onboard a device. These sensors include items
like Wi-Fi, accelerometers, GPS, cameras and both capacitive and
resistive touch. The lifecycle of technology ensures these sensors
will improve and become more numerous. Over the next few years
more sensors will be built within devices and existing sensors
will be utilized in unique ways. A simple example is touch, which
will likely be deployed in new areas of the device. Apps will take
advantage of these additions, but will also stimulate the need and
eventual deployment of other sensors specifically designed to cre-
ate a richer app-enabled experience.
Going Beyond Search and Retrieve
One reason apps have been successful in the marketplace is be-
cause they perform well-defined tasks. In many cases this involves
retrieving or delivering information. At a very fundamental level,
even apps like games are simply delivering and retrieving informa-
tion. But apps have the potential to go beyond the simple search
and retrieval of information. Today apps perform their well-de-
fined task when the user engages the app. But other app platforms
are taking a different approach. For example, the Chumby app
platform streams through a series of apps pre-designated by the
user. The Chumby platform streams information and content
across a series of apps, but the fundamental purpose is not to
retrieve specific data or information as do apps on many other app
platforms. As apps mature, we will also see more intelligence built
into the app.
BEYOND MOBILE DEVICES, FINAL THOUGHTS
One of the primary benefits of apps is the ability to alter the device
into something outside of its primary functionality. A mobile
phone becomes a video game device, a concierge, a cookbook or
magazine. The success of apps is driving them to other devices
like printers and televisions. When the Internet first surfaced on
mobile devices, developers focused on browsers because it was the
most successful consumer use-case of the Internet at the time.
Apps are successful on mobile devices because they allow the user
to transform the device into something more relevant for a given
situation: taking into account elements like time and location.
For apps to be the most successful deployment of the Internet on
devices outside of mobile phones, they must accomplish this same
fundamental achievement. They must turn the television, printer
or other device into something with more meaning and context
than existed sans the app.
The future of apps is still being defined. Apple recently provided
additional guidance to app developers and many of these guide-
lines directly and indirectly address issues raised here as central to
the future of apps. For example, to combat discovery failures and
ensure apps can create value positions, Apple provided developers
with the following direction. “If your app doesn’t do something
useful or provide some form of lasting entertainment, it may
not be accepted.” Apple continued, “If your app looks like it was
cobbled together in a few days, or you’re trying to get your first
practice app into the store to impress your friends, please brace
yourself for rejection. We have lots of serious developers who don’t
want their quality apps to be surrounded by amateur hour.” Finally,
“Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected,
particularly if there are many of them.”
The future of apps will continue to impact and define the consum-
er technology industry as we know it. Importantly, the ability of
apps to impact how we use or don’t use other technology devices
continues to grow. The radius of influence goes beyond just the de-
vice a given app is loaded on. Apps will also increasingly influence
elements like advertising and hardware specs. The future of apps
will be defined by an iterative process because app development is
continuous building on the innovations and insights provided by
apps already in the market. n
29
 ARE WE DRIVING TECHNOLOGY OR IS IT
DRIVING US?
By Mark Chisholm and Carolyn Slater
T
he inspiration for this chapter of Five Technology Trends to
Watch is the classic chicken and egg question. There is no
doubt that humans, as individuals and as societies (lo-
cal, national and global) are going through unprecedented rapid
changes brought on by a number of factors including economic,
environmental, territorial and technological. Technology is of
course the most relevant category to this publication, although the
other factors also play a part. This begs the question, are we chang-
ing technology to suit us or, is technology changing us? These
changes are reflected in how we conduct our daily lives, how we
learn, work, shop, stay healthy, read, exercise, entertain, travel and
even how we leave a digital legacy.
The first section looks at technologies and how we are adapting
them to better suit us and our lifestyles as well as the concepts of
ownership, privacy and security and how they could affect future
30 evolutions of these technology trends.
The second section delves in to the changes the technology has
wrought in us, the human race. This section also reviews some
expert opinions on how this trend could continue in the next 40
years or so and what the future might look like as a result.
Who’s the master of our future – us or technology? We challenge
you to read on and decide.
OUR EFFECT ON TECH: MOBILITY
In the same way technology affects our lifestyles, changes in our
lifestyles influence innovation, creating opportunities for new
technologies and trends. New platforms created for innovation are
evidenced by the rise of mobile devices, including 3G-, 4G- and
geolocation-equipped smartphones as well as notebook and tablet
computers.
As these devices became more capable, users became accustomed
to moving their work and entertainment between their home,
work and portable devices. New platforms and technologies
emerged to take advantage of these shifting needs.
PORTABILITY AND DIGITAL RIGHTS
MANAGEMENT
As the technological capabilities of smartphones continue to in-
crease, consumers can accomplish more while on the move, thanks
to a number of low-cost applications (apps) for smartphones
such as the iPhone, BlackBerry and Android-based devices. As the
smartphone app market blossoms, content owners and developers
are discovering new ways to monetize their products.
A recent mobile development is iAds from Apple, which debuted
with Apple iOS 4 for the iPhone, iPod and iPad devices and allows
third-party application developers to embed advertising within its
(often free) applications. In a world of low-to-no-cost apps, devel-
opers now have a way to offer ad-supported versions of their work.
Another aspect of the app trend is portability – when a consumer
purchases media or software for a portable device, they increasing-
ly can use their purchase on other compatible devices. In the case
of Apple’s iPod, iPhone and iPad trio, a user’s purchases are tied to
their iTunes account, allowing them to purchase a song, video or
app and access it on the other devices they own. This portability
presents both opportunities and challenges to traditional digital
rights management (DRM) schemes. Even before the introduc-
tion of the iPad, the iPod and iPhone witnessed the departure of
DRM schemes on music purchases from the iTunes Music Store
when the protected AAC music format was eliminated in favor of
unprotected AAC in April of 2009.
The evolution of consumers’ expectations of content portability
does not spell the end of days for DRM. In much the same manner
as tying a user’s purchase to an iTunes account to make the content
accessible across multiple devices, many DRM systems focus on
offering the consumer device portability in exchange for tying
content to a user’s account. Take Valve Software’s content delivery
platform Steam, for example, which provides digital delivery of
more than 1,100 video games to over 25 million active accounts.
When launched in 2003, the platform was one of the first to
require online authentication. In exchange, users can access their
games, settings and save files on multiple computers and operat-
ing systems (provided the user’s account information is provided),
as well as the option to back-up games to recordable media. In
addition, Steam offers an ‘Offline Mode’ for users once initially au-
thenticated and updated. This form of ownership will continue to
grow. In September, research firm NPD reported that download-
able game sales had surpassed their physical counterparts. Expect
to see this pattern repeat for other content industries.
Portability is proving to play a major role in the balancing act
between DRM systems and benefits to the user. If too many restric-
tions are imposed without offering consumers benefits, backlash
is certainly possible. One of video game publisher Ubisoft’s more
recent titles, Assassin’s Creed 2, shipped with a restrictive, always-on
DRM system that (not unlike Steam) required the user to authen-
ticate before playing. The system offered little benefit to consum-
ers, and when Ubisoft’s authentication servers crashed just days
after the game’s release, users were left with an unplayable game
for a period of time. The resulting backlash convinced Ubisoft to
instead use Steam’s platform for one of its next titles, R.U.S.E.
Portability continues to play a role in DRM. At times, it is the
absence of sufficient portability that keeps the discussion going.
Prohibitive install limits, which allow the user to install software
a specific number of times before needing the permission of the
publisher to continue, caused a controversy surrounding the
much-anticipated title Spore from Electronic Arts and developer
Maxis. The balancing act between consumer benefits and restric-
tions runs the risk of violating the user’s sense of ownership.
A user’s sense of ownership, whether for a mobile app, a piece of
software or a video game, will continue to be an important aspect
of the relationship between content and technology going forward.
For example, Electronic Arts is experimenting with what it calls the
“EA Online Pass”. Under this system, purchasers of new copies of
EA sports games are provided a one-time use code to unlock the
multiplayer aspects of their game. This system is intended to dis-
suade potential customers from purchasing a used version of the
software, a case in which the publisher sees reduced profits. Those
who buy the software used are able to purchase a new EA Online
Pass code for $10. Though the system is not intended to disrupt
the experience of users who buy the software new, unintended
restrictions remain present. Because a portion of the software is
tied to a user’s account, purchasers of new titles find themselves
unable to play a game at a friend’s house, or use it across multiple
accounts on the same console. In addition, the resale value of the
software is immediately diminished.
These concepts of digital ownership have led the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) to form a working
group with the intention of creating a standard for digital personal
property. The P1817 Standard for Consumer-Ownable Digital Per-
sonal Property working group, formed in mid-2010, will focus on
making digital content emulate its physical counterpart – protect-
ing both the intellectual property of content owners and the fair
use and first-sale rights of consumers. As explained by the IEEE,
consumers would receive both an encrypted copy of the content
and a “playkey” that would be compatible across devices as well as
transferrable to a third-party if the original purchaser wishes.
Whether an industry standard is achieved, or content owners con-
tinue the DRM balancing act, consumers expectations of owner-
ship will be an issue – one that portability will affect.
GEOLOCATIONAL SECURITY
Consumers’ increased reliance on mobility has had another strong
effect on technology – creating the booming market for location-
based services. Richard Lynch, executive vice president and chief
technology officer for Verizon, maintains that one-quarter of U.S.
wireless phone users have used a location-based service. A slew of
new geolocation-centric applications for smartphones have been
developed thanks to platforms such as Google’s Google Maps API.
As opposed to proprietary maps, these development platforms of-
fer developers and users access to location-based information at a
low-cost of entry. The popularity of location-based services can be
seen in such cases as Foursquare and the new Facebook Places. Ted
Morgan of Skyhook Wireless explains that the number of location-
related apps for smartphones is expected to climb from 10,000 to
50,000 this year.
Location-aware services provide capabilities that embolden a user’s
security but they also present new risks. For example, Google’s
geolocation security feature created for its popular email service
Gmail. In a blog post, Google engineering director Pavni Diwanji
explained how the feature matched a user’s IP address to a broad
geographical location, in order to help detect suspicious activity.
31
Consumers’ desire for security and privacy is fueling technological
developments, especially in the mobile sector when location-based
services are involved. For example, Apple’s recently discovered
patent filings pointing to a remote kill switch for the iPhone also
rely partially on GPS location. The patent filing, titled “Systems
and Methods for Identifying Unauthorized Users of an Electronic
Device” describes using voice and face recognition, in addition to
location, to detect unauthorized use. In the case of a stolen
smartphone – a user or service provider could disable the device
remotely. While such technology may provide some piece of mind
for smartphone owners, it also presents its own potential abuses,
such as unauthorized third-parties disabling the device.
Users’ willingness to be located presents a number of opportuni-
ties to developers and users, but also presents threats to both users’
security. Expect this area to be a hotspot for both innovation and
discussions of digital privacy going forward.
IS TECHNOLOGY REWIRING OUR BRAINS?
“Is Google Making us Stupid?” The title of Nicholas Carr’s article
in The Atlantic, asserts that technology (not just Google) has, and
is changing us profoundly. Carr reports a feeling that someone
or something has been tinkering with his brain “remapping the
neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory”. He finds it harder
to read a book or even a long article, and finds his attention drifts
after two or three pages, in addition to constantly feeling the urge
to multi-task and check e-mail.
 The amount of information instantly at our fingertips on the Web
is mind-blowing and may literally be re-wiring our brain. We no
longer have to learn, memorize and retain facts for future use –
such as taking exams or presenting. Along with not being able to
concentrate, Carr also reports finding it harder to contemplate. As
he vividly puts it, “My mind now expects to take in information
the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of par-
ticles. Once I was a scuba diver in a sea of words. Now I zip along
the surface like a guy on a jet ski.”
Carr makes the case that with our skimming of information on the
Internet and abbreviated communication forms such as mobile
text messaging, we likely read more today than in previous decades
but it’s a different kind of reading and it leads to a different kind of
thinking.
According to a survey of 1,200 eReader owners by Marketing
and Research Resources Inc. , 40 percent reported reading more
than they did with print books, 58 percent said they read about
the same as before and only two percent said they read less than
before. So even though how we read and what we read may be
changing, the intake of information from the written word is not
diminishing with technology.
Carr cites Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist and
author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Read-
ing Brain, who explains that reading is not an instinctive skill for
humans in the way that speech is. We have to teach our minds how
to translate characters we see into understandable language. Ex-
periments have shown that languages that use ideograms (Chinese
32 for example) develop a different mental circuitry for reading than
those who read alphabet-based languages. Therefore it’s possible
that reading, watching and listening to information via the Inter-
net is indeed causing changes in the brains circuitry.
While you may not agree with Carr’s theme that this new way
of taking in information, or the “rewiring” of our brains is a bad
thing, it is hard to dispute that it is, in fact, occurring. And this is
no long term evolutionary step, it’s happening in our lifetimes.
DRAMATIC CHANGES IN EDUCATION AHEAD
There has been much speculation on how technology is changing
education – especially with the presence of laptops and smart-
phones almost obligatory in the lecture room now. An October
2008 report from the Intelligence Unit of The Economist titled:
“The Future of Higher Education: How Technology Will Shape
Learning” sums up the report findings: “As an agent of immense
change, technology has heralded our present knowledge economy
and given rise to a generation of students who have never known
life without a computer”. Because of this, universities around the
world are making significant changes in their operations, execution
and their vision of education.
The key changes that are predicted, or are already taking place at
some institutions because of technology are:
• Distance and/or online education will become more common-
place. This means that college campuses will become multi-
dimensional – both physical and virtual.
• Online courses and degrees will gain further credibility and attain
equal regard with conventional degrees, both within the academic
world and by employers. This is already taking place in elite insti-
tutions such as Johns Hopkins and Stanford University.
• The globalization of education, with international alliances and
students being able to do study abroad without leaving their
room. There will also be more cooperation in terms of recogniz-
ing educational credits awarded by international universities.
It’s possible that everyone has the potential to become a “world
student”.
• With expanded access to educational and reference resources,
technology will allow students to become more engaged in con-
structing their own knowledge.
• The professor’s role will evolve from instructor to guide and
mentor. Education may realize it’s origin from the Latin “e duco”
translation “to lead out” allowing knowledge and insight to flow
out instead of forcing it in.
• Textbooks and printed documents will be replaced with online
materials and eBooks accessed via computer apps, mobile apps,
eReaders and tablet computers.
• There will be an increase in interdisciplinary majors such as
combining chemical engineering and environmental studies, as
well as more inter-university collaboration among students from
different schools.
• More universities will have chief information officers and chief
technology officers. Even the Federal Government now has a
CTO.
• With easy access to mobile technologies, universities have already
seen a rise in student distractibility and plagiarism. At the same
time, with specialized software programs and student papers
submitted electronically, it is easier for instructors to check for
plagiarism.
• The issue of student distraction from the brain learning to‘skim
rather than immerse’ could affect how lectures are conducted and
mean they become more interactive.
Interestingly enough The Economist’s report also refers to the
“re-wiring of education”. Notice the parallel with the re-wiring of
our brains referred to by Nicholas Carr?
TECHNOLOGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE
WORKPLACE
Our workplaces have changed more in the last 20 years than they
have in any other period of history as a result not only of the
devices we use but also the knowledge that we use to manipulate
and interact with them. According to a report from the Educause
Center for Applied Research (ECAR) dated January 2008, technol-
ogy will continue to significantly shape our future.
Some of these changes have come about by the infusion in to the
workforce of the so-called Gen Y, Gen X and Millenials. These
post-boomer individuals who grew up with technology, are not
intimidated by it, and use it to solve problems, communicate, col-
lect and share knowledge. They truly own technology and make
it work for them and this is reflected in the increased proportion
of the workforce being employed as knowledge workers. They
also lead the charge in terms of using devices, particularly mobile
devices, to stay connected everywhere, all the time.
Something we are already seeing and will continue to see acceler-
ate, is the use of telecommuting and virtual meetings and confer-
ences. As the world’s resources become scarcer and the time of
knowledge workers becomes more valuable, working from home
or satellite offices and attending meetings with coworkers or clients
online will be the norm rather than the exception.
Robots already carry out mundane service and assembly jobs as
well as those that are environmentally dangerous, like the recap-
ping efforts of the recent oil spill in the Gulf. Japan currently leads
the world in using robots to replace individuals in service capaci-
ties such as receptionists and healthcare aides – carrying out such
tasks as greeting visitors and lifting patients. Ray Kurzweil in his
The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology foresees
the next step of development in robotics will be the incorporation
of artificial intelligence, allowing robots to perform complex,
specialized and non-routine tasks - for example surgery. As people
become more comfortable with seeing robots in the workplace
household robots will become available to carry out domestic tasks
beyond just the basic vacuuming the Roomba currently offers.
According to an article by the World Future Society, in university
labs at the moment Brain-Computer Interfacing or “Brainpower”
is a hot topic. Scientists and engineers are developing ways to con-
trol technologies such as computers and robots by thoughts. Even-
tually consumers may see a brain computer interfacing at work in
computers and mobile devices, eliminating the need for keypads,
touchpads and voice recognition. It will also likely become a fea-
ture of electronic gaming.
Environmental issues will become more critical to future tech-
nological advances. Green-fueled developments including use of
alternative or recycled materials in manufacturing, harnessing
energy sources in daily life such as solar panels on houses, cars and
clothing and new ways of storing energy, such as breakthroughs in
the development of batteries, will drive the industry going forward.
There is no doubt that it will be technology that will allow us to
change the way we use and conserve world resources while con-
tinuing to develop new technologies.
TECHNOLOGY: FIRST AND LAST
Every aspect of our lives is now so closely intertwined with tech-
nology that it may be impossible to determine whether we are
driving technology or it is driving us. With each successive genera-
tion using technology routinely from an earlier age, this relation-
ship will grow forever closer as to soon be indistinguishable.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OR SOURCES
1 Valve Corp., “Steam Realizes Extraordinary Growth”store.steam-
powered.com/news/3390/
2 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers , grouper.ieee.
org/groups/1817/
3 Wireless Developer Network, “Location-Based Applications
Driving Innovation in Wireless” wirelessdevnet.com/news/2010/
aug/19/news5.html
4 Ibid
5 Gmail Blog, “Detecting suspicious account activitiy” gmailblog.
blogspot.com/2010/03/detecting-suspicious-account-activity.
html
6 Apple, “Apple Keeps Advancing Portable Device Security” pa-
tentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/08/apple-keeps-advancing-
33
portable-device-security.html
7 The Atlantic “Is Google Making Us Stupid? theatlantic.com/mag-
azine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868
8 Proust and the Squid The Story and Science of the Reading Brain;
Wolf, Maryanne harpercollins.com/books/Proust-Squid-Mary-
anne-Wolf/?isbn=9780060186395
9 The Wall Street Journal “The ABCs Of E-Reading; New Devices
Are Changing Habits” online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748
703846604575448093175758872.html?mod=djkeyword
10 The Economist Intelligence Unit “The Future of Higher Educa-
tion: How Technology Will Shape Learning” nmc.org/pdf/
Future-of-Higher-Ed-(NMC).pdf
11 Educause Center for Applied Research “How Technology Will
Shape Our Future: Three Views of the Twenty-First Century” net.
educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0802.pdf
12 The World Future Society “Prospects for Brain-Com-
puter Interfacing beta.wfs.org/content/prospects-
brain%E2%80%93computer-interfacing-0 n