The Film Rolls No More

When the IBM PC was introduced in the early 1980's the component cost of the 5 1/4" floppy drive was about $550. After some initial rapid cost reductions and a format change (with a capacity increase) around 1987, the device settled into a very regular 18% per year cost reduction. Although there were some attempts to expand the device capacity at the end of its life, the floppy basically relied on predictable annual cost reductions to remain on the PC platform. The image to the side is from an old technical paper of mine on integrated optics. Being partly a mechanical device and flash being made by photolithograpy, it was a matter of time before flash replaced the floppy; but floppies did not live that long and flash thumb drives are now used like floppies were although I am still waiting for AOL to start sending me dozens of free thumb drives in the mail. (Before net connections were standard, AOL used to send out its net connection software on floppy disk to anyone that they remotely thought might have a computer.)

Floppies were cheap enough to be considered free but lacked the capacity of a hard drive or tape. However, like tape, it was removable from the device and made for easy transfer of data from one machine to another. But therein lies the rub. Removable media are more a form of communications than they are of storage. Though the floppy was, in some ways competing with tape or a hard drive, the real competition was the internet. As files grew bigger and the internet grew more capable there was no longer any point to having a floppy disk. About the same time floppies were going away, optical discs (with a c) were on the rise. Optical discs were cheaper and much higher capacity. However, advancement of the internet and of wireless capacity has been relentless. Even the cheapest DVDs and Blu Rays today come with a WiFi connection standard and increasingly rarely get used to actually play discs.

Tape has disappeared as well. Hard drives were on a steeper cost curve and tapes inability to do random access did it in. AS on the PC platform, Tape's optical cousin, film, survived for much longer having inherently much higher data capacity. However,Fuji is now discontinuing its motion picture film business, shortly after Kodak announced its exit from the business as well. Although the decision may be credited to a general trend to have everything digital, end to end, it is really the low cost of digital transport rather than any cost advantage of digital storage. It was the combination of cheap hard drive storage and vanishingly small data delivery (as opposed to carting around 100 pound rolls of film) that spelled the end for film at the movie theater.

Film, of course, is not disappearing completely. Very high end theatrical projection such as Imax will continue as film is still top end as a theatrical display technology rather than as a communications or storage device. I earlier published a list of my favorite display related movies. There were only 9 in my top ten. Cinema Paradiso is my #10. Here's to film.

Fine

Brick and Mortar gets a Boost

Three recent stories give some solace for the brick and mortar (B&M) retailers: Showrooming Debunked By Sales Data: CEA, Sun Sets on Endless E-Commerce Summer as Sales Tax Comes to Amazon, LG Switching To A “One Price” On-Line Policy for HDTV, Blu-ray Players and More. The CEA data is a bit suspect as the internal figures given in the story don't reconcile. However, assuming that the CEA has it reasonably accurate, showrooming is not as big of a problem as was suspected, and the playing field between B&Ms and on-line has shifted in the B&Ms favor.

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.