On the eve of the 2009 CES show, perhaps it’s time for a few more thoughts on what should prove to be The Big Story at this year’s show: televisions and set-top boxes with internet access baked in, for direct internet video access.

For the last few years, numerous companies in the ‘computer’ business (on either the hardware or software side) have made repeated attempts to market solutions involving the PC as a viable long-form internet video delivery platform - with little to no success. Lately, though, perhaps enough anthropologists and/or behavioral scientists have been hired to finally convince at least a few of these companies that despite all the bells and whistles, a computer might never be a television after all (as they say in the south, “you can put a brick in the oven, but that don’t make it a biscuit”).

So while certain companies might have enjoyed a substantial technological head start in internet video, through a stubborn insistence on leveraging the home computer, the opportunity was missed. But no matter: here comes the CE industry - as of Thursday in Las Vegas, it’s their market now.

Apple undertook a conscious expansion into the CE industry several years ago with the iPod (in fact, dropping ‘Computer’ from their corporate name) - is it too late for other computer-centric companies to make a similar move? 

The recent Intel/Yahoo initiative is a particularly interesting case in point.  Both companies, as Yahoo Connected TV vice president Patrick Barry poetically puts it, “emerged from the ocean of the PC”.

Intel Intel has been especially forward-thinking regarding the convergence of the home computing and consumer electronics industries for some time now, having launched the Intel Digital Home Group several years ago.  The Digital Home Group, active in both processor design and standards development, is particularly close to my heart, as it’s made up of both anthropologists as well as computer scientists.

Yahoo We’ve been pretty hard on Yahoo lately, but they do have some heavy OEM hitters lined up to implement their embedded internet TV ‘widgets’ system: Sony, TiVo, and Samsung. Also worth noting, the Connected TV initiative intends to follow a purely advertising-supported model, and studies routinely show consumers prefer advertising to subscription fees.  Lastly, yet another issue (and one that holds true for all internet video contenders) is the remote: as Netflix CEO Reed Hastings recently noted, a Nintendo Wii-like pointing remote will likely be required as internet-enabled television hardware matures.

At any rate, given their recent setbacks, expect Yahoo to bet the farm on this one.

This doesn’t happen every day.

Rene Obermann, the Deutsche Telekom CEO himself, just pinged me, inviting me to connect to his LinkedIn profile. 

Now, two things came to mind instantly: Who else at DT got pinged? And why so late at night?

As to the former, it seems fair to assume the same invite went out to 200,000 or so of my other Deutsche Telekom colleagues around the globe.  (Because, although a Deutsche Telekom employee, I am certainly not close enough to Mr. Obermann to qualify for a personal one-on-one invite to his social network. More about this later).

As to why so late at night, myself in New York right now, my Blackberry took notice of the invite to connect to Mr. Obermann at a surprisingly late 10:43 PM EST.

Which means someone in Germany - where DT’s HQ resides - got up rather bright and early (4:43 AM to be exact), to get this out to me.

So what does this all mean?

A)  No doubt, when the top executive of a multi-national company pings you via LinkedIn, you know Web-based social networking has hit mainstream.

That’s a good thing I suppose. (Even when you know, it is his PR team that drives the initiative).

B) Driving traffic worth 200,000 individuals (at least potentially) towards a single social network doesn’t happen every day. Not even at such a popular site as LinkedIn has become.

On balance though, I don’t think they’ll mind.

C) My guess is more messages will be forthcoming from my CEO; presumably all via internal PR, all DT-related I suppose, and designed to induce informal dialog, outside corporate walls and a T-branded environment.

Whether this is going to work, let’s see. But I am certainly smitten by this new openness permeating not just inside DT’s CEO office, but in many other places these days.

Then I got really curious.

What if all the CEO’s of other leading European telecom giants have long been on LinkedIn, and I just didn’t know.

Could Rene be late in this, merely following and not leading his peers into the nebula of Web 2.0 ?

Well, turns out, France Telecom CEO Didier Lombard himself is currently not on LinkedIn. But the company maintains a corporate profile, so far with 556 FT employees auto-grouped by LinkedIn under the corporate umbrella.

Telecom Italia Franco Bernabe is indeed on LinkedIn, but so far with zero connections. What went wrong there?

Then there is BT CEO Ben Verwaayen. Yes, Ben does maintain his personal LinkedIn profile. Even better (little did I know), we are only two degrees removed. 

Tuns out, his profile page only shows a single connection so far. And the one connection separating Ben and I is someone with 500+ connections. Hardly a quality contact, I suppose.

And how about closer to (my) home, the US? Are the leading US telco CEOs populating LinkedIn?

As of my writing these lines, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson is curently not present with a profile.

Neither is Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg. 

Either they (and their PR team) haven’t gotten to it, I am thinking, or they (and their PR team) found it simply not worth their while. Who knows?

Backt to Rene Obermann, unlike his LinkedIn telco CEO peers, he publicly distributes a Gmail address, and has set his profile to allow insight into who else is connecting to him at any time.

This seems to signal a level of engagement interests way above and beyond his telco CEO peers.

But upon my last check (12:03 AM EST), his public LinkedIn profile shows a mere eight connections.

While not overly impressive, heed the time difference, folks. I suppose most of my colleagues haven’t had a chance to accept the invite as they have literally yet to wake up to their CEO’s surprisingly early morning ping.

It was almost two years ago now that Apple dropped the ‘Computer’ from its corporate name, reflecting the company’s growing presence in the consumer electronics space.  We believe the next iPod-like disruptive CE devices will be an completely new generation of network-enabled TV and set-top hardware offering direct and simple access to internet video ‘baked-in’ - and we believe some compelling implementations are right around the corner.

Meanwhile, consider an exchange from a panel at last week’s ‘Future of Television East‘ conference in NY: asked whether the emergence of such hardware would have much impact on the (currently computer-centric) internet video space, a panel member representing a major software firm essentially reduced the issue to that of merely a difference in user interface ergonomics  - keyboard/mouse vs. remote.  To paraphrase the panel member, “the user will get to the content whatever way the user gets to the content” - but yet minutes later, this same panel member was admitting that user uptake of their internet video TV technology was “not happening as quickly as we’d all like to see”.

Why is that?  Well, if a company’s solution to the problem of getting video from the internet to the TV involves putting a personal computer between the television and the internet and administering it all from the desktop rather than from the couch, they are just not going to see much uptake from Joe the Plumber – instead, the average user will wait for a ‘lean back’ solution to become available, saving him or her from having to get up and touch the computer at all.  Although this is precisely the point at which we currently find ourselves, we don’t see the situation lasting very much longer - again, we believe internet–enabled TV hardware will be the big story of 2009 (one of the issues that’s kept this from happening so far is the development of a useable motion/pointer remote, but that’s on its way too - more on that here).

Clearly, there are major ease-of-use differences between the personal computer/media server internet TV model and the (as yet unavailable) embedded hardware internet TV model - in terms of set-up, user experience, and maintenance.  But while the various software incumbents might have a stake in downplaying these differences, they fail to recognize the inevitability of standalone internet video devices at their own peril – because this new generation of hardware will also require a new generation of lightweight system software and highly efficient video codecs/players (a potentially substantial new market).  Furthermore, to the extent internet-enabled TV and set-top hardware is successful in the broader mass market, a new user application market could also emerge for these ‘quasi-computers’ (Apple’s App Store is a good example of an appropriately simple and elegant approach to distribution and administration for such an entirely new software model).

During a Digital Hollywood panel concerned with the future of the television as an internet video delivery device, one panelist rather glibly declared the problem already easily solved - via only a $10 DVI/VGA-HDMI cable.  Since another one of my other pet peeves is the tendency of us technical folks to disconnect entirely over the value of simplicity , I have to take my hat off to panelist JD Colaco of Hulu, who correctly pointed out that such a solution was beyond “95%” of the general population (I would further add that it would also still require the viewer to boot up the computer and administer everything from there – not the most elegant solution).

But perhaps JD’s point was best made only minutes later, as another panelist’s ‘brave new world’ powerpoint presentation was delayed for several minutes, as (and this is in a roomful of digital media professionals and with hotel A/V support on hand) there was a problem with his laptop and the flat screen:

…connecting the DVI/VGA -HDMI cable.

When talk turns to video distribution over the internet, I’m always amazed that the issue of physically bridging that last yard or two from the home internet connection behind the computer to the television in front of the coffee table isn’t discussed more.

At last week’s Digital Hollywood show in LA, the majority of panels were about how to better monetize the video currently being streamed to the web browser (understandable, given the current economic climate).  The basic problem is that while the CPM rates that web video publishers can charge advertisers run several times higher than what traditional broadcasters can get away with charging, online viewers will tolerate only a small fraction of the amount of advertising that traditional broadcast and cable television viewers will put up with (imagine how well a traditional two minute commercial break would work on Hulu…).

To me, the issue is fairly clear –

• Only longer-form programming (lasting a half-hour or more) will support higher advertising density and attract more mainstream brands.
• Ales’ Theorem: The willingness of the viewer to sit alone at a desk or in front of a laptop is inversely proportional to the length of the programming.
• Therefore, a truly sustainable internet video business model relies on solving the physical problem of getting that content onto the television.

In other words, to paraphrase Gil Scott Heron: The Revolution Will Be Televised

…look for some big announcements at CES in January.

Who knew? A Twitter feed, large on a flashy screen, during a live conference workshop Q&A.

While attending the recent Web 2.0 Expo software love fest in New York, what struck me, those Twitter posts came from audience members right in the same room, only steps away from a microphone and free to pose the same questions to everyone “organically”.

Rather than raising their “analog” hands and voices, they opted to type questions into a digital device.

Afforded seeing everyone’s “twittered” questions come in live, this seemed info overkill, distracting from the verbal live discussion unfolding at the same time.

Later, walking past the Web2Open area (set up for free-wheeling “anti-conference” discussions among peers), more participants seemed tied to their handhelds and laptops then actually talking to each other face-to-face.

All in, to get real people to engage in real meetings was never easy.  With the advent of Web 2.0, could we have added yet another layer of complication?

No doubt, despite its relatively short existence, Web 2.0 (the trend, not its name-sake conference) has had fundamental, positive impact on consumer digital life.

But during this industry conference, the community of evangelist and software architects seemed surprisingly stuck between “old world” idiosyncrasies and “new world” paradigm. (In all fairness though, some Web2Open discussion certainly did take place).

In his most recent testimonial ad,  Sprint CEO D. Hesse makes a valid point. ”Technology is only great when you know how to use it”.

Web 2.0 Expo attendees certainly know how to “use technology”.

But even to the best of us, it seems still somewhat awkward to navigate both analog and digital worlds simultaneously - especially if both are “anywhere, anytime” and “always on” to reckon with.

So, what is the right mix of “synthetic” communications and “organic” conversation at the dawn of the 21st century?

For anyone with interest in the bigger picture behind all of this, during the conference, Intel social scientist, Genevieve Bell, gave an impressive to-the-point presentation.

Wanna’ discuss this further?

Please no analog “old world” calls.

Instead, post a digital “new world” message right here.

Oh wait, why don’t we talk AND twitter ;-)

Currently at the San Diego airport, on my way back from the annual start-up launchpad extravaganza Demo Fall 2008.

While listening for two days to what amounted to over 70 companies on stage - no matter whether US or overseas presenters - I was surprised to see how culturally homogenous the presentation style turned out to be.

Sure, Demo’s organizers (it seems mainly the omnipresent Chris Shipley) pre-determined the permissible presentation format.

But this doesn’t fully explain why the new software pitch of a French executive sound virtually indistinguishable from the one just delivered by his peers from the US, Italy, or India.

Clearly, everyone was free to market their innovation as they pleased. And they certainly did.

To that end, the vast majority of company presentations went something like this:

“The world of digital technology is facing a fundamental (fill-in-the-blank) problem”;
“Hello, I am the CEO of (fill-in-the-blank) company, and I can help”;
“This is how we solve the puzzle posed” (several details plus a live demo follow);
“Thank you, be sure to visit us at our booth”.

With that, overseas presentations were (luckily) surprisingly void of lengthy, Euro-style powerpoints or meticulous “every-detail-I-can-think-of” product descriptions we might expect from, let’s say, an Asian or European engineer.

But how did Demo manage to curb those cultural idiosyncrasies for the benefit of fairly digestible “plain English” start-up pitches, without so much of an attempt to structure things?

To be sure, Demo’s secret sauce is a 6-minutes-only, live on-stage presentation format. No tele-prompters, no reading off cards. Instead start-up representatives directly address a diverse audience of peers, investors, and media representatives to promote their individual wares.

Yet, despite these deliberate limitations, overseas presenters seemed amazingly “at home” and (well) prepared to equal their US counterparts on quick-and-plenty use of American-style rich adjectives and superlatives to get their points across.

As a result, the conference hall quickly filled with verbage insinuating nothing short of “bold vision”, “clear direction”, and that “unshakable sense of purpose” every start-up should have - only here at times delivered with the added sincerity of a Taiwanese, Italian, or French accent.

Begs the questions, are our overseas presenters merely mimicking their US counterparts or is there such a thing as an “American presentation style” that has become as sure an export hit as Apple, Coke, or Google?

Let’s face it, the art of marketing wasn’t invented in Zurich or Shanghai. And marketing starts and ends with words.

As it stands, Silicon Valley start-ups not only deliver tremendous innovation globally, but also the lingo that comes with it. That was new to me.