When the USB standard was first devised, the world was largely PC-centric, and the people responsible for standards and compatibility only imagined PCs as "hosts", and everything else as "targets", which would be controlled by a host. Plugs were shaped differently to make sure people didn't plug hosts into hosts and targets into targets, and for a while, people used their printers, hard drives, and various peripherals without any trouble.
In the years since then, things have become more complicated. Millions of USB devices have been sold, many of which work both ways. Phones and tablets can be plugged into PCs for transferring data, but they can also control peripherals of their own.
Android-based smartphones and tablets have been able to address USB storage devices for a while now, thanks to an often-overlooked feature called USB On The Go. Since there's no space for a USB Type A host port (the common rectangular socket), the existing USB Type B target port must play a double role. Typical USB-OTG adapters have a Micro-USB plug on one end and a full size Type A socket on the other, allowing various devices to be plugged into them.
Not all devices support USB-OTG, and not all come with such adapters, so the feature has somewhat flown under the radar. If you ever wanted to use USB-OTG, you'd have to remember the adapter and let it dangle from your device. We'll soon have a common USB plug standard for all devices, eliminating the old host-target relationship, but until then, USB-OTG is going to remain inconvenient.
There is, however, an alternative. Manufacturers have been showing off pen drives with the "wrong" type of USB plug, which can be plugged directly into a device's Micro-USB port. Some of these even have both types of plug, so you can use them on PCs as well as portable devices.
Look and feel
Kingston's microDuo is exactly that. It lets you fill it up by plugging it into a PC like any other drive, and then access its contents on a smartphone or tablet. Kingston has published a list of devices on its website, and it is rather bare, so hopefully it will expand over time. The drive is thankfully quite tiny, so it won't stick out too much when plugged into a portable device.
The DataTraveler microDuo is available in 8, 16 and 32GB capacities, with a 64GB variant coming soon. We have a 32GB unit in for review today, and it does look rather attractive, with a champagne gold body and brown plastic cover. The microDuo is well crafted, and doesn't feel like the cheap throwaway USB drives that have become common today.
The plastic shroud covers the Micro-USB plug, while the full sized one is left exposed. It swivels a little over 90 degrees, which means it will stick out sideways when the drive is plugged into a Micro-USB port. You can pop the plastic off altogether, if you like.
There's also a little loop on the metal body for attaching a lanyard. Kingston includes a flimsy-looking thread loop with the microDuo, which most buyers will probably end up ignoring.
As far as pen drive size goes, the microDuo is quite tiny, which means it's unobtrusive when plugged into most devices, but also that it would be pretty easy to lose.
Performance
Using the microDuo is as easy as plugging it in. Different phones react differently to OTG devices, so while some might pop up helpful dialogs offering to play music or videos, others will require you to have a file manager app. In most cases, the drive shows up just like a microSD card would, and there's no difference in how you can copy files to and from it, save content, and play media.
We tested the Kingston DataTraveler microDuo using both its interfaces, using a Windows 8 laptop for the regular USB interface and a Windows 8 tablet with a native Micro-USB interface. We also tried it on a handful of Android smartphones.
We had absolutely no trouble on the Windows machines. The total formatted capacity of our 32GB test unit was reported as 29.2GB. Speeds were just about average by USB 2.0 standards, when we tried copying multiple files of various sizes to and from the microDuo. We also ran SiSoft SANDRA 2014 to get some hard numbers, and found that speeds were very slightly lower when used via Micro-USB, though that could also be attributed to differences between the two test devices.
SANDRA's drive index score was 27.86MBps over USB, and 27.0 over Micro-USB. Sequential read speeds scaled equally, with 25.2 and 22MBps over USB and Micro-USB respectively, while random read speeds were nearly the same, at 25 and 22.12MBps respectively. There was a larger gulf between the two when it came to write speeds, though, with sequential speeds clearly faster than random.
Verdict
The Kingston DataTraveler microDuo is a fantastically handy little device, especially in this day and age where data tends to get fragmented across devices. If your phone or tablet is running out of space and doesn't have a microSD slot, a USB-OTG drive could be a lifesaver. It might stick out of your device awkwardly, but it's definitely better than nothing.
We expect to see many more such drives on the market soon, in interesting shapes and sizes that work well with smartphones and tablets. At street prices of around Rs. 850 for 16GB and Rs. 1,500 for 32GB, there's definitely a price premium over standard pen drives, but the versatility is well worth the cost.
Price (MRP): Rs. 1,200 (16GB); Rs. 2,100 (32GB)
Pros

• Extremely versatile
• Small and portable
• Potential for multiple uses

Cons

• Average performance
• More expensive than regular pen drives

Ratings (Out of 5)

• Design: 4
• Performance: 3
• Value for Money: 4
• Overall: 4

HTC hasn't managed to produce a hit phone in years, and not just in the premium segment. The company has launched some great phones - last year's One being the most obvious example - but none of them have really managed to become popular. Once almost synonymous with Android, HTC's market share now pales in comparison to Samsung's.

The One (M8) owes its curious name to the indecision and confusion that has characterised HTC's development and marketing efforts for the past few years. It's meant to supersede the One as HTC's flagship, but we suppose this is better than calling it the HTC Two (or even worse, the One 2).

In a sea of mostly white plastic, last year's One and this year's One (M8) stand out with their metal bodies and solid look. Considering that this wasn't enough to help HTC climb out of the doldrums last year, does the M8 have enough firepower to succeed where its predecessor failed?

Look and Feel
HTC has managed to stay somewhat consistent with last year's breakaway design, but for some reason the One (M8) isn't as attention-grabbing as its immediate predecessor. We constantly find ourselves comparing it to the One (now retconned to M7) and finding ourselves underwhelmed. The slick, sharp edges which gave the M7 a distinctly powerful air have made way to soft curves. The solid aluminium now has a brushed pattern which, at least on our gunmetal grey review unit, didn't feel as premium.

HTC's aesthetic is still miles ahead of the competition, though. The M8's front face is minimalistic and clean, with only a small silver company logo breaking from the dark glass and metal. There are grilles above and below the screen for HTC's trademark BoomSound speakers, and the notification LED is as usual hidden behind the upper one. Thanks to a switch to on-screen buttons, the M7's awkward two-button setup has been dispensed with.

The top of the M8 has an unusual plastic strip, which makes it looks somewhat like a remote control. In fact, the plastic hides an infrared emitter which can be used to control TVs and other home electronics. The power button is also located up top, rather than the newer, more fashionable spot on the right edge. Many people now prefer the power button to be on the right edge, and you might find this placement inconvenient if you have small hands. The Micro-USB port and headset socket are on the bottom

The original single-SIM One M7 had a sealed unibody construction, and prioritised aesthetics by omitting a microSD card slot. The dual-SIM variant that replaced it in India had a removable rear panel, making it less slick, but allowing space for two SIM cards and a microSD card. The M8 goes back to a sealed body, but there are now trays on either side for a SIM and a microSD card. On our review unit, the microSD tray on the right edge was slightly raised, and unfortunately we kept hitting it as if it was the power button, since it's right above the volume rocker.

But by far the most interesting physical aspect of this phone is the rear, thanks to the addition of a second camera. It's definitely an unusual thing to see, especially since the two cameras look quite different. Luckily, they're placed in such a way that your fingers won't easily cover either lens.


The M8 will be available in silver and grey, with a pale gold model coming a little later, and it's hard not to see reflections of the iPhone 5s range in HTC's palette. The gold variant should have quite a few fans in India.

We've become so used to plastic bodies that it was often surprising to feel how cold the HTC One (M8) got when it had been left in an air-conditioned room, and how hot it felt when we just had it in our hands outdoors.

Features and specifications
The M8 comes to market with Qualcomm's latest and greatest Snapdragon processor, the 801. This is a slight speed bump over last year's flagship Snapdragon 800, but HTC used the lower-end Snapdragon 600 with the M7 so the performance gulf will be more significant.

Interestingly, the M8 in India has a higher clock speed; 2.5GHz as opposed to 2.3GHz in other markets. HTC says this is because Indian consumers are more concerned about specifications. It's also worth noting that HTC, after being criticised for manipulating benchmark scores, has decided to expose an option for a "High Performance Mode", which bumps up the clock speed for all applications. This doesn't mean that speed boosting is disabled with the option off, though. We'll investigate more when we get to the benchmarking portion of our review.

The HTC One (M8) comes with 2GB of RAM and 16GB of built-in storage, which can be expanded using a microSD card. The battery is rated at 2,600mAh, which is adequately beefy. Wi-Fi b/g/n/ac and Bluetooth 4.0 are standard, and there's also an infrared emitter and receiver, FM radio, and the usual array of sensors.

The 5-inch 1080x1920-pixel screen is noticeably larger than the M7's 4.7-inch one, and it's really a matter of personal preference to call one better than the other.

The M8 runs Android 4.4.2, with HTC's Sense 6 interface on top. This version of Sense is definitely more minimalist than previous versions. In stark contrast to Samsung's often over-the-top colours and abundance of options, Sense feels almost Spartan.

By default, your home screen is the BlinkFeed magazine view, which aggregates articles from around the Web and social network updates. For some reason, the app dock and Android soft buttons remain visible on top of displayed content. Swiping to the right brings you to a more familiar home screen, with only a single weather widget and a Google search box.

You can unlock the phone with a double-tap on the screen, which will come in handy if you don't like the power button placement. Swiping to the left will take you to BlinkFeed, swiping to the right will take you to the first home screen, and swiping upwards will just unlock the phone and take you to whatever you were doing last. With the phone on its side, you can just press either volume button to wake up directly into the camera. You can also drag any of the lock screen icons upwards to unlock the phone and launch that app.


The app drawer has a stark black background, and pages are separated vertically rather than horizontally. You can sort icons in alphabetical order, by date, or in your own custom arrangement. You can also choose between a 4x5 grid and a more spaced out 3x4 layout, though icon sizes don't change.

HTC also doesn't bundle very many apps. There's a Car Mode, which shows larger versions of the music controls, maps and phone dialler, as well as a Kid Mode that lets you restrict what a child can do when you give him or her your phone to play with. HTC also includes the 7digital music store, which is largely unusable in India; the Fitbit app, for users of Fitbit health bands; WeChat; Polaris Office 5; and a sketching app called Scribble.

The Television app uses the M8's infrared LEDs to control your TV, set-top box and home theatre receiver. The list of manufacturers included lots of Indian DTH and electronics brands, but channel guides are not available. In case your devices aren't supported, you can use their original remotes to program the M8 manually.

Very similar to Samsung's Galaxy S5, there's a power saver mode as well as an extreme power saver mode. While the former adjusts settings such as the screen timeout and background data transfers, the latter essentially turns the M8 into a basic phone which only lets you make use the calling, text messaging and email functions. The mode isn't quite as minimalistic as Samsung's implementation, but you can choose to automatically trigger it when your battery drops below the 5, 10 or 20 percent charge level.

Dual camera
We couldn't wait to test the much-hyped dual-camera functionality. HTC doesn't say much about the specifications of the second camera, and indeed you can't record pictures or videos through it. It's much more of a sensor, and is included in order to add extra context to photos taken with the primary camera. You won't get stereoscopic 3D effects or photos, but you will be able to make some very neat edits, which aren't possible with regular cameras or even regular PC software.

HTC is also still sticking to its UltraPixel technology (and marketing), which eschews high pixel counts in favour of expanded sensors which capture more light per pixel. By ordinary metrics, that means the One M8's camera has a piddly 4-megapixel sensor compared to the 16 megapixels of its competitors, but in practice, there is merit to HTC's approach.

Photos taken by the M8 are surprisingly detailed and clear. Most remarkably, there's very little loss of detail and almost no visible compression when seen at full size, which cannot always be said for photos taken with phone cameras. However, we found that colours were very muted and dull, even in broad daylight. The M8 also emits a very loud chirping noise when it locks focus, which seems totally unnecessary.

(Click to see full size)


The M8 camera excelled while taking shots from a moving car. With a fixed aperture, shutter speed has to be reduced to avoid blurring when in motion, which automatically means less light is captured. We were able to take beautiful, crisp shots with the M8 automatically adjusting to speeds as high as 1/2860 of a second. Similarly, low-light performance was remarkable. The M8 captured decent amounts of detail and colour with just faint illumination, though we needed a steady hand.

The 5-megapixel front camera was a bit of a letdown, considering it's actually capable of taking larger photos than the rear one. Images weren't always well exposed, and there was a lot of compression. As far as video goes, 1080p is a big step down from 4K, which the M8's prime competitors offer. Video is quite clean and smooth, but not spectacular.

(Click to see full size)

The dual-camera tricks only come into play when editing photos. The possibilities are quite impressive, and make for excellent demonstrations, but after a while we're left wondering how often we'd actually use them. The most impressive is the copy/paste feature, which lets you extract people from backgrounds and rearrange them in other photos. This doesn't just mean you can paste one photo on top of another; even the target photo is analysed, and the person you're inserting can be between people and their backgrounds. Effectively, you get three layers, and can choose who is in front and who is behind.

Of course it isn't perfect, and a lot depends on the angle you shoot at. It also only works on photos with recognisable faces.Automatic selections work best with high-contrast backgrounds, but you can refine the selection area manually. The effect, when done right, can be quite amazing, but more often than not, it's just comical.





Other effects include selective defocus, which adds a fake depth of field effect. You just have to tap any part of the screen that you want to focus, and the rest blurs around it. Foregrounder is somewhat the same, but instead of a DoF blur, other effects such as motion blur or cartoon sketch filter can be applied.

The Seasons effect is the least interesting, since you'd have to save your photos as videos to capture the pattern of falling petals or snowflakes, which honestly looks very fake. Dimension Plus lets you tilt your photos around for a 3D effect, which again works only so long as subjects are the right size and distance.

Many of these features won't work if the secondary camera was obstructed when you took a photo. Clearly, that depth-sensing capability has been harnessed here, but we have to wonder if it's worth the cost, since everything feels quite gimmicky. We're not likely to use these effects often, once the novelty wears off.

Performance
This is our first opportunity to benchmark a device based on the new Snapdragon 801, since Samsung launched only the Exynos-based variant of its Galaxy S5 in India. While the Exynos has four high-powered and four low-powered cores, the Snapdragon has only four, but more powerful and running significantly faster.

The Galaxy S5 and the One (M8) showed different strengths, but more often than not, it was the M8 that came out on top. Qualcomm's advantage over other ARM-based processor vendors has so far been graphics, and we saw that continue to be the case despite Samsung's impressive work with its in-house processors.

Of course, there's HTC's High Performance Mode to be accounted for. There's no real way to be sure which devices are and aren't optimising performance for which benchmarks, and despite giving us the (slightly hidden) option to turn it on for all apps, there's no way to make sure it's off for the purpose of benchmark accuracy. We ran our entire suite of tests with High Performance on as well as off, and saw only negligible differences. This could mean that our scores are inflated, so we're choosing not to report individual numbers here.

Instead, it should suffice to say that the M8 is a phenomenally fast phone, with the fastest processor currently available. Games are incredibly smooth, high-def videos play flawlessly, and we only noticed slight lags when applying photo effects, which is probably very CPU-intensive.

HTC's BoomSound speakers also deserve a mention here. Music and movies were both rich and detailed. The volume doesn't go high enough to fill a room, but it's more than enough for a group of friends clustered around you.

Call quality was decent, and so was network reception in most areas. The battery lasted 10 hours, 5 minutes in our video loop test, which is pretty impressive.

Verdict
The HTC One (M8) is not a radical departure from last year's HTC One. It's a solid update, but isn't new or exciting, and definitely isn't worth upgrading to if you currently use any of last year's premium phones.

The M8's major competition will come from Sony's Xperia Z2 and Samsung's Galaxy S5, both of which offer similar or better specifications. The M8 will have to rely on its premium build quality and camera gimmicks to appeal to buyers, and perhaps a price cut sometime mid-lifecycle. Meanwhile, Samsung and Sony are experimenting with (and making big noises about) waterproof bodies, heart rate sensors, 4K video recording, fingerprint readers, smart accessories, and much more. This is exactly the strategy that led HTC to where it is right now, and it looks like history might well repeat itself.

Ultimately, despite being a fantastically crafted phone that works really well, the M8 will appeal only to those who either place a high value on design, or seriously dislike Samsung and Sony. We're less enthusiastic about the M8 than we are about the inevitable price cut the M7 will receive. HTC seriously needs a reinvention, and the One (M8) is not it.

• KEY SPECS

Display

5.00-inch

Processor

2.5GHz

Front Camera

5-megapixel

Resolution

1080x1920 pixels

RAM

2GB

OS

Android 4.4.2

Storage

16GB

Rear Camera

4-Ultrapixel

Battery capacity

2600mAh

HTC One (M8)

Rs. 49990

• REVIEW

• 
  
  Design
• Display
• Software
• Performance
• Battery life
• Camera
• Value for money

• Good
• Metal body and good construction quality
• Camera works brilliantly in many conditions
• Good pricing

• Bad
• Clunky software and interface
• Camera tricks are mostly comical
• A bit big and unwieldy

Samsung's latest camera is the Galaxy NX, a combination of its Galaxy Camera and the firm's NX compact systems camera (CSC).
The Galaxy NX is an interesting product for a number of reasons. Samsung has dubbed it the first interchangeable lens camera with 4G LTE connectivity and Wi-Fi. It's also the first CSC camera to come running Android (Android 4.2 Jelly Bean).
So, it has the same 20.3Mp APS-C CMOS sensor which is found on, for example, Samsung's NX300 and the same range of available lenses. But, the Galaxy NX comes with a SIM-card slot you have 3G or 4G LTE mobile data and the benefits of Android 4.2 Jelly Bean.
It's got a 1.6GHz quad-core processor, 2GB of RAM, 16GB of internal storage and a microSD card slot. It's also got Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and GPS. The only thing it doesn't really have when compared to a smartphone is the ability to make calls. For this, take a look at the Galaxy S4 Zoom.

All this connectivity, combined with Android, means you can really easily share you photos with whatever apps you like. This is simple with the huge 4.8in touchscreen on the Galaxy NX. Samsung also pre-loads some handy software such as Smart Mode offering automatic settings for selected scenes, and Camera Studio which gives you the ability to customise settings for the most used apps and camera modes.

As well as the large screen, the Galaxy NX has a view finder even though the camera is mirrorless. However, we don't like how big the screen and viewfinder make the device overall. Compact systems cameras are supposed to be, well, compact but the Galaxy NX is much bulkier than others on the market. It is thinner and lighter than a typical DSLR though.

Soon, the average consumer will have access to flat- panel "Ultra HD" monitors that make the resolution of the 1080p "True HD" HDTV sitting in their living room seem almost like the quality of old analog television. These new monitors use just one of several 2K and 4K resolutions that consumers and content producers will face over the next few years.


What exactly are 2K and 4K resolutions, and how do they differ from today's HDTV resolutions? More importantly, what approach should the streaming industry take to these new resolutions?

720p and 1080p HDTV

When flat-panel HDTVs first reached critical consumer mass, the format was 720p, or 720 vertical lines of resolution, at a progressive (the "P") rate of either 24 or 30 frames per second (fps) in the United States. While the US based its HD television resolutions on NTSC, Europe used PAL which meant the P in 720p is a constant 25 fps.


After flooding the market with 720p monitors during the analog-to-digital broadcast rollover, consumer electronics manufacturers decided it was time to push consumers towards "True HD" or 1080p, with its 1080 lines of vertical resolution. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of HD broadcasts are in 480i or 720p, the "True HD" push became one of delivering premium content via Blu-ray players and, to a lesser extent, digital downloads and streaming.


Using 720p and 1080p as baselines, with their respective 1280 x 720 and 1920 x 1080 pixel resolutions, let's look at how the new 2K and 4K formats stack up against HD and True HD monitors. Keep in mind that, as of early March 2013, we don't yet have premium content available for 4K playback, although as mentioned in an article on the 2013 Mobile World Congress, that is beginning to change.

2K Video

We'll start with the simplest format, as a way to describe how the consumer electronics (CE) companies are shifting the definition away from vertical lines of resolution to something more nebulous.


If 1080p has 1080 lines of vertical resolution, one would think that the 2K displays have 2,000 lines of vertical resolution, right? Not so fast: 2K is an incremental bump above 1080p. In fact, 2K doesn't even


change the vertical resolution, leaving it at 1080 lines, and only increases the horizontal resolution to a 2048 pixel width.


Run the math and you'll find that the increase from 1920 horizontal pixels to 2048 horizontal pixels is a whopping 3.43 per cent increase. Hardly worth chucking the 1080p "True HD" monitor for a 2K one.


The reason for this confusion lies mainly in the primary purpose of 2K resolutions. To date, 2K has primarily been used for projection within movie theaters, which require a slightly different aspect ratio from consumer HDTVs and computer monitors.


While consumer displays use a 16:9 aspect ratio (or 1.777:1 if converted to the lowest common denominator), the Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI) backed by the major Hollywood studios uses a 17:9 aspect ratio (approximately 1.85:1) that better aligns with several of 35mm and 70mm films formats used to shoot and project movies.



As such, the DCI termed the 2048 x 1080 resolution as 2K, and the name stuck even when it came to consumer applications. It's no wonder that most consumers with decent home theater systems feel like they're getting an equal or better experience to the movie theater: with the exception of a few more horizontal pixels, the image is exactly the same resolution in 1080p and 2K, and the pixel density (measured in PPI or pixels per inch) is quite a bit denser on a consumer 1080p display.


Another way to look at it is overall pixels: 1920 x 1080 equals 2,073,600 pixels, while 2K at 2048 x 1080 equals 2,211,840. The difference is 138,240 pixels, and if the pixels were represented as megapixels (Mpx, the typical way we gauge still camera resolutions) the change between 1080p and 2K would be approximately 0.13 Mpx (2.1 versus 2.2 Mpx).

4K Video

Now that we've looked at 2K, what about 4K? Does it offer resolution benefits beyond 2K and 1080p?


There are three 4K resolutions to consider, each with a different aspect ratio.


Let's consider, first, the DCI version of 4K. The film industry likes to shoot at resolutions at least 3-4 times greater than what it will project, so the DCI came out with a 4K specification at the same time it came out with the 2K display specification.


DCI 4K has 2160 vertical lines of resolution, which is double that of 1080p. So far so good, but what about the horizontal resolution? It clocks in at 4096 pixels. All told, that's 8,847,360 pixels, or 8.84 Mpx.


Running the numbers, that means DCI 4K is 4.26 times the resolution of 1080p and exactly 4 times the resolution of 2K. The difference, as we mentioned above, is the aspect ratios of 1080p (16:9) and DCI 2K / 4K (17:9).

4K Ultra HD (UHD) Video

Ok, so now that we've seen how DCI 4K is four times the pixel count of 1080p, what about the 4K Ultra HD monitors that you'll be able to buy this month from Samsung, Sony, and others for a cool $25,000 at sizes ranging from 55 to 84 inches?


4K UHD does double the vertical resolution, from 1080 to 2160 vertical lines of resolution, but it falls short of the 4,000 pixel horizontal resolution, clocking in at 3840 horizontal pixels. If you've noticed the pattern of doubling the horizontal resolution, you've caught on to the reason that 4K UHD isn't really 4K: 1920 times two is 3840, meaning that consumer displays will still hold the 16:9 aspect ratio.


At this point you may be scratching your head, wondering why consumer electronics manufacturers don't call the Ultra HD models 2K UHD. While one could argue that the term 2K would be too confusing, it's more than likely that someone in the CE world thought consumers would take the 2K term as only being twice the resolution, while they might see 4K as "4X" or four times the resolution.


And that's actually the case: 4K resolution (with a 2x increase on both the horizontal and vertical resolutions) is actually 4 times the resolution of 1080p. The increase from 2,073,600 pixels to 8,294,400 pixels is exactly four times the resolution.


Yet the difference in quality between DCI 4K and 4K UHD also grows, from 8.84 Mpx for DCI to 8.29 Mpx for consumer displays. Where 2K to 1080p was only difference of 3.43 per cent, the difference between DCI 4K and 4K UHD doubles to 6.67 per cent.


So why don't we have premium content yet for 4K UHD monitors? The answer lies in the film industry's penchant for shooting content at 3-4 times the resolution at which it will be displayed. Currently the majority of digital cinema cameras shoot at between 4K to 5K, and it is only film resolutions of 70mm that come close to achieving 8K digital resolutions.


As film production moves away from celluloid, most content shot on RED and other digital cinema cameras is trapped in that 5K range, meaning that only films shot on, well, film have the "pixel" density to be scanned by 8K scanners. The upside is that, just like 4K UHD isn't really 4K, the 8K scanners required for 4K UHD production needn't really be 8K: 7680 x 4320 pixels, or 33.18 Mpx, will suffice.

Streaming 4K

Bringing it back around to 4K resolutions for streaming, examples are few and far between. YouTube, for instance, uses a "4K" resolution with a 4:3 aspect ratio of 4096 x 3072 pixels for uploading. At 12.58 Mpx the YouTube 4K is almost one-third higher overall resolution than 4K UHD, but YouTube doesn't actually allow streaming of this 4K content.


Instead, YouTube limits browser playback to 2048 x 1536 pixels, or about fifty percent greater than 1080p HDTVs, but well within the reach of higher-end desktop computer monitors. Using the YouTube downloader, though, the original content can be downloaded for desktop viewing, assuming you've got a very high-end computer monitor.

Conclusion

As the streaming industry prepares to take on 2K streaming, with its just-slightly-above-1080p resolution, it also needs to consider which of the 4K resolutions it will gravitate towards. Will it be DCI 4K, which can be displayed on high-end computer monitors, or 4K UHD, which uses a 16:9 aspect ratio and can therefore be the focus of a future 4K UHD set-top boxes?


More importantly, what will the bandwidth implications be of a 8.3 Mpx or greater stream be for the average consumer?

inShare

Heads up, spec hounds: Samsung today announced that it has created what it says is the industry’s first 8Gb low power double data rate 4 mobile memory. The chip is made using a 20-nanometer class process technology, and Samsung says that it can support a data transfer per pin rate of 3200Mbps. Overall Samsung says that its new 8Gb memory module offers 50 percent better performance than its LPDDR3 predecessor while consuming 40 percent less power.

So what does this news mean to us consumers? The introduction of 8Gb LPDDR4 memory could lead to the arrival of smartphones and tablets with 4GB RAM, which is a full gig more than what’s found in high-end devices like the Galaxy Note 3 and Galaxy Note 10.1 – 2014 Edition. Mobile is exactly the market that Samsung is targeting with its new chip as well, with the company saying that the 8Gb LPDDR4 memory will be used in smartphones, tablets and laptops with Ultra HD displays.

Samsung expects its 8GB LPDDR4 memory to become available sometime in 2014. No specific products that will take advantage of the new chip have been named quite yet, but considering that Samsung rolled out the Note 3 and Note 10.1 – 2014 Edition with 3GB RAM earlier this year, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the company launch a flagship device or two with 4GB RAM at some point next year.

It's damn near 2014, and what's the most baffling computing experience we have? The Apple TV television experience. It's so disappointing. We get new so-called TV channels -- or little Applets -- that give us a kaleidoscopic glimpse into the content available from a particular broadcast network, but it's also locked down so we have to be a cable television subscriber to view it.  

When I saw the news about the latest batch of TV apps to make it to the Apple TV, including Watch ABC, Bloomberg and Crackle, I had a small, irrational moment of hope. It was quickly dashed, of course, when I realized that Watch ABC is a hobbled app. When I tried to watch an episode of Castle, I was prompted to enter in my cable TV provider. The problem is, I'm a DISH Network subscriber. No option. Imagine if I lived in a sweet urban area with high-quality HD over-the-air reception of ABC. The Watch ABC app would still be useless.  There's got to be a better way. So what do I expect? 

What should we wish for?  A Simple Wish  My vision is insanely straightforward: I'd like to be able to consume content wherever I am on smart, connected devices with networks, content providers and producers selling advertising to support it. Sounds a lot like traditional TV, right?  Flickering images relate stories or news that so compelling, we're willing to be interrupted to watch unrelated commercials that attempt to manipulate us. 

We get it. We've been doing it for years. The only difference is the delivery mechanism (Internet plus old-school cable, satellite and over-the-air broadcasts) and the device (smartphone, tablet, PC, smart TV or set-top box).  Instead, what we have are endless hoops and restrictions that basically turn the smartest of us into the TV version of apathetic voters in a disingenuous political system -- more likely to tune out than tune in. Who Will Finally Stop the Insanity?  I'm willing to buy television shows I really enjoy, like The Walking Dead and Homeland. I don't already get these shows via my bare-bones DISH Network service plan. More to the point, I buy entire seasons. If I couldn't get The Mentalist over traditional TV methods, I'd buy The Mentalist. And Castle. Maybe the NCIS franchises. Maybe. Perhaps The Big Bang Theory at a lower price point.  Would I pay specifically for The Voice? No. Sleepy Hollow? 

No. But could I become enough of a fan of Sleepy Hollow to buy it or watch it on purpose? Maybe. This is where advertising-based TV shines. I'll watch content I wouldn't normally pay directly for, but only if it's easy to consume.  Force me to jump through a bunch of hoops and impose baffling restrictions, or provide and pull content willy nilly, and I'll tune out. I'd rather have a joking conversation via instant messaging on my iPhone. Which means I'm a lost viewer, and getting more lost to the TV world by the day.  Interestingly, I just became hooked on Justified, which is a small TV series produced by FX. I found it because I could stream it via my Amazon Prime service to my iPhone. I'm on season three. When I catch up, I'll buy the episodes for US$1.99 or $2.99 each on iTunes. What's missing here? 

 An FX app on my Apple TV. If I could stream Justified from FX on my Apple TV, I'd do that -- and I'd be engaged with advertisers. In addition, I'd be exposed to other FX shows and content. I would watch more "TV." Instead, I'm focused, and I tune out more than ever. And when I buy Justified, sure, that's a gain, but it's a short-term gain. It's like showing and selling cookies to me -- but not lemonade -- on a hot day. Amazon to the Rescue?  Amazon is a wild and weird company. It has competed with all sorts of businesses and business models, and it has even trashed an industry (traditional publishing) while improving a consumer experience (reading). This summer, Amazon bought the rights to stream the Stephen King book-turned-TV-hit Under the Dome 13-episode season four days after it aired on CBS.  How did I end up a fan? I recorded the first two episodes or so on my traditional DVR system, then missed recording a couple weeks. I eventually started watching the series. I liked it. When I ran out of recorded shows, I caught up via Amazon.

 I went back to CBS on my traditional TV set for most of the rest of series. Why? It's a better experience because the quality is great, I can record it and play it back at will, and there are no streaming issues or special rules.  Recent reports indicate that CBS sold the rights to stream the little series to Amazon for US$700,000 per episode, exclusively. Now, this is both a success story and a failure. It's a success for me because I'm an Amazon customer. If I were a Netflix customer, I'd be out in the cold. And a CBS fan with a smartphone? Same problem. Caught in the Middle, Again and Again Forever?  The problem with TV is too convoluted for mere watchers to understand. It's tied up in content rights, distribution rights, advertising sales, and traditional contracts and methods of business that make everyone fearful of change. Remember DVDs? Another case in point. Meanwhile, the TV industry is turning off its consumers, ensuring a fractured existence of Google Chromecast, Roku, Hulu, and the destined-to-be-a-hobby-forever Apple TV.  Consider this: I can't watch an episode of Castle via the new Watch ABC app on my Apple TV. Yet I can watch that episode of Castle at ABC.com on my Mac via my Safari browser and throw it at my HDTV using Apple's AirPlay with my Apple TV. Does this make sense? I even get to watch the ads, but because I wanted a big-screen experience, I can't really click on them now, can I?  Letting consumers gravitate toward excellent, engaging content of their choice using smart, connected devices would be good for the industry, right?  Consider Justified, which is about a U.S. Marshall who wears a cowboy hat and boots. Why aren't I seeing ads for cowboy boots? For a Stetson hat? I might be compelled to check out a pair of boots.  How about NCIS: Los Angeles? Why don't I see ads for the muscle car driven by Senior Field Agent Sam Hanna (LL Cool J)?  Why not the fancy coffee machine that consistently shows up in the cop/writer drama Castle?  Heck, it's almost 2014, right? I don't expect flying cars, but why can't a highly engaged audience for The Walking Dead see an ad for a lotion that might claim to be able to rehydrate the skin of zombies? Back to the Apple TV  If the Apple TV audience isn't yet huge, why bother making TV apps that require us to jump through hoops?

 If I were ABC, I would be investing in a whole new company -- Maybe "ABCD" for Digital -- that could produce content that's unfettered by all the old business rules that is holding it back. Why not do things like CBS did with Under the Dome and Amazon, but even better?  The question it comes down to is more about wanting to continue with a business where there's a lot of money being thrown around to dubious effect -- and keeping up the charade as long as possible (traditional TV) -- or doing something radical like trying to serve customers in a way that makes sense.  The Apple TV audience is small now, but it's an audience that could be insanely engaged. Apple TV users are not plopping their butts onto couches in order to zone out on whatever is on. They are actively finding and selecting something that interests them. We don't have an industry that can sell this?  I'm just mad and sad that our most influential consumer technology company -- Apple -- and our smartest creatives in TV -- fewer than a dozen networks -- still can't come together and offer something awesome.  Before I tune out, you read it here: a hand lotion good enough for zombies and the people who still tragically love them? I'd buy it. Heck, I might even become a lifelong customer.

It's damn near 2014, and what's the most baffling computing experience we have? The Apple TV television experience. It's so disappointing. We get new so-called TV channels -- or little Applets -- that give us a kaleidoscopic glimpse into the content available from a particular broadcast network, but it's also locked down so we have to be a cable television subscriber to view it.

When I saw the news about the latest batch of TV apps to make it to the Apple TV, including Watch ABC, Bloomberg and Crackle, I had a small, irrational moment of hope. It was quickly dashed, of course, when I realized that Watch ABC is a hobbled app. When I tried to watch an episode of Castle, I was prompted to enter in my cable TV provider. The problem is, I'm a DISH Network subscriber. No option. Imagine if I lived in a sweet urban area with high-quality HD over-the-air reception of ABC. The Watch ABC app would still be useless.
There's got to be a better way. So what do I expect? What should we wish for?

A Simple Wish

My vision is insanely straightforward: I'd like to be able to consume content wherever I am on smart, connected devices with networks, content providers and producers selling advertising to support it. Sounds a lot like traditional TV, right?
Flickering images relate stories or news that so compelling, we're willing to be interrupted to watch unrelated commercials that attempt to manipulate us. We get it. We've been doing it for years. The only difference is the delivery mechanism (Internet plus old-school cable, satellite and over-the-air broadcasts) and the device (smartphone, tablet, PC, smart TV or set-top box).
Instead, what we have are endless hoops and restrictions that basically turn the smartest of us into the TV version of apathetic voters in a disingenuous political system -- more likely to tune out than tune in.

Who Will Finally Stop the Insanity?

I'm willing to buy television shows I really enjoy, like The Walking Dead and Homeland. I don't already get these shows via my bare-bones DISH Network service plan. More to the point, I buy entire seasons. If I couldn't get The Mentalist over traditional TV methods, I'd buy The Mentalist. And Castle. Maybe the NCIS franchises. Maybe. Perhaps The Big Bang Theory at a lower price point.
Would I pay specifically for The Voice? No. Sleepy Hollow? No. But could I become enough of a fan of Sleepy Hollow to buy it or watch it on purpose? Maybe. This is where advertising-based TV shines. I'll watch content I wouldn't normally pay directly for, but only if it's easy to consume.
Force me to jump through a bunch of hoops and impose baffling restrictions, or provide and pull content willy nilly, and I'll tune out. I'd rather have a joking conversation via instant messaging on my iPhone. Which means I'm a lost viewer, and getting more lost to the TV world by the day.
Interestingly, I just became hooked on Justified, which is a small TV series produced by FX. I found it because I could stream it via my Amazon Prime service to my iPhone. I'm on season three. When I catch up, I'll buy the episodes for US$1.99 or $2.99 each on iTunes. What's missing here?
An FX app on my Apple TV. If I could stream Justified from FX on my Apple TV, I'd do that -- and I'd be engaged with advertisers. In addition, I'd be exposed to other FX shows and content. I would watch more "TV." Instead, I'm focused, and I tune out more than ever. And when I buy Justified, sure, that's a gain, but it's a short-term gain. It's like showing and selling cookies to me -- but not lemonade -- on a hot day.

Amazon to the Rescue?

Amazon is a wild and weird company. It has competed with all sorts of businesses and business models, and it has even trashed an industry (traditional publishing) while improving a consumer experience (reading). This summer, Amazon bought the rights to stream the Stephen King book-turned-TV-hit Under the Dome 13-episode season four days after it aired on CBS.
How did I end up a fan? I recorded the first two episodes or so on my traditional DVR system, then missed recording a couple weeks. I eventually started watching the series. I liked it. When I ran out of recorded shows, I caught up via Amazon. I went back to CBS on my traditional TV set for most of the rest of series. Why? It's a better experience because the quality is great, I can record it and play it back at will, and there are no streaming issues or special rules.
Recent reports indicate that CBS sold the rights to stream the little series to Amazon for US$700,000 per episode, exclusively. Now, this is both a success story and a failure. It's a success for me because I'm an Amazon customer. If I were a Netflix customer, I'd be out in the cold. And a CBS fan with a smartphone? Same problem.

Caught in the Middle, Again and Again Forever?

The problem with TV is too convoluted for mere watchers to understand. It's tied up in content rights, distribution rights, advertising sales, and traditional contracts and methods of business that make everyone fearful of change. Remember DVDs? Another case in point. Meanwhile, the TV industry is turning off its consumers, ensuring a fractured existence of Google Chromecast, Roku, Hulu, and the destined-to-be-a-hobby-forever Apple TV.
Consider this: I can't watch an episode of Castle via the new Watch ABC app on my Apple TV. Yet I can watch that episode of Castle at ABC.com on my Mac via my Safari browser and throw it at my HDTV using Apple's AirPlay with my Apple TV. Does this make sense? I even get to watch the ads, but because I wanted a big-screen experience, I can't really click on them now, can I?
Letting consumers gravitate toward excellent, engaging content of their choice using smart, connected devices would be good for the industry, right?
Consider Justified, which is about a U.S. Marshall who wears a cowboy hat and boots. Why aren't I seeing ads for cowboy boots? For a Stetson hat? I might be compelled to check out a pair of boots.
How about NCIS: Los Angeles? Why don't I see ads for the muscle car driven by Senior Field Agent Sam Hanna (LL Cool J)?
Why not the fancy coffee machine that consistently shows up in the cop/writer drama Castle?
Heck, it's almost 2014, right? I don't expect flying cars, but why can't a highly engaged audience for The Walking Dead see an ad for a lotion that might claim to be able to rehydrate the skin of zombies?

Back to the Apple TV

If the Apple TV audience isn't yet huge, why bother making TV apps that require us to jump through hoops? If I were ABC, I would be investing in a whole new company -- Maybe "ABCD" for Digital -- that could produce content that's unfettered by all the old business rules that is holding it back. Why not do things like CBS did with Under the Dome and Amazon, but even better?
The question it comes down to is more about wanting to continue with a business where there's a lot of money being thrown around to dubious effect -- and keeping up the charade as long as possible (traditional TV) -- or doing something radical like trying to serve customers in a way that makes sense.
The Apple TV audience is small now, but it's an audience that could be insanely engaged. Apple TV users are not plopping their butts onto couches in order to zone out on whatever is on. They are actively finding and selecting something that interests them. We don't have an industry that can sell this?
I'm just mad and sad that our most influential consumer technology company -- Apple -- and our smartest creatives in TV -- fewer than a dozen networks -- still can't come together and offer something awesome.
Before I tune out, you read it here: a hand lotion good enough for zombies and the people who still tragically love them? I'd buy it. Heck, I might even become a lifelong customer.
- See more at: http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/79615.html#sthash.vaM1ov79.dpuf

It's damn near 2014, and what's the most baffling computing experience we have? The Apple TV television experience. It's so disappointing. We get new so-called TV channels -- or little Applets -- that give us a kaleidoscopic glimpse into the content available from a particular broadcast network, but it's also locked down so we have to be a cable television subscriber to view it.

When I saw the news about the latest batch of TV apps to make it to the Apple TV, including Watch ABC, Bloomberg and Crackle, I had a small, irrational moment of hope. It was quickly dashed, of course, when I realized that Watch ABC is a hobbled app. When I tried to watch an episode of Castle, I was prompted to enter in my cable TV provider. The problem is, I'm a DISH Network subscriber. No option. Imagine if I lived in a sweet urban area with high-quality HD over-the-air reception of ABC. The Watch ABC app would still be useless.
There's got to be a better way. So what do I expect? What should we wish for?

A Simple Wish

My vision is insanely straightforward: I'd like to be able to consume content wherever I am on smart, connected devices with networks, content providers and producers selling advertising to support it. Sounds a lot like traditional TV, right?
Flickering images relate stories or news that so compelling, we're willing to be interrupted to watch unrelated commercials that attempt to manipulate us. We get it. We've been doing it for years. The only difference is the delivery mechanism (Internet plus old-school cable, satellite and over-the-air broadcasts) and the device (smartphone, tablet, PC, smart TV or set-top box).
Instead, what we have are endless hoops and restrictions that basically turn the smartest of us into the TV version of apathetic voters in a disingenuous political system -- more likely to tune out than tune in.

Who Will Finally Stop the Insanity?

I'm willing to buy television shows I really enjoy, like The Walking Dead and Homeland. I don't already get these shows via my bare-bones DISH Network service plan. More to the point, I buy entire seasons. If I couldn't get The Mentalist over traditional TV methods, I'd buy The Mentalist. And Castle. Maybe the NCIS franchises. Maybe. Perhaps The Big Bang Theory at a lower price point.
Would I pay specifically for The Voice? No. Sleepy Hollow? No. But could I become enough of a fan of Sleepy Hollow to buy it or watch it on purpose? Maybe. This is where advertising-based TV shines. I'll watch content I wouldn't normally pay directly for, but only if it's easy to consume.
Force me to jump through a bunch of hoops and impose baffling restrictions, or provide and pull content willy nilly, and I'll tune out. I'd rather have a joking conversation via instant messaging on my iPhone. Which means I'm a lost viewer, and getting more lost to the TV world by the day.
Interestingly, I just became hooked on Justified, which is a small TV series produced by FX. I found it because I could stream it via my Amazon Prime service to my iPhone. I'm on season three. When I catch up, I'll buy the episodes for US$1.99 or $2.99 each on iTunes. What's missing here?
An FX app on my Apple TV. If I could stream Justified from FX on my Apple TV, I'd do that -- and I'd be engaged with advertisers. In addition, I'd be exposed to other FX shows and content. I would watch more "TV." Instead, I'm focused, and I tune out more than ever. And when I buy Justified, sure, that's a gain, but it's a short-term gain. It's like showing and selling cookies to me -- but not lemonade -- on a hot day.

Amazon to the Rescue?

Amazon is a wild and weird company. It has competed with all sorts of businesses and business models, and it has even trashed an industry (traditional publishing) while improving a consumer experience (reading). This summer, Amazon bought the rights to stream the Stephen King book-turned-TV-hit Under the Dome 13-episode season four days after it aired on CBS.
How did I end up a fan? I recorded the first two episodes or so on my traditional DVR system, then missed recording a couple weeks. I eventually started watching the series. I liked it. When I ran out of recorded shows, I caught up via Amazon. I went back to CBS on my traditional TV set for most of the rest of series. Why? It's a better experience because the quality is great, I can record it and play it back at will, and there are no streaming issues or special rules.
Recent reports indicate that CBS sold the rights to stream the little series to Amazon for US$700,000 per episode, exclusively. Now, this is both a success story and a failure. It's a success for me because I'm an Amazon customer. If I were a Netflix customer, I'd be out in the cold. And a CBS fan with a smartphone? Same problem.

Caught in the Middle, Again and Again Forever?

The problem with TV is too convoluted for mere watchers to understand. It's tied up in content rights, distribution rights, advertising sales, and traditional contracts and methods of business that make everyone fearful of change. Remember DVDs? Another case in point. Meanwhile, the TV industry is turning off its consumers, ensuring a fractured existence of Google Chromecast, Roku, Hulu, and the destined-to-be-a-hobby-forever Apple TV.
Consider this: I can't watch an episode of Castle via the new Watch ABC app on my Apple TV. Yet I can watch that episode of Castle at ABC.com on my Mac via my Safari browser and throw it at my HDTV using Apple's AirPlay with my Apple TV. Does this make sense? I even get to watch the ads, but because I wanted a big-screen experience, I can't really click on them now, can I?
Letting consumers gravitate toward excellent, engaging content of their choice using smart, connected devices would be good for the industry, right?
Consider Justified, which is about a U.S. Marshall who wears a cowboy hat and boots. Why aren't I seeing ads for cowboy boots? For a Stetson hat? I might be compelled to check out a pair of boots.
How about NCIS: Los Angeles? Why don't I see ads for the muscle car driven by Senior Field Agent Sam Hanna (LL Cool J)?
Why not the fancy coffee machine that consistently shows up in the cop/writer drama Castle?
Heck, it's almost 2014, right? I don't expect flying cars, but why can't a highly engaged audience for The Walking Dead see an ad for a lotion that might claim to be able to rehydrate the skin of zombies?

Back to the Apple TV

If the Apple TV audience isn't yet huge, why bother making TV apps that require us to jump through hoops? If I were ABC, I would be investing in a whole new company -- Maybe "ABCD" for Digital -- that could produce content that's unfettered by all the old business rules that is holding it back. Why not do things like CBS did with Under the Dome and Amazon, but even better?
The question it comes down to is more about wanting to continue with a business where there's a lot of money being thrown around to dubious effect -- and keeping up the charade as long as possible (traditional TV) -- or doing something radical like trying to serve customers in a way that makes sense.
The Apple TV audience is small now, but it's an audience that could be insanely engaged. Apple TV users are not plopping their butts onto couches in order to zone out on whatever is on. They are actively finding and selecting something that interests them. We don't have an industry that can sell this?
I'm just mad and sad that our most influential consumer technology company -- Apple -- and our smartest creatives in TV -- fewer than a dozen networks -- still can't come together and offer something awesome.
Before I tune out, you read it here: a hand lotion good enough for zombies and the people who still tragically love them? I'd buy it. Heck, I might even become a lifelong customer.
- See more at: http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/79615.html#sthash.vaM1ov79.dpuf

It's damn near 2014, and what's the most baffling computing experience we have? The Apple TV television experience. It's so disappointing. We get new so-called TV channels -- or little Applets -- that give us a kaleidoscopic glimpse into the content available from a particular broadcast network, but it's also locked down so we have to be a cable television subscriber to view it.

When I saw the news about the latest batch of TV apps to make it to the Apple TV, including Watch ABC, Bloomberg and Crackle, I had a small, irrational moment of hope. It was quickly dashed, of course, when I realized that Watch ABC is a hobbled app. When I tried to watch an episode of Castle, I was prompted to enter in my cable TV provider. The problem is, I'm a DISH Network subscriber. No option. Imagine if I lived in a sweet urban area with high-quality HD over-the-air reception of ABC. The Watch ABC app would still be useless.
There's got to be a better way. So what do I expect? What should we wish for?

A Simple Wish

My vision is insanely straightforward: I'd like to be able to consume content wherever I am on smart, connected devices with networks, content providers and producers selling advertising to support it. Sounds a lot like traditional TV, right?
Flickering images relate stories or news that so compelling, we're willing to be interrupted to watch unrelated commercials that attempt to manipulate us. We get it. We've been doing it for years. The only difference is the delivery mechanism (Internet plus old-school cable, satellite and over-the-air broadcasts) and the device (smartphone, tablet, PC, smart TV or set-top box).
Instead, what we have are endless hoops and restrictions that basically turn the smartest of us into the TV version of apathetic voters in a disingenuous political system -- more likely to tune out than tune in.

Who Will Finally Stop the Insanity?

I'm willing to buy television shows I really enjoy, like The Walking Dead and Homeland. I don't already get these shows via my bare-bones DISH Network service plan. More to the point, I buy entire seasons. If I couldn't get The Mentalist over traditional TV methods, I'd buy The Mentalist. And Castle. Maybe the NCIS franchises. Maybe. Perhaps The Big Bang Theory at a lower price point.
Would I pay specifically for The Voice? No. Sleepy Hollow? No. But could I become enough of a fan of Sleepy Hollow to buy it or watch it on purpose? Maybe. This is where advertising-based TV shines. I'll watch content I wouldn't normally pay directly for, but only if it's easy to consume.
Force me to jump through a bunch of hoops and impose baffling restrictions, or provide and pull content willy nilly, and I'll tune out. I'd rather have a joking conversation via instant messaging on my iPhone. Which means I'm a lost viewer, and getting more lost to the TV world by the day.
Interestingly, I just became hooked on Justified, which is a small TV series produced by FX. I found it because I could stream it via my Amazon Prime service to my iPhone. I'm on season three. When I catch up, I'll buy the episodes for US$1.99 or $2.99 each on iTunes. What's missing here?
An FX app on my Apple TV. If I could stream Justified from FX on my Apple TV, I'd do that -- and I'd be engaged with advertisers. In addition, I'd be exposed to other FX shows and content. I would watch more "TV." Instead, I'm focused, and I tune out more than ever. And when I buy Justified, sure, that's a gain, but it's a short-term gain. It's like showing and selling cookies to me -- but not lemonade -- on a hot day.

Amazon to the Rescue?

Amazon is a wild and weird company. It has competed with all sorts of businesses and business models, and it has even trashed an industry (traditional publishing) while improving a consumer experience (reading). This summer, Amazon bought the rights to stream the Stephen King book-turned-TV-hit Under the Dome 13-episode season four days after it aired on CBS.
How did I end up a fan? I recorded the first two episodes or so on my traditional DVR system, then missed recording a couple weeks. I eventually started watching the series. I liked it. When I ran out of recorded shows, I caught up via Amazon. I went back to CBS on my traditional TV set for most of the rest of series. Why? It's a better experience because the quality is great, I can record it and play it back at will, and there are no streaming issues or special rules.
Recent reports indicate that CBS sold the rights to stream the little series to Amazon for US$700,000 per episode, exclusively. Now, this is both a success story and a failure. It's a success for me because I'm an Amazon customer. If I were a Netflix customer, I'd be out in the cold. And a CBS fan with a smartphone? Same problem.

Caught in the Middle, Again and Again Forever?

The problem with TV is too convoluted for mere watchers to understand. It's tied up in content rights, distribution rights, advertising sales, and traditional contracts and methods of business that make everyone fearful of change. Remember DVDs? Another case in point. Meanwhile, the TV industry is turning off its consumers, ensuring a fractured existence of Google Chromecast, Roku, Hulu, and the destined-to-be-a-hobby-forever Apple TV.
Consider this: I can't watch an episode of Castle via the new Watch ABC app on my Apple TV. Yet I can watch that episode of Castle at ABC.com on my Mac via my Safari browser and throw it at my HDTV using Apple's AirPlay with my Apple TV. Does this make sense? I even get to watch the ads, but because I wanted a big-screen experience, I can't really click on them now, can I?
Letting consumers gravitate toward excellent, engaging content of their choice using smart, connected devices would be good for the industry, right?
Consider Justified, which is about a U.S. Marshall who wears a cowboy hat and boots. Why aren't I seeing ads for cowboy boots? For a Stetson hat? I might be compelled to check out a pair of boots.
How about NCIS: Los Angeles? Why don't I see ads for the muscle car driven by Senior Field Agent Sam Hanna (LL Cool J)?
Why not the fancy coffee machine that consistently shows up in the cop/writer drama Castle?
Heck, it's almost 2014, right? I don't expect flying cars, but why can't a highly engaged audience for The Walking Dead see an ad for a lotion that might claim to be able to rehydrate the skin of zombies?

Back to the Apple TV

If the Apple TV audience isn't yet huge, why bother making TV apps that require us to jump through hoops? If I were ABC, I would be investing in a whole new company -- Maybe "ABCD" for Digital -- that could produce content that's unfettered by all the old business rules that is holding it back. Why not do things like CBS did with Under the Dome and Amazon, but even better?
The question it comes down to is more about wanting to continue with a business where there's a lot of money being thrown around to dubious effect -- and keeping up the charade as long as possible (traditional TV) -- or doing something radical like trying to serve customers in a way that makes sense.
The Apple TV audience is small now, but it's an audience that could be insanely engaged. Apple TV users are not plopping their butts onto couches in order to zone out on whatever is on. They are actively finding and selecting something that interests them. We don't have an industry that can sell this?
I'm just mad and sad that our most influential consumer technology company -- Apple -- and our smartest creatives in TV -- fewer than a dozen networks -- still can't come together and offer something awesome.
Before I tune out, you read it here: a hand lotion good enough for zombies and the people who still tragically love them? I'd buy it. Heck, I might even become a lifelong customer.
- See more at: http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/79615.html#sthash.vaM1ov79.dpuf

It's damn near 2014, and what's the most baffling computing experience we have? The Apple TV television experience. It's so disappointing. We get new so-called TV channels -- or little Applets -- that give us a kaleidoscopic glimpse into the content available from a particular broadcast network, but it's also locked down so we have to be a cable television subscriber to view it.

When I saw the news about the latest batch of TV apps to make it to the Apple TV, including Watch ABC, Bloomberg and Crackle, I had a small, irrational moment of hope. It was quickly dashed, of course, when I realized that Watch ABC is a hobbled app. When I tried to watch an episode of Castle, I was prompted to enter in my cable TV provider. The problem is, I'm a DISH Network subscriber. No option. Imagine if I lived in a sweet urban area with high-quality HD over-the-air reception of ABC. The Watch ABC app would still be useless.
There's got to be a better way. So what do I expect? What should we wish for?

A Simple Wish

My vision is insanely straightforward: I'd like to be able to consume content wherever I am on smart, connected devices with networks, content providers and producers selling advertising to support it. Sounds a lot like traditional TV, right?
Flickering images relate stories or news that so compelling, we're willing to be interrupted to watch unrelated commercials that attempt to manipulate us. We get it. We've been doing it for years. The only difference is the delivery mechanism (Internet plus old-school cable, satellite and over-the-air broadcasts) and the device (smartphone, tablet, PC, smart TV or set-top box).
Instead, what we have are endless hoops and restrictions that basically turn the smartest of us into the TV version of apathetic voters in a disingenuous political system -- more likely to tune out than tune in.

Who Will Finally Stop the Insanity?

I'm willing to buy television shows I really enjoy, like The Walking Dead and Homeland. I don't already get these shows via my bare-bones DISH Network service plan. More to the point, I buy entire seasons. If I couldn't get The Mentalist over traditional TV methods, I'd buy The Mentalist. And Castle. Maybe the NCIS franchises. Maybe. Perhaps The Big Bang Theory at a lower price point.
Would I pay specifically for The Voice? No. Sleepy Hollow? No. But could I become enough of a fan of Sleepy Hollow to buy it or watch it on purpose? Maybe. This is where advertising-based TV shines. I'll watch content I wouldn't normally pay directly for, but only if it's easy to consume.
Force me to jump through a bunch of hoops and impose baffling restrictions, or provide and pull content willy nilly, and I'll tune out. I'd rather have a joking conversation via instant messaging on my iPhone. Which means I'm a lost viewer, and getting more lost to the TV world by the day.
Interestingly, I just became hooked on Justified, which is a small TV series produced by FX. I found it because I could stream it via my Amazon Prime service to my iPhone. I'm on season three. When I catch up, I'll buy the episodes for US$1.99 or $2.99 each on iTunes. What's missing here?
An FX app on my Apple TV. If I could stream Justified from FX on my Apple TV, I'd do that -- and I'd be engaged with advertisers. In addition, I'd be exposed to other FX shows and content. I would watch more "TV." Instead, I'm focused, and I tune out more than ever. And when I buy Justified, sure, that's a gain, but it's a short-term gain. It's like showing and selling cookies to me -- but not lemonade -- on a hot day.

Amazon to the Rescue?

Amazon is a wild and weird company. It has competed with all sorts of businesses and business models, and it has even trashed an industry (traditional publishing) while improving a consumer experience (reading). This summer, Amazon bought the rights to stream the Stephen King book-turned-TV-hit Under the Dome 13-episode season four days after it aired on CBS.
How did I end up a fan? I recorded the first two episodes or so on my traditional DVR system, then missed recording a couple weeks. I eventually started watching the series. I liked it. When I ran out of recorded shows, I caught up via Amazon. I went back to CBS on my traditional TV set for most of the rest of series. Why? It's a better experience because the quality is great, I can record it and play it back at will, and there are no streaming issues or special rules.
Recent reports indicate that CBS sold the rights to stream the little series to Amazon for US$700,000 per episode, exclusively. Now, this is both a success story and a failure. It's a success for me because I'm an Amazon customer. If I were a Netflix customer, I'd be out in the cold. And a CBS fan with a smartphone? Same problem.

Caught in the Middle, Again and Again Forever?

The problem with TV is too convoluted for mere watchers to understand. It's tied up in content rights, distribution rights, advertising sales, and traditional contracts and methods of business that make everyone fearful of change. Remember DVDs? Another case in point. Meanwhile, the TV industry is turning off its consumers, ensuring a fractured existence of Google Chromecast, Roku, Hulu, and the destined-to-be-a-hobby-forever Apple TV.
Consider this: I can't watch an episode of Castle via the new Watch ABC app on my Apple TV. Yet I can watch that episode of Castle at ABC.com on my Mac via my Safari browser and throw it at my HDTV using Apple's AirPlay with my Apple TV. Does this make sense? I even get to watch the ads, but because I wanted a big-screen experience, I can't really click on them now, can I?
Letting consumers gravitate toward excellent, engaging content of their choice using smart, connected devices would be good for the industry, right?
Consider Justified, which is about a U.S. Marshall who wears a cowboy hat and boots. Why aren't I seeing ads for cowboy boots? For a Stetson hat? I might be compelled to check out a pair of boots.
How about NCIS: Los Angeles? Why don't I see ads for the muscle car driven by Senior Field Agent Sam Hanna (LL Cool J)?
Why not the fancy coffee machine that consistently shows up in the cop/writer drama Castle?
Heck, it's almost 2014, right? I don't expect flying cars, but why can't a highly engaged audience for The Walking Dead see an ad for a lotion that might claim to be able to rehydrate the skin of zombies?

Back to the Apple TV

If the Apple TV audience isn't yet huge, why bother making TV apps that require us to jump through hoops? If I were ABC, I would be investing in a whole new company -- Maybe "ABCD" for Digital -- that could produce content that's unfettered by all the old business rules that is holding it back. Why not do things like CBS did with Under the Dome and Amazon, but even better?
The question it comes down to is more about wanting to continue with a business where there's a lot of money being thrown around to dubious effect -- and keeping up the charade as long as possible (traditional TV) -- or doing something radical like trying to serve customers in a way that makes sense.
The Apple TV audience is small now, but it's an audience that could be insanely engaged. Apple TV users are not plopping their butts onto couches in order to zone out on whatever is on. They are actively finding and selecting something that interests them. We don't have an industry that can sell this?
I'm just mad and sad that our most influential consumer technology company -- Apple -- and our smartest creatives in TV -- fewer than a dozen networks -- still can't come together and offer something awesome.
Before I tune out, you read it here: a hand lotion good enough for zombies and the people who still tragically love them? I'd buy it. Heck, I might even become a lifelong customer.
- See more at: http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/79615.html#sthash.vaM1ov79.dpuf