TVii vs iTV

Simple for the Consumer

One of the big complaints retailers have with consumer electronics is that they can be complicated. Much of the technology development in TV sets has been in the form of attachments rather than developments in the set itself. As a result, the consumer is left with numerous boxes connected to their TV set and that can be connected to each other in a variety of ways. Though as long as audio is connected to audio, video to video, and signal out is plugged into signal in the system will work, it may not work well. Additionally, as there is no central control switching from one content source to another can be confusing. Smart remotes have been offered by companies such as Logitech and Acoustic Research that automate source changing; however these tend to require even more A/V skills to program initially. Google TV also offered some advanced capability in switching media, but has not been much of a success to this point.

Now comes Nintendo with a device that promises to make source switching very simple. It is agnostic with respect to content provider and provides additional services that form the basis of new usage models for watching TV. The new Nintendo game controller has a relatively large touch screen that can be used as a second POP screen (Picture outside of Picture) or provide additional information such as what happened in the show before you tuned in. Sounds great.

The Nintendo controller interfaces directly with the boxes around your TV through the a traditional IR interface. As bits of the technology get emulated on other platforms such as as a smartphone or tablet App, the recently buried IR interface might find its way back onto smartphones and perhaps into digital signage as well. The availability of a touchpanel system control might also further spur the consolidation of home theater attachments back into the TV, the controller,or into existing only as a service such as what is already happening to the DVR and optical drive.

There have been numerous rumors of a new Apple branded TV set ushering new paradigms for TV watching. Baring a substantially different direction by Apple, they may be loosing their "first mover" status in TV set usage innovation. This new product by Nintendo might spark a round of innovation in the industry ahead of the launch of any Apple branded TV set. Certainly the names GamePad and TVii seem to be making a statement. The 6.2" screen of the GamePad put it between the smallest tablets and the largest cell phones. Emulating this kind of functionality in a cell phone sized screen might not work well. The device also has Near Field Communications (NFC) which was anticipated but not found on the iPhone 5. NFC may facilitate on the spot purchase of content or user identification for restricted content. The device shows a great deal of both creativity and and business acumen.

My Take on the iPhone 5

Fundamentally there are only 5 things that you can do with information (process, transmit, store, sense, display). As an information device, here is a quick run-down on the changes embodied in the iPhone 5.

Process: The new iPhone as a 2X faster processor.

Transmit: LTE capability was added, but no Near Field Communications (NFC) as was rumored.

Store: The camera is faster which may be improved flash memory or an improved imager. In any case it is still built in memory only with that built in memory mark up.

Sense: The iPhone has better camera (in addition to being faster, more spatial resolution and better image stabilization).

Display: The speakers (a form of display) have been improved and noise cancelling added to the earpiece. The display itself has been improved in numerous ways some of which may or may not be apparent to the consumer. The display is bigger has 326 dpi spatial resolution, reported “better color fidelity” which I assume means higher chromatic resolution. Not mentioned in today’s reports but reported earlier, the screen should have better motion response as well.

Other
Packaging: Beyond its information handling capability, the new iPhone has better packaging. The screen now comes in a 16:9 format, a wider aspect ratio than the previous iPhone. It seems that the designers wanted a bigger screen but the phone still had to fit well in the hand, so the screen was narrowed at the same time it was made bigger. Traditionally, Apple has preferred 16:10 for its computing devices being able to show a 16:9 image with a control bar at the bottom. The control bar is probably unnecessary for a phone. The screen is thinner, contributing to a thinner overall device. The camera also has a sapphire lens, probably more for improved scratch resistance than optics.
Content: A new iOS is coming and some changes to iTunes.

Conclusion
From a display perspective, as I have noted in other articles, it really takes 2 dimensions to describe a screen size, either an aspect ratio and diagonal, or height and width. Vizio ran into some criticism for its Cinema-wide sets for giving the identical information, screen diagonal and aspect ratio. In considering the palm size, Apple has decided that screen width is relevant to the consumer but continues in the traditional pattern of reporting a diagonal. It wouldn’t be a bad thing if the industry just started describing screen size with height and width. As to the other aspects of the screen, there are numerous improvements but probably with diminishing returns for the consumer in terms of visual quality. Packing in more pixels to the display diminishes battery life and if the display is already at the resolution limit of the viewer, there is not much to be gained but bragging rights. At some point, to show more visually complex content, a bigger display is needed, but the phone still must remain a hand held device. As a branding focus, the emphasis is shifting away from the display until some other aspect of the display becomes a marketing focus, a common event in the TV world where one season it is brightness, the next contrast, and so on.

The Microsoft Holodeck

Microsoft has filed a patent on an immersive display system that projects images on the walls around you in addition to the main image on the screen. Though the intent of the technology seems to be for gaming, if it is successful, it could find more general entertainment uses. The concept has some history, both successful and not. Before there was unlimited computing power, flight simulators used to monitor the direction of gaze of the pilot and generate high resolution imagery in front of him and much lower resolution in his or her periphery. The pilots could never tell that everything was not in high resolution. For the purposes of Microsoft's gaming technology, it would not be possible to shift the high resolution image to the wall beside you but it could very well give much more of the feel of being in the place rather than watching it on a screen.

Philips had previously launched a much less ambitious version of this called Ambilight where the the TV merely projected colors from the image to the wall around it. It did not have much impact on the market. I believe that it was not substantial enough. However, coupled with beam-steered speakers, the Microsoft innovation could offer a compelling experience. The technology needs a dark room with acceptable geometry and acceptable colors, however it is somewhat like 3D in that it may take some creative art in using it effectively. I would imagine that effects that start away from the main screen and draw your eye forward would be more effective than effects that would actually cause you to turn your head. I also imagine focusing the effects on the ceiling (always there, usually white)would be more effective that counting on bare walls around the set.

Black and White E-readers are Here to Stay

Like Rock and Roll, Black and White is here to stay, at least according to the recent NY Times article. The article was paraphrasing Jeff Bezos. However in an interview after the event at which the NY Times was reporting, Mr. Bezos seemed to say a more reasonable, “black and white displays will be around for a while to come”.

To be sure, a lot of trade-offs must be made in going to a color display. They are necessarily more complex, but more importantly for mobile devices, they consume multiples more power and the current generation of LCDs has no sunlight viewability capability at all. The first portable computers were monochrome. The Data General One (lunchbox configuration) had a monochrome LCD that was barely visible at all. The loss of brightness to do color made color out of the question then. The first notebook configuration PC, the Grid, had a red on black plasma screen. Plasma had no color capability then and the power consumption of that display made the Grid much more of a transportable than a mobile device. The original Compaq transportable had a monochrome CRT (green on white). Color CRTs were available and the power consumption did not matter as it was a plug-in device, but there was no color content in the PC world. This also meant that most monitors where monochrome as well being either green on black or amber on black.

The selection of a colored font (green or amber) rather than white on black was made for human factors reasons. Black on White, the paper paradigm, was also not used. In the eye, the cones (the color receptors) are in the center of the eye while the rods (the black and white receptors) are concentrated in the periphery of the eye. This arrangement is for very good primal reasons; in the dark you still want to have good peripheral vision to spot any sort of threat. In brighter environments you rely on your color vision. In an office environment using colored font is easier on the eyes. Color also provides chromatic contrast in addition to the brightness contrast of a white on black font. Pen on paper was inherently monochrome as adding color added significantly to the complexity and hence expense of reproducing handwritten documents. When the printing press was invented, the use of color blossomed but monochrome still tended to rule for cost constrained documents such as newspapers and paperback books. The image above is from a Gutenberg Bible.

Similar to the invention of the printing press, electronic word processing pioneered development of color. Information such as emphasis and misspellings were highlighted with color. This initial development of color content did away with monochrome computer monitors and subsequently with monochrome notebooks. In the early development of LCDs, yields on LCD arrays were low and yields on LCD color filters were even lower. A combination of increased yields and lower raw materials costs lead to color and monochrome LCDs equilibrating in price in the early 1990’s. Monochrome still had a substantial power consumption advantage. The color filter in an LCD disposes of about 2/3rds of the light coming from an LCD and powering the display is generally about half of the power consumption of a mobile device. So going to a color display meant about a 1/3rd reduction in batter life. However, once color was cost competitive with monochrome, color notebooks went from being about 20% of the market to about 95% of the market in about 9 months. The consumer was clearly stating their preferences.

Notably, Apple was the last to get rid of its monochrome notebook line. Steve Jobs had been an investor in a start-up that was developing a new kind of display technology. A friend of mine that saw an example said that it was monochrome and actually quite advanced for its time. However, perhaps it did not have a path to do color. Early on, some were writing Plasma off until it developed a means to do color. In any case, perhaps Mr. Jobs involvement with developing a monochrome display lead to the company holding on for monochrome for too long. When there was wide availability of color based software, color content, the transition to color in mobile computing was swift and absolute.

As noted above, color LCDs still have their issues with non-existent sunlight viewability and high power consumption as compared with digital paper such as the E-Ink displays in some Kindles. Although, I’m sure the E-Ink folk are gratified by the NY Times headline, I’m just as sure they are not going to stop working on color. However, Mr. Bezos may be right in that it might be a while. When the transition of notebooks from monochrome to color happened, color ranges were limited and color resolution was only 8 bits (that is 8 bits spread between red green and blue, not 8 bits per color)…. And, there was no need to do video refresh rates. Today, consumers have gotten used to color fidelity that is as good as their eyes can discern. A technology that only generates pastels might not be worth the power hit. Beyond that, there is the challenge of doing video refresh rates in a bi-stable display.

Conclusion
The statement that “Black and White is here to Stay” may be a bit overblown. Consumer’s preference for color is natural and overwhelming. They were unanimously willing to give up 30% of battery life to get color in notebooks. Perhaps they were willing to give even more. However, the power advantage of the paper-white display is much more than that.