Retail Conversations

scott magoon's retail conversations 

Barnes and Noble's Nook and e-book lending

The book-lending feature is The Social. How many Nook owners are likely to know any others? It’s a nice feature, but it’s not one that they should spend much time marketing.

Marco grounds the breathless coverage of the B&N Nook e-book reader with some usability observations. Book "lending" is the kind of feature that gets me excited in pre-release spec talk, but is likely to disappoint in usage. I'll reserve judgement, but comparisons to the Zune's song "squirting" feature seem apt. The Zune was The Social in the sense that you could share songs with other Zune users you knew. In other words you couldn't.

Disney reimagining mall retail stores as themed destinations

What else did Disney get from its purchase of Pixar? Steve Jobs' eye for retail.

The involvement of Mr. Jobs, the Apple chief executive who joined the Disney board with the 2006 acquisition of Pixar, is particularly notable. For the first time, Mr. Jobs’s fingerprints can be seen on Disney strategy, in the same way that he influenced the look and feel of Apple’s own immensely popular retail chain. While Mr. Jobs did not personally toil on the Imagination Park concept, he pushed Disney to move far past a refurbishment.

Disney has had a difficult history in mall-based retail. First, stuffing stores with character based merchandise and then over-expanding. They eventually closed stores, sold the whole operation off, and finally bought back the rights.

With this next go-round they are planning it from the start as a themed destination rather than a collection of shelves holding products. It's hard to differentiate in physical retail space, but even harder to pull off a retail destination concept. Disney now has the benefit of Board member Steve Jobs, who shepherded Apple into retail against overwhelmingly dire predictions.

I think this is a good move all around. The time off from the mall gives Disney a chance to come back strong and re-connect with a new generation of parents and children. And now the Apple Store design philosophy will be infused in the DNA of the new Disney stores. Both that parent and child will likely be carrying iPods that they purchased at one of those mall Apple Stores.

Apple wants me to repurchase my iPod Games

Are you kidding me Apple? I previously purchased a few games through the iTunes Store for my iPod 30GB model. Now after a considerable frustration trying to load them onto my son's iPod nano (a clearly supported 4th generation current model) I don't seeing them appear as available in iTunes. I finally do a search to see if there is some known issue. There sure is an issue.

Note: Games previously purchased for iPod (5th generation) do not sync to iPod classic, iPod nano (3rd generation),  or iPod nano (4th generation), . If a game that you already purchased is available, you must repurchase the compatible iPod game to function on an iPod nano (3rd generation), iPod nano (4th generation), and iPod classic. For a list of iPod Games, visit the iTunes Store.

I have to repurchase the same game to load it onto another supported model of iPod! This is in contrast to one of the main advantages of the iPod-iTunes ecosystem - that content in my iTunes will "sync to an unlimited number of iPods." It's really disappointing.

To be clear, these are what are referred to in the iTunes Store as "iPod Click Wheel Games," and are not part of the App Store for the iPhone and iPod touch. They are for the most current generations of color screen, video-capable, iPods with click wheels. When I bought the games there was no indication that they would be for a particular model of iPod only. To be sure, I just put one into my iTunes shopping cart right now and it doesn't ask what kind of iPod it will be used on. But somehow when I used those purchased games on my iPod, iTunes then declared that I was forbidden from using them on the future iPod nanos I bought. The same program and all supported models of iPod, but Apple wants me to repurchase them for no logical reason. Really disappointing.

Is the iPod touch already Apple's "tablet" computer?

Om Malik asks, Is the iPod Touch a Bigger Game Changer Than the iPhone?

The iPod Touch is a lightweight, highly portable music and video player, communications and gaming platform and, if rumors are to be believed, its next generation will include a digital camera for stills and video — and maybe even VoIP, all over its Wi-Fi connection. That’s a lot of power from a $229 device.

My iPod touch is my favorite computing device. It's an excellent blend of portability and power for a content consuption device. As someone with multiple computers I prefer to use the right tool for the job. I do not type documents, edit spreadsheets, or even download music on my touch. I use it to view, listen, and watch content and it excels at those tasks. It's the most "personal" computer I have ever had.

Apple is perpetuating a “virtuous cycle,” as Gene Munster put it in a recent research note, to keep users on the iPod Touch — an improved version of the lock-in provided by the old iTunes/iPod music ecosystem. Users buy the iPod Touch; download apps; developers promote their apps (and the iPod Touch platform), which leads to more consumers buying the iPod Touch. Even better (for Apple), customers can only purchase apps through the company, leading to even more device lock-in.

iPod sales might be dropping, but Apple says half of new purchases of the device are to customers who have never owned one before.... iPod Touch owners could look to Apple when it’s time to buy their next computer.

And that leads me back to my previous prediction that Apple is going to build upon the model of touch-screen enabled devices tied to the App Store and iTunes. Their next in-between device (e.g., "tablet" computer) will grow upward from the iPod touch rather than downward from the MacBook line.

Gartner’s Slope of Mainstream Adoption

Gartner sure can dazzle us with aggregation of data, but this chart is way overkill for me.  I've used some of these technologies, skipped some others, followed the news about a few, and don't have a clue on the rest.  As a result this chart doesn't mean that much to me.  I can't track the "hype cycle" using an metric meaningful to me.  I strikes me as data for the sake of data.

 


On the other hand, the following is a joke but actually tells a story about online influencers that I understand.

People still listen to albums? I just don't get it.

I don't get why people are still buying and listening to whole albums.
 10 years into the digital music era (Napster -> iTunes/eMusic for me)
I now only get individual tracks. And even in cases where I own and
have ripped a CD to iTunes I only select a couple of songs to go onto
my iPod.

 The album concept is totally arbitrary. Why would we think that the
creativity of the human mind functions in such a way that all
musicians create coherent works that are 10-12 songs. It's an
artificial construct of the record industry. It's design is to make
people spend more than they did in the previous era defined by the
record single.

 Musicians create songs. Left to their own devices and without a
record company or a music industry (manufacture, distribution,
promotion, etc.) they would not make albums. They would just make a
song and when it was done they would play it. Just like people did
for 99.9999% of human history, before the recording industry invented
the LP album format.

 In fact when musicians do create large coherent works that are really
meant to be heard as one long session, those are longer than regular
albums. For example concept albums like The Wall or Quadrophenia, or
classical works (created before the album existed).

 Maybe I am the outlier here, but there is plenty of good music
available from a wide variety of artists. Why listen to the 12th best
song on one CD, which you know the artist included to fill the space,
when you could instead listen to the best song by another artist? To
me that's like eating a large bowl of pasta when instead you could try
12 different tapas.

Apple is not building a tablet computer. It is creating the ultimate closed computer platform.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting matter-of-factly that Apple is preparing a new tablet computer and that Steve Jobs himself is personally devoted to the project. But I doubt it. Apple is not going to make a tablet computer. At least not the type of computer we now know as a tablet. I think it is going to be something different. In fact I think Apple is preparing to rewrite business history.

Since his return in late June, the 54-year-old has been pouring almost all of his attention into a new touch-screen gadget that Apple is developing, said people familiar with the situation.

Those working on the project are under intense scrutiny from Mr. Jobs, particularly with regard to the product's advertising and marketing strategy, said one of these people. The people familiar with the matter declined to give details on the tablet or disclose when the device would come out.

 

For two decades business students have studied how Apple Computer's failure to license its operating system to "clone" hardware makers opened the way for Microsoft's rise to industry dominance. I believe that Apple is now going to release a computer platform more closed than ever and this time could succeed where the Mac did not - widespread adoption AND total control.

This new kind of computer will not be a netbook. It will not be a tablet computer. It will not have a physical keyboard. It will not run OS X. It will not run your applications.

It will likely run the iPhone OS and will not use the traditional desktop metaphor. It will get all of its applications from the App Store. It will be initially marketed as a media device, tied to iTunes just like the existing iPod line. But it will evolve into much more and eventually get versions of productivity apps. Picture a larger iPod touch. The payoff for Apple will be a new model where they have absolute control over software distribution. The productivity apps will be versions of Apple's own iWork suite. Apple will choose if they allow competitors in any app category. And they will get a cut of the sale price of every application. It will be more closed than the Mac ever was.

The overwhelming success of the App Store, despite some recent bad press over the approval process and certain rejections, has proven that market will accept a closed system. We are ready to give up a competitive open software market in exchange for a better user experience. This is legacy time for Steve Jobs. He has brought Apple back from irrelevance to industry dominance in new markets (music, phones, consumer electronics), but he still carries the burden of being a business school case study in how "open" beat "closed." Developing a new computer platform tied to Apple's software distribution system could be the ultimate re-write of history for Apple. All the pieces are in place, including (I think) the market's willingness to trade choice for usability.

 

 

Google is getting social

In another example of Google getting around to what Yahoo could have done five years ago, new "social gadgets" are now available on custom iGoogle pages.  Yahoo had everything in place to become what Facebook eventually did, and could have done it without the walled garden approach.  But of course they didn't.

Google seems to have added the annoyances features that make Facebook such a fun place to return to, such as:

  • Challenge your friends to games and track high scores across a group of players
  • Post my activities to updates
  • ... enter your friends' email addresses and click Share gadget

 

New blog

This is the obligatory first post where I test it out to see if
anything will actually appear. And so ...

 Hello, world!