_Lots of great press coming out of CES for the research we drove that shows consumers love touch on a clamshell notebook.  Conventional wisdom for years was that people would get 'gorilla arm'.  And Steve Jobs said it was bad so it must be so.  Of course until they launch it.  Here's the article proclaiming why its bad from a year ago.  And here's one of the better articles on our research coming out of CES.

There only seems to be glowing reviews of the Kindle Fire so far (which in itself seems like a good reason to doubt its success, but I’m not going to). I’m not going to heap praise on the product, though I too am very interested in getting one for the holidays. At $199, it’s a low risk proposition, unlike an iPad’s $499+ which is a commitment. But what really impresses me, is the corporate thinking that went into this – a strategy built on multiple assets over time seemingly all leading up to this moment, and a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom about the tablet space.

The obvious asset they built off of was digital books, but that was an outgrowth of Amazon’s core product line and therefore not surprising. But they pursued digital music and movies even when delivery of that media was clunky. And they developed Whisper Sync to sync media across multiple devices and OS’s. And they built their own server farms to host content in the cloud.

But I also really appreciate their willingness to re-imagine the tablet experience, starting with Silk, their browser. The notion that delivery of web pages can be better distributed between client and server is great outside the box thinking, and doesn’t take the user experience for granted as other phone and tablet browsers do. They also put user experience first when they decided that they’d create their own UI, and not rely on Android’s. And they’ll review and approve apps that you can load onto the Fire, not taking any and all Android apps. They didn’t buy into the conventional wisdom that success is measured in number of apps available to download.

Their weak point from my prior experience with their music and movies was the ability to search and sort. It has been far easier to find music and movies I like on iTunes. I hope they address this in the Fire and re-imagine how I find content.

This is all in great contrast to the route that all other tablet manufacturers that followed Apple took. I recall being amazed at an ad for an HP tablet half a year ago that primarily featured the specs like a PC ad – ports, amount of memory, processor speed. Or the approach that WebOS took that was only limited to the UI and not the entire user experience.

To borrow and re-purpose a famous James Carville quote, “It’s the experience, stupid” :)

Surely Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility was unexpected and stunning. And the patents clearly seem to be a very valuable asset for them. But what about Motorola's phone biz? What is the implication of that? Though Google says it is not entering the phone business, its customers must be very concerned that they are now disadvantaged - if not in obvious ways, at least likely in subtle ways, like access to OS updates. They now must at least consider that Android is not their (literal) free ride anymore. So what are the alternatives? WebOS is effectively dead. A new OS without an established app store is also a very long shot. Microsoft on the other hand, has a pretty decent phone OS (Windows 7), and quite possibly a decent tablet and PC OS next year in Windows 8. If Microsoft revisits their business model, and looks to be more ubiquitous and accommodating to customers/ less onerous in business terms, they have a pretty decent shot of picking up a large chunk of mobile OS share. And having a seamless OS between phone, tablet, and PC as they promise is a very compelling value proposition. How ironic would it be if Microsoft went from hated in the 90's, too somewhat irrelevant in the 2000's, to the safe haven of the 2010's! Its also an interesting evaluation of business models. Microsoft made money by selling operating systems and apps. Then Google came along and offered everything for free, because they wanted eye balls to view ads, where they made a killing. Now they own Motorola Mobility. I would not expect Motorola to be anywhere near as dominant a player as Apple is with the iPhone. So is it worth it to get in the hardware business at the expense of losing so many eyeballs? Stick to your knitting, Google, as Tom Peters and Robert Waterman would say in the classic "In Search of Excellence". They know search, they don't know Industrial Design or User Experience like Apple, and they never will. Sell the Motorola phone business as fast as you can, Google. Before Microsoft rises from the ashes and becomes the phone agnostic OS with a great search engine.

I've paid attention with high interest to Google's new effort at social media, Google Plus. I have a Facebook page, but I must say I'm not enthusiastic about it. Because at this point its just one big mess of hundreds of people of varying real social interest to me. There are good friends, and high school classmates that friended me that I never followed up with after the third contact. And yes, there are many apps and ways to connect to people, but to me that's the problem. Its too diverse and unfocused. I like that Google Plus is very focused on ways to really connect me with the specific groups of people I want to connect with, in the way that I want to connect with them. I create 'Circles' of contacts, use Instant Upload to share photos I've taken, Sparks to send me info I'm interested in, and Huddle to create a group chat. I can probably do all of these things through Facebook, but I like that the core app is focused. Doing less is often a good thing. Of course the biggest challenge that Google Plus has is scale. If the people I care about don't join, its irrelevant. But hopefully Google Plus will create more buzz than Buzz :)

I purchased the new Kinect for a birthday/holiday gift for the 'kids'. I was very reluctant to purchase this having never owned a game console. I was afraid it might be a distraction from the kids education. But ultimately I purchased it thinking it would be a fun new way for the family to interact with each other. I was definitely right on the latter point, and have been very impressed with Kinect. First, the technology and the user interface is great. It does a very good job of seeing all body movements. In particular, one of mine and my wife's personal favorites, is the 'Your Shape' workout. It puts you through quite an intense and engaging series of workouts. And when I'm doing the exercises, it really sees and corrects you on nuances of body movements. If I don't go deep enough on a lunge, or keep my back straight on a bend, the pleasant female voice reminds me. And the games are great too. I've been playing Kinect Sports and Adventures with the whole family. The kids love it, they get a great workout (really sweating after playing), and we all have a big smile when its done. And I'm enjoying older Xbox games with my son, including Risk and Chessmaster Live. Microsoft definitely hit a home run here, enabling a new way to interact with technology, and a new platform for exciting new games and usages. I personally am waiting for a real Yoga class :). And I can definitely see this working on your sports technique - proper form for hitting a tennis ball, or hitting a golf ball. But the next step for Microsoft will be refining the fidelity of the cameras and software. I don't believe it can see fingers on a racket or a golf shaft yet.

I had the privilege of attending a presentation given by author Geoffrey Moore two weeks ago. He is working on a new book, and was sharing one of the core ideas with the audience. It wasn't as amusing as when I was at Catch a Rising Star in New York in 1983 and Eddie Murphy came in to try out new material, but it was a close second :). His book is about the 'Hierarchy of Powers'. The Powers he detailed were: Category Power, Company Power, Market Power, Offer Power, and Performance Power. He focused his discussion on Category Power - the total economic potential to generate future returns. In particular he detailed, 'Horizon 2', where new businesses developing within a medium to large company have a 12 to 36 month window of opportunity to succeed. Drawing on his early famous work, he referred to Horizon 2 as crossing the chasm inside the belly of a whale. In other words, its hard. Because $10M is too small a business for a large company, and you need to get to $100M to get noticed. As a result, established enterprises kill new category investments in Horizon 2, trapping the company in legacy. He then went to to explain how a large company could roll out a new successful business. There are 7 vectors, that he referred to as The" Seven S" Model". The Seven S's are Strategy, Style, Skills, Structure, Systems, Staff, and Shared Values. A few of the key points he made include:

• Structure: All functions report directly to GM - but the organization is temporary, and will dissolve itstelf into the normal corporate structure.
• Strategy: Focus everyone on hitting objective, market confirmed milestones in the shortest possible time.
• Style: GMs should be given unusual latitude in shaping assignments and reporting relationships , recruiting from other organizations, and replacing staff who are failing to make commitments.

Mr. Moore's observations were interesting, and gave me an opportunity to evaluate Intel's attempts at breaking out of its core business over the years. Several of his ideas were different than how Intel approached a challenge. His thesis gave me an opportunity to look at new business investments through a new lens. I look forward to his complete books when it hits the shelves.

I've been championing Intel's newest laptop segment of ultra-thin laptops. They are based on Intel's Ultra Low Voltage processors (which much of the press has unfortunately been referring to as CULV). These processors enable laptops with sleek, thin designs balanced with performance, and long battery life. Walt Mossberg, the influential technology columnist for the Wall Street Journal just published a review of three such systems in his column. I helped explain the technology and branding to Walt, but we were quite unsure if we were going to receive favorable press or a Walt whipping. Fortunately, the coverage was quite good. Here are some snippets:

Price Is Heavier, but These Laptops Are Very Sleek November 12, 2009 By Walt Mossberg http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704576204574529812650596606.html?mod=djemptech

"slim portables " "sleekness and long battery life" "bright 13-inch screens, power-sipping Intel processors and Windows 7 Home Premium" "I found that all three were capable, easy-to-carry laptops. In my tests, each easily handled common consumer tasks at acceptable speeds. The three weighed between 3.5 and 4.2 pounds. All were about an inch thick, or a bit less, at their thinnest points." "In normal use, with power-saving turned on, the Toshiba and HP could easily last for a full work day of typical activities" "a sleek, glossy machine " "These thin, light, machines perform adequately and can last a long time unplugged."

For anyone wondering, the Title of this blog posting is a reference to the old Life Cereal commercial - He likes it! Hey Mikey!

As I blogged previously, my team launched the new segment of Ultra thin laptops at Computex in June. Ultra thin laptops offer laptop-class performance, sleek design, and longer battery life when compared to standard laptops. They have gotten a lot of good press, and I gave an interview to Ryan Kim of the San Francisco Chronicle. He captured a lot of the information we discussed, and the story is good. However, I only got attribution for the last thing I said in the interview, though it was the last thing in the article as well.

Go here for the full story.

Last year my team launched Intel's Centrino 2 Processor Technology for laptops (see post below). It was great to drive the technology worthy of the first brand refresh since Centrino was launched in 2003. This year I had the opportunity to follow up one hit with possibly an even bigger one. At Computex this week (June 2, 2009), we launched a new CPU and chipset to enable 'Ultra-Thin Laptops'. You may have read in the press about Intel's 'CULV chips'. CULV stands for Consumer Ultra Low Voltage - and my one regret is that what was intended as an internal descriptor became somewhat of the external descriptor in the press, which was never the intent.

Okay - but what is it? Well CPUs have certain thermal limits - how hot they can get. They are defined by their TDP, or Thermal Design Power. Most laptops have a 35W TDP CPU. What makes Intel's ULV processors so literally cool, is that they have a TDP of 10W. Which means it takes less effort to cool them, meaning less fans/cooling required. The result is the ability for OEMs to design thinner laptops and laptops with longer battery life. A great example of what is possible is the Acer Timeline. PC Magazine gave it this great review, highlighting its amazing 8 hours of batter life. And what's also incredible about it is the price. You can buy the larger 15.6" screen version at Walmart for only $598 with a Pentium processor.

You can learn more about ultra-thin laptops and Intel switchable graphics from me at Intel's web site. Or get the official story here. The buzz is starting to build for these laptops and will likely be the hottest seller for the holidays. This has Intel employees more excited than anything in recent memory. And we're a hard bunch to get excited :).

I read with some amazement, but not surprise, about the twitter about Twitter from the Wall Street Journal's allthingsD conference. It turns out that though Biz Stone and Evan Williams may have over 30 million unique visitors, they have no business plan. That's right. No idea how they are going to make money. The Wall Street Journal calls out that Twitter is "facing pressure to prove it has staying power, as a good number of users lose interest in the service after trying it for a while". The WSJ also notes that "after an hour on the D stage no clear business plan emerged". One idea offered by Evan Williams was charging commercial users of Twitter to verify their Twitter accounts so, say Dunkin' Donuts could pay to ensure fans don't get messages from impostors. Really! Charge companies to make sure their brand doesn't get screwed up. You'd think that would be a given. I can imagine the conversation -"I'm sorry Mr. Immelt that people are getting fake messages from General Eclectic, but you didn't pay your bill this month".

Now I've come to accept that businesses don't have to make money in their early growth stage, particularly internet companies trying to get eyeballs. But I have a harder time imagining that even the VCs didn't force the guys to think through why they existed, what they wanted to achieve with their business, and how they were going to monetize. I have an idea. How about charging anyone to tweet when they have a certain number of followers. It can be a sliding scale. You have 500 followers? Pay $50 a month. 5000 followers? Pay $1,000 a month. Or some other pay scale. The point is that if you've got followers, you are establishing a brand for yourself, and that's probably your goal. And just like in any other medium, it costs money to build a brand.

That will be $1,000 for my advice, Twister. I mean Twitter. You should have payed your bill. :)