Intel Centrino 2: Return of the WiFi

My not so secret life, and where I've been spending almost all of my time over the last several months, has been leading the product marketing team responsible for launching Intel Centrino 2 Processor Technology. Product Marketing at Intel is a mix between defining features and SKUs, driving the product requirements into engineering and then taking the product and successfully positioning it with our notebook OEMs to enable the sales organization to get design wins. Centrino 2 is the brand that represents the latest bundle of hardware and software for notebooks from Intel. It is comprised of a processor, a chipset (most notably delivering graphics and video capability), and a wireless radio. Later this year, WiMAX will be available on Centrino 2.

I titled this post "Intel Centrino 2: Return of the Wifi", as our naming conventions in the tech industry sound more like movie sequels than products sometimes - and I consider this to be a great sequel. Maybe not as historic as "Return of the Jedi", one of the great sequels of all time, but a better subtitle for my post than "The Wrath of Khan" :)

I had the opportunity to explain Centrino 2 to Scott Budman of NBC11 in San Jose. Consider this to be the exciting trailer for the sequel to the wildy successful Centrino.

For all of the details about Centrino 2, check out our website: http://www.intel.com/products/centrino/centrino/. Intel Centrino 2 Procesor Technology has great performance, including support for Blu Ray movie playback; lower average power than any prior Centrino which makes it easier for notebook manufacturers to offer the longest battery life; and faster wireless, including .11n at up to 450 Mbps. You'll see Centrino 2 come out in sleek, stylish designs - consider the cool-looking Macbook Air that was based on an earlier generation of Intel components.

Enjoy Centrino 2. And may the force be with you.

Hulu - The Future of Ad Revenue on the Web

I found the linked article below interesting. It represents a way that I’ve thought for a while you actually could make good money off of advertising on the web – if the consumer buys into it. In this model you have to watch advertising, but the user picks the types of ads he’ll see. Ads are not bad, you just don’t want to watch the ones not relevant or entertaining to you. And it also mentions research that showed higher ad retention when watching at a PC (2 foot experience, immersed) vs 10 foot TV experience. It makes sense. So I get to watch funny Apple ads that I enjoy anyway, and get my content for free. And the advertisers probably get a much higher ROI than they get on TV today because I opted in.

The full article is here:
http://www.mercurynews.com//ci_8556838?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

But here are some key quotes:

• Hulu users tend to be more engaged with what's on the screen than the average television viewer, in part because they usually sit closer to the screen and have fewer distractions. As a result, he said, users tend to come away from watching Hulu with more of an impression of the commercials than do television viewers....."It's the two-foot experience as opposed to the 10-foot experience,"
• It is experimenting with allowing users to choose which ads to view, and with showing movie trailers upfront in exchange for shows without commercial breaks.

Crossing the Chasm 2.0

A few weeks ago, I attended a presentation by Geoffrey Moore, author of ‘Crossing the Chasm’ and other books. I thought it was interesting enough to share with others. It certainly had me thinking. The main subject was ‘Web 2.0’, but it really wasn’t about Geoff giving answers, he really positioned it as some of his evolving thoughts and questions, and engaged the audience in a discussion. It was quite interactive, with lots of differing opinions as you might imagine. The presentation also covered health care and energy, which he referred to as ‘Crossing the Chasm 1.5’. But the focus was on ‘Crossing the Chasm 2.0’.

His definition of Web 2.0 was mostly about the fast growing sites that don’t necessarily have a business model, like Facebook and YouTube. The focus of a lot of the discussion was if and how Web 2.0 can be a business – how do you monetize eyeballs? He said there are really 2 chasms to cross at different times – a popularity chasm, and a monetization chasm. You must build traffic – the popularity, first. His second point (which I agree with), is that Web 2.0 properties must think beyond advertising for revenue – he believes there is an advertising bubble. The premise of his presentation was that many of the old rules don’t apply.

Personally, I agree with this premise only up to a point. I think successful businesses still need to be built upon something that buyers can not easily get somewhere else, and that they highly desire. There still needs to be a barrier to entry. True intellectual property (like a good search algorithm), or unique content can be a barrier to entry. So for example, a social networking site may have a hard time being monetized – is a network of my ‘friends’ so unique that if I had to pay for it I wouldn’t look to another social network? However, YouTube may have somewhat of a barrier to entry as there is a lot of fun and useful content there. Yes, content can be posted on other sites as well, but they have crossed the popularity chasm with content that largely is not available elsewhere, and it’s not trivial to move all of that content elsewhere. (Would the Numa Numa kid re-post somewhere else? :) ).

Do do that Vudu that you do so well

I am officially an evangelist for Vudu (www.vudu.com), a cool new 'box' for viewing over 5000 on demand movies on my TV. I also have DirecTV On Demand, which is in some ways similar. The only thing worthy of noting by comparison is that I have my wireless adapter perpetually hooked to the Vudu box, and not to DirecTV. Why? Mostly because of ease of use. First of all, the internet connection seemed to cause my DirecTV box to occassionaly hang, while Vudu has never had a problem. But beyond that the Vudu interface is easy to navigate, visually attractive, and simple. It starts with the remote. Just like Tivo (www.tivo.com), they put a lot of thought into this remote. It fits comfortably in the hand. It uses an RF remote - which means it doesn't require line of sight. Not having to hold my remote high to get the signal over the coffee table, and not having to worry about my 6 year old son intentionally blocking my line of sight because he thinks that's funny, is key. Beyond this is the very simple interface. Easy to find what I want, but beyond that not a lot of choices - which is a good thing. I find the movie I want, and can then play or pause. That's pretty much it. My wife, a person I love but didn't know what a spreadsheet was before she met me (gasp!), can easily find movies. That also says a lot. I'll have more to say about the content choices, price, and competition in the future.

Eye-Fi at CES

I just returned from CES in Las Vegas. One of the more interesting and attention-grabbing products was eye-fi's (www.eye.fi) wireless SD card. It fits in any digital camera with an SD slot, and then when you are in your home network it wirelessly transfers your photos to your PC or a photo sharing service. Technically its probably not very complicated, but its simplicity is elegant, and its value proposition is compelling. Think about it - what it can do is useful to both young people and elderly people. How many tech products can you say that about?

However, I do have two issues from a marketing perspective. First of all, the name. I get why you want to create an association to WiFi, but why the 'eye'? What's the connection, its not obvious. If you wanted to create the WiFi association, how about MiFi, or MyFi. It makes it more personal. The second issue ties into the name. I went to look up their website, and not surprisingly typed in www.eyefi.com. That's not their site; and even worse the actual business is internet related, so there is a high risk of confusion. You'd have to google their name to find them, because you'd never think of eye.fi. Clearly, neither of these marketing mistakes are hurting the good press they are getting. But I think they could have helped themselves more here.