Back in June 2009 I conceived of what Apple’s, then rumored, touchscreen device might look like and how it might be used. One month ago Apple finally unveiled the iPad ; it only mildly resembles my conceptual model but it does embody a simple yet versatile multimedia device with a lot of potential. Since its introduction some have dismissed the iPad as nothing more than an oversized iTouch and while this description is relatively accurate it fails the recognize its intrinsic utility and why it will be such a huge success.

My presupposition of the iPad on the left and Steve Jobs’ actual product on the right.

The iPad’s intuitive user interface will appeal to less tech-savy users. As mentioned in the January 31 podcast of Six Pixels of Separation the device will remove a lot of “metaphors and architecture… inherent to laptops that deter many older users from using those devices.” For similar reasons, as well as its compelling gaming and media apps, the iPad will also attract younger users, even perhaps pre-adolescents. It was probably with this segment in mind the Paint App was demoed during the iPad presentation. The next generation of children will probably be mastering a touchscreen interface long before a keyboard or mouse. With its lower price point and conformability for recreational purposes, I also think that the iPad will become the cool, if not the standard, educational tool for younger users, replacing laptops as the device students tote from classrooms to recess. Therefore it should come as no surprise that a recent AdMob survey indicates that the Pad will be particularly popular with both the young and the old.

I also believe that the iPad will find fans in other segments such as at-home moms or dads, and sales people; as said on the Marketing for Coffee February 3 podcast, “(the iPad) will be a sales machine in a box… a good presentation tool,” echoing my similar prediction in June.

Although these segments will likely provide the initial demand for the iPad, I sincerely believe that it will find a very broad acceptance in the long run, and that it will become the device for consuming media on a personal level, just as a television is the device for group consumption. How often have you seen somebody use a laptop or BlackBerry while watching television? It is pretty much commonplace but neither device is ideal- a laptop is large and sometimes unwieldy, and a BlackBerry or any other “phone” device  is too small and limited. Although the iPhone and iTouch greatly expanded the range of the latter category, they are still a bit too small. The iPad is the “Goldilocks” solution that fits the situation just right.

So if the iPad is so great, how many will Apple sell? Pricing is the critical factor to consider. Apple announced six different initial models, probably to give options for every budget and to increase market penetration. The lowest priced model, a 16GB Wifi iPad, will cost $499 while the high end 64GB 3G model will cost $829. It is worth remembering that the iPod Touch sold over 13 million during its first 15 months, and began at price points of $299 for 8GB and $399 for 16GB, not too far from the low end iPad model. It is also worth noting that the iPod Touch is Apple’s undercover hit- iTouches are estimated to be 40% of the 58 million iPhone OS devices sold worldwide. Given it genuine utility and the market performance of the iTouch , I believe that the iPad will exceed most analysts’ sales predictions, which range from 1.1 to 7 million units for the first year.

An article today in the Financial Times mentions how Apple is supposedly pressuring TV networks to cut their episode pricing on iTunes in half, from $1.99 to $1. The price cut indicates that television sales have been lackluster. While exact iTunes sales information isn’t offered, it is known that Apple had accumulated sales of 15 million TV episodes in February 2006, 50 million in January 2007 and 200 million in October 2008. Based on this, in a recent in November 2009 I projected that Apple should have then reached sales of 86 million episodes.

I extrapolated the videos sold at December 2008 and 2008 on the speeds implied between official announcements. For example:

(200MM at Oct 16, 08 - 50MM at Jan 10, 07) = 150MM/645 days = 230K sales/day

50MM at Jan 10, 07 + (230K sales/day x 355 days) = 132.6MM sales at December 31, 2007

Utilizing this information I then calculated the average sales per user. Based on my calculations these average sales have dropped since 2007.

The bottom line is that Apple needs to rework its video strategy. The price cut attempts to address the issue. Why should iTunes customers pay $1.99 for a one-hour TV episode when they can spend the same amount for a game that they can play hours with? Apple understands that iTunes customers make this comparison, and that a TV episode, which is watched perhaps twice or three times, especially when repeat viewing require a user to store the video, taking up half a gigabyte of drive space, resulting yet another deterrent.

It’s also possible that Apple’s current roster of video platforms (iMac, MacBook, iPod Classic, iTouch, iPhone, Apple TV etc.) are simply not “fantastically great” enough for video watching due to portability (in the case of the computers) or screen size (in the case of the portable devices). Tomorrow Apple is presenting a new device, which could turn out to be the perfect device for video watching. It might finally convince iTunes customers to buy more TV episodes. It may also persuade Apple’s TV production partners to go along with the new iTunes pricing plan.

Apple has an impressive position in the music market. Through its iTunes store, the company currently has a 69% share of the U.S. digital music market and a 25% share of the total U.S. music market. Their position isn’t as strong however in the video market. This is especially apparent when you compare iTunes music and video sales on an average unit sold per user basis.

The iTunes store launched in early 2003 and by the end of the year it had almost 700,000 registered users. With the launches of the iPhone and iPod Touch, iTunes greatly expanded its customer base and they now reach over 100 million users.

The larger user base consequently led to accelerated musics sales. In early September total song sales reached 8.5 billion; they will probably surpass 10 billion in early 2010. (Update: Effectively, Apple reached the 10 billion songs sales point on February 25, 2010)

Looking at the average annual songs sold per registered user, iTunes initially had a very high amount- over 60 songs per user during its first year. This makes sense given that most of iTunes’ initial customers were early adopters of iPods and iTunes and probably hard-core music fans. After 2003 average song sales dropped off, but steadily grew back through 2007, until the user base ballooned (with the introduction of the iPhone and iPod Touch), resulting in another drop in 2008. However, the average has recovered between January and September 2009. Perhaps the latest wave of iTunes customers are becoming music customers.

As I mentioned beforem within video the picture hasn’t been as pretty. Total video units sold has been a fraction of average songs sold per customer. I thought that video sales would’ve picked up once more video-capable Apple devices were in the market (iPhone, iTouch, etc.) but that hasn’t been the case. Average sales per user dropped off in 2008, again, due to the increased user base, but video sales have not recovered like music. Rather there have been two sequential declines in average video units sold per user.

So is there a possibility that Apple will rectify its video position? Since April I have been speculating on the highly rumored iTablet. I believe that the device will be a multimedia marvel, revolutionizing gaming, digital magazines and digital video in particular, much as how the iPod affected the digital music industry. What was missing from my initial analysis was how Apple would need to couple its device launch with an evolution of iTunes, in terms of its video business model.

While iTunes does offer unparalleled access to content from many producers, it is easy to understand how many consumers might be stifled by its pay-to-own business model. An 45 minute standard-definition television episode on iTunes takes up about 450 MB of storage space. That is about 50 times more than a song. A song costs only half as much as the TV episode ($0.99 to $1.99). Therefore the real prohibitive cost to consumers from buying video content is disk space and not the purchasing price.

The logical solution for iTunes would be to implement a video subscription model. This week such a service was reported on at AllThingsDigital and Disney is rumored as being one the service’s early partners. Such an option combined with the “iTablet” would give Apple a much stronger customer offering for video, and would probably propel the company’s position within the market during the next few years.

The digital video market, being nascent, promising and hot, is the equivalent of a precocious young celebrity. They both attract a lot of attention, press coverage, and debate concerning which projects and relationships are worth pursuing. Of course, I have my own opinion, but just about digital video and not celebrities.

If you divide the digital video market by delivery methods (streaming or downloaded) and business models (consumer paid or ad supported), four sectors emerge.

Companies within the ad-supported streamed quadrant (upper left-hand corner) have received a lot of criticism lately for basically giving away for their content. Although YouTube attracts between 40 to 60% of total internet video streams the company places ads in only about 9% of these streams. Hulu has been somewhat more successful since it’s selling about 60% of its ad inventory, but the site has much less traffic, and runs only two minutes of spots per 22 minute program (a quarter of the standard amount on television). Hulu’s annual sales are running at about $120 million, a third less than estimates at the beginning of the year.

Unsurprisingly, there is much speculation about Hulu beginning a subscription service option, which would extend its presence towards the lower left-hand quadrant, along with the likes of Netflix and the “TV Everywhere” project currently being developed by Time Warner and Comcast. Such a business model might offer Hulu a greater revenue per viewer than what advertising currently yields, even at a high $50 CPM. Interestingly Amazon’s versatile Unbox service offers both paid streaming and downloaded options, placing it across both the lower left-hand and right-hand quadrants. Just within the paid downloaded quadrant iTunes is probably the biggest player.

Most of these companies do not yet have mobile video platforms. The only options seem to be YouTube, iTunes and Podcasts. Hulu may have an iPhone App in the works, but it seems to be on hold until their subscription service launches. This would leave Podcasts as the only mobile ad-supported downloaded service. It seems to me that this is an opportunity worth exploring.

Mobile video content has a strong value proposition. It offers portable viewing of video, anywhere and at anytime, and doesn’t require a network connection which can very unreliable or inaccessible in many situations. Mobile video also offers a higher level of viewer engagement than with television or computers where consumers can change channels or application windows. The only catch is that in order to make the most of this, you would have to “pause” or disable the fast-forward button during commercial breaks. Of course, the downloaded content would also have to an “expiration date,” as is the case with any video content, but this could be easily implemented with mobile devices just as Apple has restricted the length of time for viewing rented movies from its iTunes store.

I posted my idea for an ad-supported downloaded video on a recent article by Dan Rayburn concerning Hulu’s possible iPhone app, and how Hulu could opt for this route . His response:

Sure, it’s possible, but I don’t think likely as the consumer experience would suffer and the content would not be available instantly.

I respectfully disagree since consumers do want to be able to watch video content without relying on AT&T’s 3G network. Perhaps in the long term when mobile networks switch to 4G downloadable content would not offer the same value, but it remains to be seen how quickly mobile networks upgrade, and how data pricing plans also evolve. I also believe that consumers would be willing to temporarily cede their FF button in return for the right to see the latest episode of their favorite TV show anytime and anywhere. Viewers don’t mind sitting through the unskippable commercial breaks in Hulu and this proposition would be fairly similar.

The most important thing to remember is the immense market potential of mobile video. According to Nielsen, consumers currently spend about 3.5 hours per month watching video on a mobile device; that’s only 1.8% of the total time they spend watching video. Everybody is expecting this market to explode and the sooner or later a diversity of video options will be offered to satisfy a range of demands. Perhaps the downloaded ad-supported models won’t be the majority, but they will certainly be available. The only question is which companies will offer the service.

Today it was confirmed that Apple will be hosting an event on September 9 in San Francisco. The wording and design of the invitation indicate that the event will focus on music, most likely the iPod line and iTunes.

Last year’s invite clearly showed a thin iPod, hinting at the return to the “narrow form factor” in the fourth generation Nano, which was indeed presented at this event. The rumored announcements for this year’s event include:

• The Beatles library will be added to iTunes Store. This has been widely speculated since The Beatles remastered catalog is being released the the same day, but the event’s invitation mimics a song from The Rolling Stones; could this be a smokescreen?
• There will be adjustments to the iPod product line including an video camera functionality to the iTouch. Capacity upgrades are expected as always.
• Similarly, there will be price adjustments across the lineup.
• Finally, iTunes version 9.0 will be introduced. It may include new music bundling options and social features. A less likely subscription music service has also been rumored.

Regardless of exact proclamations the event is undoubtedly meant to support Apple’s iPod sales, which are normally strongest in the fourth quarter. This year however expectations are somewhat lower since iPod sales dipped recently in the third quarter, a first on a year-to-year quarterly basis. This is why I consider this year’s September event to be a quick reboot; a moment for Apple to reiterate its lead in the music sector, while buying the company some time to develop in other areas.

The iPod division, or segment, was the strongest contributor at Apple in 2006. Since then Mac sales have grown more briskly. Other segments have also consolidated themselves.

This all demonstrates how Apple, despite the iPod’s success, has not rested on its laurels and has developed its other products while diversifying its business interests. Apple has expanded from computer and software to music, video, mobile and gaming. Moving forward it will be interesting to see which new products and services Apple launches to further expand its stake in each of these sectors.

I personally believe that while a music subscription service would be quite challenging, a video subscription service would be a more natural market fit. Although Apple has done well with iTunes video sales, consumers normally rent access to TV shows or movies, rather than purchasing them outright. I am certain that Apple will eventually present a video subscription option in the iTunes store, perhaps within the next year. Gene Munster, an analyst at Piper Jaffrays, recently predicted that Apple launch an Apple TV set by 2011.

If the company does successfully move into music and video subscription services it could effectively become a media company, competing with the likes of Comcast, Netflix and Hulu. Apple is already leaves its digital music competitors in the dust. It is interesting to speculate how it would fare in the digital video sphere. I am sure the topic will be coming up in the months ahead, if information is finally revealed.

Yesterday an article in The New York times highlighted the results of a media industry report from the private equity firm Veronis Suhler Stevenson (VSS):

An interesting shift occurred in 2008, the report said. For the first time, consumers spent more time with media they paid for, like books or cable television, than with primarily ad-supported media, like newspapers and magazines.

The VSS report also forecast internet media and subscription television to be sectors of strong growth during the next four years. These trends echoes the results mentioned in another report released a few weeks ago by Strategic Analytics (SA), which forecast that the global paid online video segment will surpass the ad-based online video segment in 2009. The SA report also forecast stronger growth for the paid segment during the next four years.

Both studies partly attribute the shift in balance towards paid content to the recession, which has stifled advertising budgets in both traditional and online media. In any case it is still surprising is to hear that paid video content will be a bigger moneymaker than ad-based content. While some companies like Apple and Netflix have made headway in the paid video segment a lot of studies have indicated that consumers prefer ad-supported models; an IBM study in November 2008 indicated that 70% of consumers prefer ad-supported models over consumer-paid models. Another study by Deloitte yielded similar results, indicating that 67% of US consumers aged between 25 and 34 would “be willing to be exposed to online ads in exchange for free content.

Although the majority of consumers would opt for ad-based video models, perhaps the smaller pay-to-watch segment is willing to outspend advertisers as a whole, in return for the following benefits:

• Zero or less advertising
• Access to a wider range of content (recent movies, old TV episodes, etc.)
• Ownership of the material or a longer viewing window
• Option to watch across more types of hardware (computers, DVR, mobile, etc.)
• Higher viewing quality

Given these trends in these reports during next two years the online community will see an expansion in paid video content. The ‘TV Everywhere’ partnership was recently launched by Time Warner and Comcast, allowing Comcast subscribers to view video online from TBS, TNT, CBS and HBO. I am also wondering if ad-based sites like Hulu will add paid content options; perhaps a subscription service similar to Netflix for accessing all the episodes for a series. Will hybrid sites emerge, offering both ad-based and pay-to-watch options? It is probably to early to guess which models will win (Hulu was launched only 17 months ago; see graphic above) but it is probable that a greater variety of options will emerge, resulting in a more choices and a very dynamic market.

Last week Morgan Stanley (MS) published a paper written by a 15 year old intern in their UK office exploring teen media consumption. Morgan Stanley concedes that to not be “claiming representation or statistical accuracy” given the casual nature of the report. It is interesting to compare this paper’s beliefs to “How Teens Use Media,” a recent teen study conducted by Nielsen on a global basis. The two studies have substantial differences in certain areas, three of which I highlighted three in the following chart.

These discrepancies probably stem from the fact that the Morgan Stanley paper is basically inferred from a single perspective while the Nielsen study is worldwide survey. Furthermore it is probable that the UK cultural nuances differentiate the Morgan Stanley paper; it is also possible that it is skewed towards the younger end of teens since the writer is 15.

Still the personal nature of the Morgan Stanley paper gives it a certain appeal; it is filled with anecdotal nuggets, granting personable insight into how and why teens use media.

• “Teenagers visit the cinema more often they are in the lower end of teendom… this is due to pricing; at 15 they have to pay the full adult price, which is often double the child price.”
• “Many teenager use YouTube to watch videos (usually anime which cannot be watched anywhere else)…”

What is truly needed is a more thorough study of media consumption, directly comparing all age demographics from Preteens (10-12) to adults. The Nielsen Three Screen Study comes close to this, but the youngest demographic included is 18-24. It would also be greatly useful to categorize the media consumption not by age, but by birthdate, and to also conduct the study annually in order to judge how generational media consumption evolves.

This week’s new iPhone launch piqued my interest again in Apple’s 10-inch touchscreen device, which is rumored to be released before the end of this year.

This device, let’s call it the iTablet iPad (Microsoft has a hold on the “tablet” category name), will be like a larger version of the iTouch. See below for what I estimated the size and shape to be, and how it would relate to Apple’s existing lineup of small electronic devices; from left to right: Shuffle, Nano, iPod, iTouch and iPhone.

The device can be seen as an extension of the iPod family, but what will it do? The iPad will probably have the following features:

• Multi-touch user interface, similar to the iTouch and iPhone.
• Accelerometer, although the functionality of this will be somewhat different given the larger size of the device.
• Rear or side external audio speakers, similar to iTouch.
• Video and audio output, a first for an Apple small device, but necessary in order to support many of the functions I believe this device will fulfill.
• Wifi for web browsing and connecting to iTunes and the App Store.
• Bluetooth for external devices (headset, keyboard, mouse, game controllers) and for peer-to-peer applications.
• Run on the new iPhone OS 3.0, which offers a variety of new functions including direct App Store movie and TV show downloading, In-App purchasing, Peer-to-Peer connectivity, Voice over Internet functions and Push Notification.

Given these features the iPad will transcend all current product categories since it will fill a variety of functions:

• Game Platform: The iPhone and iTouch have clearly demonstrated their ability to compete in the portable gaming market. I believe that Sony’s latest PlayStation Portable (PSP), the 3.8 inch screen PSP Go, revealed last May and releasing in October, is a direct response to Apple’s smaller gaming products. A 10-inch screen will extend Apple’s presence in the gaming market, towards the higher end. Also, since the iPhone OS 3.0 communicates with many accessories, the iPad may probably support Bluetooth gaming controls, which will make the iPad Apple’s first entry into the console game market. There are also rumors of Apple launching a premium game section in the App Store, which might be the direct software component of this strategy.
• E-reader: Clearly the Kindle is a device that has received great reviews and acceptance in the marketplace, but while its black and white digital ink technology facilitates text reading, it is not ideal for color periodicals. Apple is already beginning to cater to this market with iTouch and Iphones Apps like Iceberg Reader which offer both subscription or single pay systems through in-App purchasing. While the Kindle will probably remain the staunch choice for book readers the iPad could take the majority of the color periodical subscription market.
• Multimedia Display: I expect the iPad will become the choice device for multimedia-to-go. It would be much more practical and comfortable for watching movies on trips, instead of carrying around a portable DVD player or a laptop. It could also be shared for viewing between two people unlike an iTouch or iPhone. The new iPhone OS supports direct movie and TV show downloading, signaling where Apple might be going with the iPad.
• Presentation Device: The portable size and touch screen capabilities of this device will make it an innovative device for animated presentations. Just see how much touch screen technology is in vogue now, popping up every day on CNN’s Situation Room and in movies like Quantum of Solace. Salespeople who want show clients some extra pizazz will use the iPad.
• Sporty computer: I also believe that the iPad will be used by many as their ‘second computer.’ I am thinking about businesspeople who already have a company laptop. The iPad will fit that need as their fun computer, for using Facebook, reading Golf Digest online, and watching videos. For all the reasons I listed above, iPad will be the device that they take on vacations. Similar to how some people have two cars; iTablet will be the sporty roadster they use on the weekends.

There are probably a number of other functions I haven’t thought of; I never expected the iPhone to be used a medical device for example. All in all, the new versatile device is sure to overturn many established parameters about electronic device categories, which will appeal to many different consumer segments. If it launches before the Holiday season Apple has another breakout hit on their hands.

U.S. broadcast TV networks have always been engulfed in a ratings race, always trying to win the title of “America’s Most Watched Network.” Last week the ratings results of the 2008-2009 broadcast television season came in. Out of the “big four” networks CBS was the clear winner, with growth in total viewers and across all key demos. MyNetworkTV (MNT) saw the most growth, mostly as a result of the popularity of WWF Smackdown. Univision (UNI) also saw growth in total viewers and the 18-49 demographic, but slightly lost younger viewers in the 18-34 demo. I couldn’t get data on Telemundo and I’m curious about how they grew this season across the same demo categories.

While the CW had the worst stats, it seems in terms of media coverage that NBC is faring the worst. Interviewed at the All Things Digital Conference NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker admits that “NBC primetime has had four very difficult years.” The following chart illustrates just how much NBC’s stature has fallen in recent years.

Is this the bottom for the Peacock Network and could the it be on the verge of a comeback next season? Depends on whether you think it has to do with ratings or profitability.

NBC changed about 70% of their primetime programming; the biggest change is programming Jay Leno five nights a week at 10:00 p.m. The move is considered by some industry veterans to be nothing short of capitulation. NBC is touting Jay Leno’s show as viable alternative programming with a low price tag and a high resistance to DVR viewing. The lower cost results in a lower ratings threshold The show would be considered a success, as Jeff Zucker said, if it hits a 1.8 rating in the 18-49 demo, something far below the broadcast norm for the same time slot. Perhaps if the show makes their ratings objective, NBC will happily remain trailing the ratings race, and still consider themselves a success.

This weekend Google is launching its first television commerical aimed solely at raising awareness for Chrome, the internet browser it released last year which currently has a 1.42% worldwide market share according to Net Applications.  The browser market is basically dominated by Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (IE) but perhaps change is in the air. Before 2007 Internet Explorer had a worldwide usage market share over 80%; today it is at about 66%. The most significant competition to IE has come from Mozilla Firefox which grew to a 15% share within two years of its release and currently stands at 22%. Apple’s Safari has also made some headway and is currently has an 8% share.

It will be interesting to see if the television campaign helps Chrome’s market share and in general how it fares during the next year. Will it reach 7% like Firefox did?