Cord-Cutting: Apple TV Channels Coming This Year

With HBO Go on board, Apple is on the verge of debuting its own TV service supposedly with around 25 channels for about $40.  This is as concrete as we are going to get given years of rumors and, frankly, disappointment.

According to Wall Street Journal (via Cult of Mac), Apple has lined up major networks like ABC, Fox, and CBS.  Considering how long it has taken and subscribers already with Sling TV as a choice at $20 a month and 14 channels, it might not be that great a deal.  And furthermore, from what we can tell, it's not "cord-cutter" friendly.

A lot can still change between now and this year's Worldwide Developers Conference, supposedly when Apple will unveil the service.  However, if history is any indication, it's unlikely Apple will pick the WWDC for this unveiling as Apple tend to want to focus on iOS and OS X during the conference.

If Apple does unveil its streaming TV service, it'll likely be in the fall when Apple updates iOS devices like the iPhone 6S and iPad.

What channels are we likely to see?  Based on Sling TV's service, ESPN and a few Disney properties are likely on board.  If CBS is a part of the deal, perhaps Comedy Central might be a part of it.  You can't have a package without CNN.  And as for Fox, perhaps the FX network.

Also, in addition to being HBO Go's exclusive launch partner, Apple may be offering an online version of Showtime, a property of CBS.

Which we are unlikely to see consumers giving the ability to subscribe to channels that they want, what Apple and Sling TV are offering could be the next best thing.  A small subset of popular channels with value-added packages depending on what the subscribers want to watch.

Is this a good thing?  Absolutely.  Slow but surely, consumers will have more choices and competition in the market as we move closer to the death of the current TV and cable models.

Mobile: A Windows Tablet For Less Than $50, Cheaper Than An Actual Copy of Windows

Source:  Digital Reader.

Windows tablet for $48?  A good deal?  Before we get into that, I like to share a little story regarding my Nexus 7 and my Windows tablet experience.

I dropped my Nexus 7 on New Year's Day and, despite having a case, the screen spider-webbed and the whole tablet was no longer usable because touch input no longer works.  After a busy couple of months, I went to Best Buy looking for a replacement.  I bought an Asus tablet, pretty much a successor to the Nexus 7 even though Google has not updated it last year.

While I was at Best Buy looking for the two dozen or so Android tablet, I became intrigued by few Windows tablets.  There were HP, Dell, Toshiba, Acer, and even Asus.  And they were priced competitively to the Android tablets.  Only Microsoft's own Surface variants cost more.  This came down largely to specs.

I spent some time with a $99 Dell tablet.  It was decent.  It was not a speedster and the built quality was on par with other tablets that cost between $99 to $200.

For a brief moment, I considered getting a Windows tablet instead of getting another Android device. Ultimately, I decided to go with my original plan and walked out with a new Asus tablet.

Why didn't I get one?  Well, I just did not see any compelling reason for getting a Windows tablet over an Android one.  In fact, there were quite a few apps that I use on Android that do not have a Windows version.

Now, this $48 Windows tablet.  It's a 7" tablet with a screen that screamed 2010 and subpar specs that would greatly degrade the performance and experience.

The DR post does not think a 7" screen works well with Windows.  I personally did not see any issues relating to the screen size.  Most of the tablets had higher resolutions than the 1024x600 resolution on this $48 Chinese tablet.

Even if Best Buy had offered this $48 tablet, I would not get one.  And it's for the same reasons why I would not get the $99 to $199 Windows tablet.  The experience would be subpar.

If you want a real Windows tablet, you're better off getting the Surface from Microsoft that costs about ten times more.

Blogging Is Alive And Well But Old World Pressures Still Apply Especially If You Take Investor Money

Gigaom, by all accounts, is a very popular tech blog and many assumed that they were doing well.  There are plenty of eyeballs on the Internet so it was surprising to hear that they closed down.  What was interesting was that it came suddenly, without warning, and even its employees had no idea that was coming.

So, what happened?  Well, there was a flurry of posts about it but the gist was that they took venture money rather than grow organically.  By taking on investors, there is always an urgency to deliver.  And by whatever metrics used, Gigaom did not measure up.

However, blogging is alive and well.  There are plenty of sites and blogs out there, including this one. It's important to understand there is a difference between blogging for the love of the subjects and blogging for profit.

In the aftermath, I think the sudden closure of Gigaom has given many notice and not just to bloggers.  You're going to hear a lot of people, writers, entrepreneurs, and developers all talk about organic growth.  In fact, that has already happened as some developers talked about not taking VC money and growing based on the merit of their products and services.

It's ironic given that in 2008, Gigaom pushed a post on how small app developers (casual gamers) can survive the Great Recession.  It's too bad that they did not write an article on how a tech news site like itself can survive VCs.

Green: Warming Gas, Carbon Dioxide, Level in 2014 Same as 2013 Despite Booming Economy

Source:  New Scientist.This isn't really a tech or social media story that I normally like to share about Apple, Google, and others but the news that carbon dioxide emissions in 2014 was the same as the previous year is pretty significant.  And in some part, it has to do with alternative energy sources that came only despite a growing global economy.

The only times this has happened were during economic slowdowns experienced in the early 80s, the recession of 1992, and the Great Recession in 2009. While researchers at Tyndall Institute for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK had expected a 2.3% increase in carbon emission, changing energy use and patterns should have alerted them to the possibility that carbon increase should slow dramatically. 

As dirty as China is, renewable energy use is increasing in the Middle Kingdom while coal use is down.  Furthermore, tempered growth in China is also contributing to the carbon level in 2014 equaling that of the previous year. 

It's just one year and the trend is continuing carbon increases.  But the level in 2014 showed that it does not have to be this way.  Fortune 500 companies like Apple, Google, and Walmart have taken the lead combating global warming by switching over the solar, wind, and other renewable sources of energy. 

Furthermore, energy consumption of coal and oil is down in the United States as well.  This is despite the fact that gas prices have down come in the last year.  If we can put together a string of 4-6 years of lower carbon emission, who knows.  Perhaps that might be enough to reverse some of the warming effects.

And maybe in five years, a March day in Los Angeles like today won't be in the 90s and we'll start getting more rains and snow cover in the local mountains. 

Social: Blowing Millions, Another Pro Down And Out

Source:  Bleacher Report.

I am always sorry when I hear folks down on their luck.  I know people like that and I have been like that.  Now, another former NBA player blew millions and is now forced to work at McDonald's.  Somehow, he blew away nearly $4.4 million in earings from his basketball career. 

Most folks will never make close to that kind of money in their life time.  I know I won't. 

It all comes down to maturity and financial intelligence.  Too many of us lack one or both of that.  Again, myself included. 

If you want to watch a documentary about former professional athletes who ended up destitute, you should look at ESPN's "Broke". It's heart breaking to see stars who used to cheer talking about all the bad investments, irrational spending, and not saving for retirement. 

Of course, it is not just athletes.  There are those in Hollywood and the music industry who went through the same thing.  One day, you're making millions and the next day, it's all gone. 

Intel Profit Warning: What Is Going On? More People Going Mobile And Less PC

It's been confirmed over the last year that tablet sales have been down.  So, does that mean PC sales are up?  Well, Mac sales are but the larger PC market is still stagnating.  Hence, Intel's warning.  So, what is exactly going on here?  What are the billions of people doing their computing on? 

For the most part, people are holding on to their computers and tablets longer.  The upgrade cycle has become longer largely because today's computers and tablets are so powerful.  While Microsoft struggles to stimulate demand for next version of Windows, Windows 10, it certainly has not help with the computer buying cycle.

When Intel warned that its outlook was not as rosy as stated, an interesting thing happened.  Microsoft and other tech companies associated with the PC market lost value while other tech giants like Apple and Google rose.  It spoke volumes about where the future is headed when Microsoft manages to stem the the PC market from bleeding for a peroid with Windows 10.  If anything, Micrisoft could be look to continue its Windows brand beyond PC and double its effort in mobile and tablet markets where it is barely a blip.

Furthermore, it does not help with Lenovo, Intel and Microsoft partners, install spyware in their laptops. 

As for Intel, it's multi-year plan to move beyond the PC and reinvent itself into a provider of mobile chips and services underscore again that more users while connected are doing so wireless on non-PC devices.

With over one billion Android devices sold and a couple of hundreds iOS devices sold in 2014, a vast major of them are not running Intel chips and Windows.  The question now is quickly and effectively can Intel, Microsoft, and the other PC guys pivot and become relevant again.

As consumers and mobile warriors, we want more competition and wish them luck.

If Apple Can Bring Innovation and Disruption To the Auto Industry, None of the Arguments For or Against Matter

This post from Boy Genius Report rehashed many of the reason why Apple is not likely to develop its own car.  The most talked about reason why Apple will not develop its own car is because of the historically low margin the auto industry has selling each car while Apple's products enjoy margins might higher.

If margin is more of an issue than the billions that Apple will likely make from selling cars, then that is correct.  It should also mean that Apple should get rid of some products with margins that are dragging down the iPhone.  Apple's crack team of executives have thought about this and will adjust the company as well as Wall Street accordingly. 

As far as margins go, Apple would make sure it can at least match if not exceeed the 15% margin that Porchse is pulling in and at least twice that of most luxuary brands. 

The other argument is the number of models Apple is likely to put out compared to BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, and other high-end cars.  Telsa has only a couple of models.  Except for a few hiccups, it's doing quite well.  And on top of that, it has long-term plans in the works that should help the company stay lean and ahead of its competitors.  Apple with much more resources could manage at least that.

Then there is the argument that make a couple of extra billion dollars a year won't interest Apple.  Seriously?  If Apple looked at the number and auto landscape and think it is worth the risk, an extra $2 billion a year is not something it'll walk away from. 

The best argument that I can think of against Apple entering the auto industry is innovation.  What can Apple bring to the car that no one else has beyond just CarPlay and how it can maintain any competitive advantage over other auto makers.  In the smartphone market, Apple maintained a couple of years lead with the iPhone in 2007 and the iPad later but the market quickly caught up.  While Apple has managed to earn the lion's share of the mobile profit, the auto market is a different take altogether. 

So, it is not about margin and how much profit Apple can earn by selling cars.  It's about innovation and disruption of the auto industry and bringing a level of innovation that the auto companies have not faced in decades.  Even with the Model S, Tesla isn't quite putting the fear of Steve Jobs in GM, Ford, or BMW.  But Tim Cook and Apple can. 

And Apple has one advantage no automakers has, not even Telsa or Mercedes.  Apple's rich cult fans.  Period.

Still, I'm skeptical.  But I'm not Tim Cook and no one else is. Only he and a few at Apple knows whether it is worth the risk of developing and selling an Apple car.