IPAD REVIEW

My first thought - SNORE. Let's start with the basics, as we have become accustomed to with all things Apple, everything about the design and functionality is very cool. The product name leaves something to be desired - the IPad. I get it, it fits in the with the IPod and is unified marketing for Apple, but ISlate sounds cooler. ITablet does not. And I definitely want one, but not at Apple's current prices.

The WiFi models for 16GB cost $499, the 32GB is $599 and the 64GB is $699. If you want 3G the prices go up significantly from there - 16GB is $629, 32GB is $729 and the 64GB is $829. That's not including your 3G data package, which is another monthly service fee ($30/month). Plus the cost of the Apps, Music, Movies and EBooks that run on the IPad. As a consumer, you're looking at over $1000 a year for one of these devices.

I get the high price points for an IPod or IPhone. Music is very personalized. As a consumer you want your music to travel with you. Same thing with an IPhone. It's your phone and you want to make sure you can stay in touch wherever you go. Both the IPod & IPhone are essential to your digital lifestyle as a consumer. Most consumers have a computer at work, or at home, or more likely both. So the IPad, while "cool" is more of an optional device rather than a must have device like IPod or IPhone. And for optional devices, Apple really should price it lower to move units. If it was $200-$300 and $500 for the 64GB fully loaded, then we're looking at a must have optional device. But with lower cost netbooks as the IPad closest competition, in this economy netbooks win hands down at under $300 with their prices dropping.

I predict a $200 price cut within 2 months. Apple's not going to be able to sell the IPad at these current prices.

AT&T'S UVERSE

Now this is advanced television. AT&T's UVerse is a vastly superior product offering versus your basic cable company package. The cable companies could learn a lot from the phone companies in terms of technology. Your cable comes through a cable, but your Uverse signal comes through your landline. The TV signal is hooked up through the landline, into the modem and then connected to the Uverse box to get TV. I now have over 105 HD channels, 390 digital channels, 48 music channels, 57 movie channels and a 12 MB faster internet connection. Of course, all of this is $20 more than my already sky high cable bill. But so far it is proving to be worth it and I work in the television industry, so I need to keep up with advancements in television delivery technology.

The menuing is simple, fast loading, and consistent. The remote is easier to use and the response time is much better than the cable menuing with Time Warner cable. The search function is easier to use, with the remote serving as your basic cell phone texting device for programs, movie or actors names.

The picture is clearer and the sound better on Uverse than cable. The Uverse box is smaller than your standard cable box, but the Uverse modem is larger than your average cable modem. The Uverse modem does not require a separate wireless device to hook into the modem. The UVerse modem doubles as a secure wireless line that you need a long key code to access.

The VOD works much better than cable VOD where the menuing is terrible and there is no way to back out of menus without starting back at the beginning of the VOD. The VOD and Premium VOD product offerings are equivalent to cable.

Another unique function is UVerse's Multiview. Multiview is genre specific (news, sports, kids). For example, choose the News Multiview and on the left side of the TV is CNN, while on the right side, there is film strip with 3 other news channels. You can slide down any of the other news channels, press a button and be watching them. This is an especially useful function if you are a sports fan and you want to follow 5 or 6 games at a time.

Uverse also allows me to program my DVR from either my computer or my IPhone. I can set programs to record or delete programming right from my computer or IPhone. Although DirecTV offers this service, cable does not. The Uverse DVR can hold over 65 hours of HD programming, which is much more than a cable DVR can hold. Although I do not have another TV in my LA apartment, if I did, I could hook up another UVerse and watch the same programming on any TV in my apartment. With cable, you can only watch what is on the specific box that is hooked up to a specific television.

The only glitch that I have found so far with UVerse is that it is only allowing me to record 2 programs simultaneously. Supposedly I should be able to record 4 simulataneously. I will call customer service and see how that process is, all while getting the other $250 AT&T owes me in Visa Reward cards (I already ordered $100).

Interestingly enough, and real synergy issue for AT&T, is that I still have to pay 2 bills to AT&T - my TV bill and my cell phone bill. Unless I get a cell phone through UVerse, AT&T has no way to link the accounts so I can pay off both bills at the same time. This has to be fixed in order to streamline and avoid cost duplication at AT&T.

AT&T UVerse is making me pay more than cable for my TV, but so far I feel like I'm getting good value for my money. If AT&T can solve their distribution issue and make UVerse as widely available as cable is nationwide, cable will have a significant competitor on their hands that will force cable companies to innovate. Which is good for television. Only Verizon & AT&T can take on Time Warner Cable and Comcast.

UPDATE - February 2010 - UVerse is still 100 time better than cable, but there are a few minor drawbacks: 1. There's no light to light up the buttons on the remote. 2. The DVR doesn't tell you how much space you have left on it. 3. There is no clock on the box, so now I don't know what time it is when I watch TV. All minor stuff, but AT&T can do better. They screw up my IPhone coverage in LA enough.

YOU MEAN A POINT OF VIEW?

Lately, there are 2 new phrases sweeping the nation that I find ridiculous. They both mean the same thing, but both are such stupid expressions. The 2 dumb statements are" "Do you have any skin in the game?" or "Do you have a dog in the fight?"

If you mean, do I have an opinion on a topic and that my opinion might be shaded by my particular point of view? OK, then let's try and have an intelligent conversation about that, but don't ask me if "I have any skin the game."

For example, Mel Gibson was being interviewed by a local reporter on the news about his upcoming movie. When asked by the reporter if he had any regrets about the well reported comments attributed to Mr. Gibson, (I'm unsure if he was referring to the blatantly sexist remarks or the anti-Semetic ones) Mr. Gibson shot back at the reporter: "Do you have a dog in the fight?" Which is just a snide way of asking, "Are you a Jew?" Its as if Mr. Gibson was saying, well, you're Jewish so of course you would be offended by my remarks. Here's the story: http://www.radaronline.com/category/tags/sam-rubin

And the video: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/01/video-mel-gibson-gets-defensive-when-questioned-about-anti-semitic-remarks

Mr. Gibson, I am neither Jewish nor a woman. So with no "dog in the fight," I feel I can safely tell you that both remarks are rude to everyone, not just women or members of the Jewish faith. Please stop being such an asshole, and even if you don't believe in your apology (and I doubt he does), at least man up enough to admit that your comments are hurtful and unnecessary.

And yes, my opinion will be shaded by my particular point of view, who's isn't? I don't have to be impartial to pick a side or have a strong opinion about a given topic. And if I have a bias, I'm aware enough to recognize that and still have an opinion about it. I like strong opinions, not impartial ones. If I want an impartial opinion, I'll ask a judge or a stranger. But please, don't ask me if I have any skin in the game or dog in the fight. Trust me, I do.

Also, I don't in any way endorse or support any form of dog fighting.

3D TV IS DOA

The biggest news coming out of the Consumer Electronics Show last week in Las Vegas was the over hyped arrival of 3D TV. With the recent success of the film Avatar (an outlier in terms of 3D adoption), cable networks and OEM's are racing to bring 3D TV sets and channels to the market. This new revolution/evolution in electronics will largely fail. I predict that 3D TV will remain largely the domain of techno-geeks with widespread consumer adoption at least 10+ years away. Why?

1. Lack of content. Not every program should be seen or made in 3D. Certain sporting events would make for great 3D TV experience (soccer, football & basketball) while others would not (golf and baseball). There's not enough content made or being made in 3D to justify any demand. News programs, comedies, food shows, local news, and most current and past films are all not suited for 3D. Other low revenue content such as documentaries cannot justify the cost premium to shoot in 3D.

2. The glasses. It's one thing to go to a darkened movie cinema, see a 3D movie and drop off the glasses on the way out of the cinema. It's quite another to expect me to sit in my living room looking like an idiot with these glasses on while walking around my house.

3. New TV sets. People just spent thousands of dollars (anywhere for $1,000 to $4,000) to buy a new TV set for the digital conversion. Consumers want at least 5+ years out of their current TV sets before considering another large scale purchase like a 3D TV.

4. More cable channels. TV providers (cable, satellite and telcos) are not simply going to give consumers access to 3D cable channels for free. Consumers are going to have to pay for them. With the broadcast networks demanding a retransmission fee already, cable bills are going up sharply. With cable bills likely to approach $150 (cable + internet) in the next 2 years, don't expect consumers to pony up another $5 per month for ESPN 3D or Discovery 3D. Cable companies are in enough trouble with consumers increasingly wondering why they're paying $150 for 200 channels when most viewers watch under 10 channels. Also, sports are a great place to start with 3D programming, but conspicuously absent from the cable networks lining up a 3D channel are currently the channels with the most 3D content - movie channels. Notice how HBO, Cinemax and Showtime didn't announce a 3D movie channel? And the only channels currently able to run 12 (not 24 hours) of 3D content are movie channels.

From where I'm sitting, 3D looks like a technology in search of the market, instead of the other way around. TV manufacturer's and cable networks appear to be supplying a consumer need that has not as of yet been defined as a "need" by consumers. Talk to me in 2020 and the market may have shifted enough to justify 3D TV, but for the medium term, I don't see it happening.

UPDATE: This past weekend (end of February 2010), I went to the Sony Style Store and actually watched 3DTV. None of my opinions above have changed. It is still incredibly cool for certain genres (animated and space films), but the glasses are really annoying. As soon as they make 3DTV's where you don't need glasses, then you've got a saleable product.

TELEVISION'S HINDENBURG

Poor NBC has admitted what everyone else working in the television industry in 2009 already knew. The Jay Leno Show stripped 5 nights a week at 10PM was a complete disaster. It literally helped drive down the valuation of the entire NBC Entertainment unit in this Fall's negotitation with Comcast. I'm glad new owners Comcast acted quickly to rectify this situation.

For Warner Bros., this could not be better news. Now there are 5 additional hours of prime time programming available that we were not previously counting on. This is a great way to start off January 2010 for our company. We will definitely pick up at least 2 of those 5 time slots. And we need those hours, so goodbye Jay!

And poor NBC. Their entire late night talent line up has all got to be upset. The current plan calls for Jay Leno to go on at 11:35PM for a half hour show (Jay is used to an hour long show); Conan doesn't want to go back to 12:05AM. And as Saturday Night Live so aptly put it this on Weekend Update, who wants a show called The Tonight Show on what is really tomorrow morning. And even though no one's even asking Jimmy Fallon what his views are, I'm sure Jimmy Fallon is upset that no one's paying him any attention. This is a talent meltdown of the highest caliber that NBC was originally hoping to avoid in the first place when they announced this dumb move. How this all shakes out will be very interesting in the week's to come.

You know who has to loving this more than Howard Stern is David Letterman. He must be chuckling all day at the news of this debacle. This is pretty much a textbook case in how not to handle talent, an entertainment business, primetime or a network. The collateral damage and fall out will be felt for all of 2010 throughout the entertainment industry.

Bottom line, what went wrong - pure greed. Leno was #1 by a comfortable margin in late night with The Tonight Show. Rule #1 - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. NBC had to risk losing Conan O'Brien or push him back a couple of years. But you don't put down your show horse when he's winning the derby like Leno was. Hey, as much as you would like to as a network, you can't keep all of your talent happy, and someone's got to lose. NBC wanted to have their cake and eat it too. And now instead of just losing Conan, now you've got Jay, Conan and Jimmy all upset with you. This has been a poorly managed project with a completed foibled transition planning, a lack of strategy and vision. Just another day at NBC....the network is in fourth place and falling for a reason.

And don't even get me started on how for the first time in broadcast history, NBC will LOSE, that right, LOSE money on an Olympics. How do you lose money on an Olympics? Hundreds of millions of dollars will be lost by NBC. More bad news for new owner Comcast, but good news for the network that becomes the new home of the Olympics. The loss will drive the bidding price down by a significant margin. My early prediction (drum roll please) ESPN & ABC as the new home of the Olympics. That's right, the Olympics brought to you by the Walt Disney Company. I can't wait to see how Disney synergizes the Olympics.

David Carr of the New York Times has a much better worded article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/business/media/11carr.html

UPDATE: Conan O'Brien will leave The Tonight Show, which is a real shame, because he's playing right into NBC's hand. NBC wanted to embarrass him out of the job so they could give TNS back to Jay Leno entirely. Conan is such a talent though, look for him to land on his feet.

MIAMI BEACH HAS CHANGED SO MUCH IN 6 MONTHS!

I have only been away from Miami Beach for 6 months and I had completely forgotten how quickly the city changes. And all good changes too. Fifth & Alton opened with a Publix supermarket, Best Buy, Ross Dress for Less, Staples and a TJ Maxx. While these are not the best stores, if I was still living in Miami Beach, this would be my neighborhood Publix. Michigan Avenue has been completed redone with new parking. The MacArthur Causeway has been completely repaved. The beginning of Lincoln Road at Alton Road where the Regal 18 movie theater is has been completely redone and re landscaped with great effect, and for the better. There's a new clothing shop on Lincoln Road that is generating a lot of publicity for its sewing machine themed installation is receiving rave reviews. The lifeguard house on Ocean Drive and 10th looks amazing. The W Hotel finally opened, and that's where I want to stay the next time I get a hotel in Miami Beach.

My entire return trip to Miami Beach was great. The first 2 days it was in the 80's and I loved lying on the beach listening to the waves gently crashing. I ate at some of my favorite restaurants that I missed like Fogo de Chao and Shoji Sushi. The nightlife hasn't changed at all, it's still the same fast paced, drunken fun that it always was. It was so nice to see all of my old friends and hear how well everyone was doing. I walked around South Pointe Park, which is the second most beautiful part of my neighborhood, the first being the beach and the Atlantic Ocean.

To me, Miami Beach is like a 5 star hotel. It's a Ritz Carlton experience, whereas LA.....LA is like a 4 star hotel, like a Hyatt on a high floor. But in terms of sheer beauty, Miami Beach is a gorgeous city. LA was definitely the right move for my career, but keeping my condo in Miami Beach is a sound investment in a city I love and was proud to call my home for 5 years.

LADY GAGA IS THE NEXT MADONNA

Lady Gaga is the real deal. Next to Madonna, Lady Gaga puts on the best pop concert I have ever seen. She was interactive with the audience, sang all her own songs, looked amazing, had the hottest back up dancers (an essential), danced her ass off, loves her fans and is only at the beginning of what I'm sure will be a long pop music career.

Madonna may have spoken a little too soon when she crowned Britney Spears as her queen of pop successor. While Britney Spears is good studio musician, and can dance, Britney lip syncs her entire concert. Lady Gaga is as live as live can get. She's evocative, sexual, unfraid to talk about sex and sexuality - both gay and straight. She writes her own lyrics and music and there's a definite story behind her songs. Her first album was about fame while her follow up album was about love.

This isn't the first time I've seen Lady Gaga. I got a sampling of her talent when I went to see Saturday Night Live this fall and she was the musical guest.

Watching the Lady Gaga concert in Miami was a very special way to end 2009. Not only was it my last concert of the decade, but seeing her in Miami on a warm night in December during New Year's Eve under a full moon made it that much more memorable.

When I get back to LA I'll post some clips from the concert on my You Tube site. You can watch then at the bar on the left of the blog. As usual, my seats were really close, but the camera makes everything look further away than it really is.