Here are a few I mentioned earlier, and will be resolved in the next version of OS X.

1) Second is that there is no app called Notes on a Mac. You have to find it under Mail application, which I never use!

Mountain Lion indeed will have a separate application called Notes.

2) With Contacts and Calendars, at least the naming is (nearly) consistent.

I said nearly because on Mac, Calendar is known as iCal, and Contacts as Address Book. Not with Mountain Lion anymore. iCal will be renamed to Calendar, and Address Book to Contacts.

3) Reminders app doesn’t have a naming counterpart on Mac, and is hidden under iCal. With Lion OS moving closer to the iOS model there is even more reason for having a separate app for Reminders.

Mountain Lion will have a separate Reminders app.

There are other improvements as well: for example, all iWork documents, and not just Pages, will be synced to the cloud. This is by no means absolution for iCloud, but a step in the right direction. More than offering a better iCloud, the new OS just goes a step further in becoming an even closer cousin to iOS.

(For more on how Mac and iOS devices are converging, read Back to the Mac or welcome to the iOS?)
(iCloud just passed 100M users, but how telling is that number? Read iCloud reaches 100M users mark, so what?)

I would have liked to see a few other parameters that would tell me a lot more about iCloud’s momentum (or lack thereof), but I don’t think Apple would be very proud to share them at least yet. Let’s look at a few of them:

- Number of paid subscribers (Apple charges beyond 5GB of free storage). Arguably 5GB is a lot because a lot of stuff such as the most 1000 recent pictures and music and TV shows bought from iTunes does not count toward the 5GB limit. But it would still be nice to know how many people tryst iCloud to be their primary cloud storage and are therefore willing to pay for it.

- Number of bytes stores beyond free storage. This is meaningful for bigger items such as media and big documents.

- Average number of applications synced with iCloud. For example, I only use iCloud for Photo Stream and Find My iPhone (does that really count?). While Bookmarks and Documents and Data are also turned on in my iCloud settings, I neither use Safari nor iWork, so both of these options are meaningless for me, and I imagine for many people.

- Number of subscribers using iTunes Match, a service that Apple sells for $25 a year (and I have one).

You might say that 100M is stil impressive in its own right, but keep in mind that any device with iOS5 makes it very easy to “sign up” for iCloud when setting up the device. So I am not ready to read too much into number of sign ups alone. Good news is that iCloud is still young, however if Apple really wants its cloud to become sticky, Apple and iCloud have a long way ahead of them.

(For a detailed analysis of iCloud and why it is lacking, read iCloud just doesn’t work)

(To see why iCloud is critical for Apple’s future, read Will vertical integration prove key in the race to the top?)

(For a quick comparison of iCloud and Google’s cloud, read What’s up with iCloud)

Despite constant rants from several analysts about the way Apple has limited iCloud’s scope to Apple’s devices, I personally do not care much about that (perhaps because I consistently use several Apple devices). I also welcome how Apple has tried to approach the problem of the cloud very differently: Apple’s iCloud marries the power and richness of native applications with the comfort of syncing them to the cloud and being able to access them from anywhere (as long as it is from an Apple device). At least in theory.

If those were the only problems with iCloud, I would not be writing this post. But unfortunately, iCloud just does not work as seamlessly as Apple would have you believe it does.

Let’s look at a few use cases.

Contacts and Calendars

I use Google Voice as a single phone number but also as single place to store my voicemails and send and receive SMS’es. Therefore it makes sense for me to keep my contacts in Google. Since Apple doesn’t provide any calling service per se (yes they have Facetime and iMessage), there is little reason for me to store contacts with Apple. The way I sync contacts with my iPhone is via a Google Exchange account configured in my iPhone Settings. Because my contacts are synced directly with Google on the cloud, I have turned off my Contacts sync in the iCloud.

Same applies to Calendars. While iCloud offers a way to offer calendar over the web, it doesn’t provide the features and ease of Google calendars on the web, which makes it easy to share calendars, send a Google calendar invite and so on. Also, since I use Outlook at office, I sync my device calendar with both Google and Outlook. There is no reason for me to store this content in iCloud, because Outlook and Google are the services that my colleagues and friends use.

In the case of contacts and calendars, I use other providers because they offer better services. But that’s not it. The problem with Apple’s syncing and cloud solution is that Apple not only allows syncing content between a device and iCloud but also between a Mac and a device. So if a user turns on the iCloud and also syncs content with the Mac, she will end up with duplicate entries.

Reminders

With Contacts and Calendars, at least the naming is (nearly) consistent. Reminders app doesn’t have a naming counterpart on Mac, and is hidden under iCal. With Lion OS moving closer to the iOS model there is even more reason for having a separate app for Reminders. I am sure Apple thought about having a separate app for Reminders on Mac rather than combining it with iCal (where it arguably belongs), and ruled it out for reasons I can’t fully understand. 

(For more on how Mac and iOS devices are converging, read Back to the Mac or welcome to the iOS?)

Since I don’t use iCal much anyway, I decided to turn off Reminders sync. Instead by virtue of syncing with Outlook, my Reminders are synced with the cloud (Microsoft’s in this case) anyway. On a Mac, they are available in Outlook.

Notes

This is one feature I would have loved to use iCloud for, but when I turned it on, it asked me to create a free Mobile Me account. I understand that there are some technical and legacy reasons (which I won’t get into here) why this is required, but isn’t this what Apple is supposed to hide from the user? I already have 2-3 Mobile Me accounts (one I created for free and didn’t continue beyond free trial, and another created for “Find my iPhone” (which is the same as my Apple ID)), none of which work for the purpose of syncing notes.

So not surprisingly, I decided to use my Google account to sync my notes to as well. Now my notes sync to Gmail > Notes label, and are also available on iPad since I use the same syncing settings there.

Even if Mobile Me problem didn’t exist, there are two additional problems. First problem is the same as it exists with almost everything else in iCloud: If I sync Notes to my Mac as well as iCloud, I end up getting two copies. Second is that there is no app called Notes on a Mac. You have to find it under Mail application, which I never use!

Bookmarks

While I do not use Safari much on a Mac, I do use it on iPhone (since it is preinstalled and works great), and therefore occasionally use iCloud for Bookmarks and Reading List. But this didn’t work smoothly either. If it did, you would not see tons of complaints and questions on the web.

Things that work really well with iCloud are all rich media related. For example I love the way Photo Stream stores the most recent pictures taken from my iPhone and how the pictures become available on my Apple TV as well. I also love how TV Shows are instantly available on the cloud regardless of where I bought them (as long as they were purchased via iTunes of course), and how iTunes Match ($24.99 a year) makes my music available on the cloud. These solutions are not perfect – for example, TV Shows do not synch the playback position, and music is not available for streaming (except on Apple TV), but only for download. But they are good enough.

Final Thoughts

Apple’s stronger relationships with studios make it easier for Apple to “upload” music to the cloud, since all it needs to do is sync libraries rather than the songs themselves. This results in substantial time saving for consumers, and also puts Apple at a cost advantage, even when factoring in the licensing fees and revenue share for the studios. 

Arguably, Apple’s hybrid approach with the cloud will also allow it to offer a better streaming experience as compared to to the jittery and delayed streaming associated with the likes of the Amazon cloud.

However, Apple has failed to woo me on any other aspect of the iCloud, and I continue to use other cloud solutions for most of my productivity needs. While I have tuned iCloud settings (see the picture above) the way I want to make things work “seamlessly” for me, iCloud is way too complicated and messy for an ordinary consumer. Apple’s cloud solution is embarrassingly unimpressive and not ready for prime-time yet.

Most people are quick to point out that the fundamental problem is with how Apple approaches the solution in a hybrid fashion. Compare it to the way Google does it for example — since there are no copies, “syncing” and settings are not required. A user doesn’t even have to know that “cloud” exists.

I, on the other hand, still believe that Apple’s approach is welcome because it is unique in many ways and offers a few advantages (due to native richness) over Google’s approach, but if Apple can’t figure out a way to make this work seamlessly, this will be a lost opportunity.

(Also read what’s up with iCloud and Will vertical integration prove key in the race to the top? to see why iCloud’s success is crucial for Apple)

I will argue that neither vertical integration of hardware and software, nor openness will play a deciding role in determining the winner in the race between tech giants. Instead whoever can provide seamless coupling between devices and services will prove triumphant.

Innovator’s Solution

I base my analysis on one of the best business theories ever written by Clayton Christen and Michael Raynor in their book Innovator’s Solution.

The theory goes that when interfaces between components are not well defined, vertically integrated products do very well. This is why Mac did so well in the early years of personal computing. However, as components and interfaces between them mature, agility to launch becomes far more important than vertical integration. Citing personal computing again, when the interface between a PC hardware and operating system became relatively well understood, Apple’s integrated solution was no match to Microsoft’s ability to ship its operating system with external manufacturers such as Compaq and HP.

That interface between components in one part of the industry is mature does not mean, however, that interfaces in all parts of the industry are mature. For example, while interface between Windows and PC hardware was fairly mature, “interface” between PC’s and customer service wasn’t fine-tuned, and Dell was the first PC manufacturer that capitalized on this opportunity.

Next Winner

I argue that the industry has now entered a stage where tight coupling between mobile hardware and software, while beneficial, is not the key. The next industry leader will therefore be the one that can nicely integrate end to end experience spanning services across devices.

Let’s look at some examples (some real, and some hypothetical).

I often use Google Voice on the web to listen to my voicemails, and many times use it to add phone numbers to my contacts. When using an Android device or Gmail, those contacts become seamlessly available to me.

I install an application on my iPhone. It becomes (at the right price) available on all other devices (Apple TV, Mac, iPad) I use.

Just by signing in Android using my Google ID, all my contacts, calendars, and emails are seamlessly synced with the cloud, and therefore become readily accessible to me.

Watching a movie on iPad, but can’t finish it during my flight. I go back home, and watch it on my big screen by launching the movie from my Apple TV exactly where I left watching it.

My XBox Live identity, competitors, and score are carried over seamlessly from my XBox to my Windows Phone.

Much of the above is already possible, however note that not any single player offers all these benefits. For example, while Apple is really good at syncing media using iCloud, it is not great at syncing calendars or contacts.

(For a quick comparison between Apple’s iCloud and Google services, read what’s up with the iCloud?)

Let’s look at four major players vying for the crown of the new era of computing. Google and Apple are clearly dominant and growing; Microsoft, while an underdog and written off by many, is considered a wild card by others; and Amazon with its recently launched Kindle Fire will be a new force to contend with.

Apple

Apple has time and again shown the industry how an integrated product like iPhone or Mac can provide a much better experience than a disintegrated product such as Android. While Android comes in many flavors and with different App Stores, iPhone comes with a consistent user interface and a single App Store.

Yet, many wonder whether Apple’s early lead in the smartphone market is sustainable or the iPhone will also end up repeating history of the race between Mackintosh and PC in 1980’s (Microsoft’s DOS and later Windows OS while not integrated with hardware, overtook Macintosh as the best selling personal computing operating system and is still far ahead in the market share) If history were to repeat itself, Apple will surely be no match for Android’s growing prowess. Indeed Android already leads iOS in many respects.

(For more on how Apple might take the crown in personal computing again, read Is Apple readying for a rematch with Microsoft in personal computing?)

Surely, Apple has taken the next step in the right direction by launching iCloud, which works wonderfully well in keeping devices in sync irrespective of the need for cables, but is limited to Apple devices and software.

Also important to note is a major advantage that Apple has over Google and Microsoft: Its strong partnerships with the “old media” (as opposed to new media such as Youtube and over the top content), which allow Apple to offer superior content across devices more seamlessly. It’s no surprise then that most people have not even heard of Google Music.

Google

A lot has been written about how Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility will help Android compete more effectively against Apple’s iPhone and would make more sense from financial perspective at least in the short term. At the same time, other have rightly noted that Google still risks alienating its largest partners such as Samsung and HTC by acquiring Motorola.

However, Android’s openness or lack thereof (via Motorola’s acquisition) is not what will determine the future of Google in the race between tech giants. It is Google’s ability to seamlessly integrate services across devices, and its web-centric portfolio that will decide where Google ends up in the next few years. Google certainly seems to have a strong lead in the arena.

Microsoft

I have extensively used Windows Phone, and despite some obvious feature gaps, find the user experience impressive. While lack of third party apps, slow time to market, and arguably weaker marketing all have played a role in Windows Phone’s slow uptake, and improving them will help Microsoft sell the phone better, Windows Phone will see little success unless it makes its services compelling and integrates them seamlessly with the phone.

(For my very early review of Windows Phone, read Will Microsoft come back strong with the Windows Phone?)

Microsoft has a long way to go in this area. Micorsoft’s Zune, its counterpart to iTunes, doesn’t even work for Mac yet! It’s web offerings are still disappointing. Its Hotmail despite several makeovers still turns out far more junk than Gmail does. It’s Office Live while a neat concept doesn’t work nearly as flawlessly as Google Docs do.

(For more on Microsoft’s web strategy, read Microsoft goes live-ish)

(For more on how Microsoft fares against competition in mobile, web, and entertainment, read Is Microsoft readying for a surprise comeback?)

Amazon

Five years ago, it wouldn’t even make sense for us to put Amazon in this list. As unlikely as Amazon might seem, it is now a leading contender in the race between the tech giants. Amazon before almost anyone else realized the importance of the cloud, and launched its Amazon Web Services. It now has leveraged its expertise in the cloud to launch devices that seamlessly keep content in sync and make it readily accessible.

(For an analysis of Amazon’s entry into the tablet market, read Will Amazon create a new tablet niche?)

Bottomline

The company that will crack and perfect the interfaces between devices, platforms, and services will dominate the next decade. This is yet another reason why the news of Google’s acquisition of Motorola while interesting, is nearly not as earth shaking as many near writers would have it. This is also why we will see more players entering the race in similar albeit very different ways: Facebook, Twitter, and even Netflix are potential candidates.

This raises questions over the prospects of Google+. Does it have better chances of thriving or will it too not survive?

Having been bullish about Buzz and then witnessing its demise from the sidelines, I am naturally a bit reluctant to make a glowing prediction in its favor. However, it is certainly a very well thought out product, and it’s hard not to talk about it. What’s more, no matter how Google positions it (as a social network focusing on the needs of smaller groups of people?), it’s hard not to think of it as a potential Facebook killer.

But not so fast.

Traffic on Google+ largely comprises of people who are tech savvy. Most of the postings have actually been penned by Googlers, which is not surprising given that their bonuses are tied to Google’s success in social. What is even more interesting is that the bulk of the discussion on Google+ has been about Google+. Like any fad, it has its initial popularity but it could well run out of steam very soon.

In Google’s defense, the roll out has been intentionally limited and mostly to Googlers themselves. Also, whether or not Google+ will succeed will largely depend on the feedback from early adopters and improvements made early on. Therefore, Google is doing the right thing by maintaining the roll out on a  limited scale.

Google+’s much hyped advantage in providing privacy through the use of circles is also overblown. Circles are not intuitive to grasp as can be seen from the table below (the table still does not talk about extended circles, and visibility on the web). Several users have written blogs on how to understand and leverage circles. While that might be interesting to tech savvy users, ordinary users are more likely to be confounded than be able to take advantage. In that sense, Google+ is more of a Twitter like “experiment” in that its popularity is primarily amongst the tech savvy, and therefore relies on the end users to trigger innovation (for example, mentions and hashtags were essentially started by Twitter’s end users).

From that perspective, it is hard for me to imagine an average Facebook user switching to Google+ anytime soon, if at all. All of my current friends and followers on G+ are school mates, or people who are generally comfortable using newer platforms and technologies. Until and unless my non tech savvy friends (much of my family on Facebook is relatively new to Facebook) start using G+, I am going to remain skeptical of its mass appeal.

Most importantly, ask anyone who knows a thing or two about network effects and she is likely to tell you that the personal social networking market as we know it has already tipped in favor of Facebook. With 750 million users, and immense data in terms of social graphs and user activities, it will be a daunting challenge to for anyone to compete with Facebook. While many reasons have been given in hindsight for why Buzz didn’t succeed, the biggest of all might just have been social media fatigue: Users already have an array of choices on where to post their status updates. It will take a miracle to make the majority see value in adopting yet another platform.

But Google has identified what might be the biggest weaknesses of Facebook. One is privacy. Facebook has generally been less regardful of its users when changing its privacy policies. Even most tech savvy users have little clue as to which elements of their profile are visible to the public. Google+ on the other hand vows to put privacy first. This is in stark contrast to Mark Zuckerburg’s ideology of making people get more comfortable with “sharing stuff”. While that might be Mark’s mission, few users welcome the thought.

While some might say that Google+ is trying to do too much and some have even said that it will kill Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo! Mail, and others, that’s going a bit too far. Its ability to follow celebrities is actually a welcome addition and a very well conceived one. Initially when my stream is scarcely populated by my friends, I seldom note the scarcity  since most of my stream is populated with celebrities such as Michael Dell or people who have me in their circles but not vice versa. This ensures that Google+ maintains a healthy level of traffic which is the equivalent of a lifeline at this stage.

Some of the most interesting posts in my stream have been by people I don't know

Yet another post in my Incoming section

Other formidable weapons in Google’s arsenal include its deep pocket and strong relationships with businesses. Facebook will now be forced to take its development partners more seriously. So far Facebook has generally played bully: Zynga, the biggest player on the Facebook platform has generally not had a cordial relationship with Facebook but Zynga had limited choice. It may now have more options. Facebook’s policy of taking a 30% cut will be easily beaten by Google. Google’s OpenSoical might become popular after all, and might present a welcome alternative to Facebook’s closed platform.

I said it when Buzz launched, and will say it again: Google’s portfolio of web products is far richer  than Facebook’s. Facebook started as a social network, and thought it could take on any product by leveraging its extant social graph. Conversely Google starts  with a  slew of hit products (Picassa, Android, Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Voice, GTalk, Youtube, Groups, Place, Latitude to name a few), but needs to incorporate social elements in them. So far their attempts have been unsuccessful. But frankly, after Orkut capitulated to Facebook, Google has really not launched a direct competitor to Facebook. Now it has. And it is better engineered,  well designed (if not fancy, it is very intuitive and a pleasure to use for most part), and thanks to G+ bar, might already have more cumulative traffic than Facebook.

Finally, Google despite not having a social network of its own, has already forged a series of connections via Android Phonebook, Gmail, and others. Don’t be surprised if Facebook starts a legal war against Google on many fronts.

While many are calling for Gates to return full-time to Microsoft and take charge, I don’t think he would be able to drive Microsoft out of its situation. Microsoft doesn’t need a technologist at its helm, it needs a CEO who has already turned around a giant. Louis V. Gerstner — who turned around IBM from close to becoming irrelevant to the leading services company in the world for many years to come — fits that profile perfectly, and I think can do it again! Whether he is willing to take on the challenge from his semi-retired life is another matter!

For the amazing IBM turnaround story, read the following book:

You might also like the following stories on Microsoft:

Is Microsoft readying for a surprise comeback?
How Google’s social search fares against Bing’s
Microsoft goes live-ish (Operating System)
Microsoft’s console gaming raises the bar not just for competitors, but for other Microsoft products as well (Entertainment)
Microsoft: Can Elephants Really Dance? (Part 3) (Search)
Microsoft: Can Elephants Really Dance? (Part 2) (Mobile)
Microsoft: Can Elephants Really Dance? (Part 1 of 6) (Productivity Suite)
Did Google Get Binged?

I have been a Comcast customer for a long time. Unlike many others, I have had no major issues with the customer service. Cable service itself is pretty decent. Comcast (and I am sure, most other cable or satellite providers) does a very good job at distributing more than enough channels than you’d need. Even with Digital Starter package, you get a fairly nice selection of movies, news, and other channels. Moreover with their TV Everywhere/Xfinity offering, they are at least trying to be more innovative.

While the service is a bit pricey of course, and ideally I’d like to pay for only those channels that we consistently watch, my primary reason for abandoning the cable service is not price per se. I am not a thrifty consumer in general, and am happy to pay a bit more to get better service (and save time). But at the same time, I am also gadget and technology lover, and very curious about newer “cool” solutions in the market. So while I experiment with these solutions, technology loving side of me wants to actually put them to “use”. What’s the point of these alternate solutions when I can’t dispose of my cable service?

I cut the cord just today, but before getting here I have tried several solutions, still keep a few, and dropped several others. Here is my take on them.

Sony BRAVIA Internet Link Module. This is a surprisingly lesser known solution, and it works actually quite well. Several Sony BRAVIA HDTV’s (a year and older) allow an add-on module, which fits very nicely and seamlessly on the back of the TV. One wouldn’t be able to tell whether it’s built into the TV or separate. Collection of channels is pretty decent (and same as available on most/all other Sony solutions), and includes all the big names such as Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Amazon VOD. The interface is quite nice, and jells in with the native TV interface (and remote). Streaming quality is 480p or 720p at best, at least with the one I have. It’s fairly cheap: When I bought it, it was less than $100 (but of course you need a compatible Sony HDTV).

Sony PlayStation 3. If you are a hard core console gamer, then PS3 could be for you. It comes at a cost of around $300 though, and does not jell as seamlessly with the TV interface as the BRAVIA Internet Link Module. The UI is similar to the standard Sony BRAVIA/Qriocity service, but still slightly different. There are also fewer channels. The user experience overall is a bit clunkier, although not bad. Overall, I was not impressed by PS3 as an internet TV set-top box and will not recommend it unless you really want to play PS3 games. (In case you are wondering why the interface/service would be different from the standard Sony BRAVIA service, it has to do with organizational politics: Sony TV’s and gaming consoles are still hosted under different organizations within Sony).

Microsoft Xbox 360. A lot of what I said for PS3 also applies to Xbox 360. However, the interface is slightly better than that of PS3, and as a game console, it’s a bit more polished and richer (however, as I am not a console gamer, I wouldn’t compare the two on their gaming capabilities). Again, I wouldn’t specifically recommend it unless if you wanted to play Xbox games.

Samsung Internet@TV. Several Samsung boxes and TV’s come with their internet TV platform. Mine is a blu-ray player and has a bunch of Samsung apps, and usual suspects in Netflix, Amazon VOD, VUDU (the primary reason I went with this box), and Pandora. The interface is decent, but not special. I have yet to find a glaring Samsung app. The usual services work just fine, but again it does not look like that the box was made especially for internet TV (and it was not).

Apple TV. I might be biased because I love Apple products, but let me say this unequivocally: Apple TV has the nicest, simplest, and “leanest” (this one is not necessarily a good thing) offering of all. It comes with Netflix, a few other apps to watch NBA and MLB, and of course iTunes, but that’s pretty much it. Netflix streams at 720p (unlike 1080p with Sony PS3 for example), but surprisingly its quality looks better to me than the one I have seen with PS3. Apple TV is also one of the best and simplest way to share media amongst devices; for example, I stream my iPod/iPhone/Mac music using AirPlay, and it works like a charm (no need for iPod docks anymore). It also streams photos and other media from your Mac (as a comparison Roku requires one to insert a USB thumb drive, how 20th century-ish!).

If all you want to do is watch Netflix, or rent TV shows and movies from iTunes, Apple TV will be a pleasure to use. If you are looking for other content sources as Amazon VOD, Hulu Plus, you might never get them with Apple TV. However, if Apple is indeed able to strike deals with studios to offer a subscription TV service, Apple TV would beat other boxes hands down. Therefore, no matter what else I have, I intend to keep Apple TV in place.

(For more on what might come with Apple TV, read What to expect from Apple’s event tomorrow? and iTunes turned the music market on its head. Could iTunes TV do the same for TV?)

Roku. Roku box is one of the cheapest on the market (the one I bought is $79.95), and has one of the largest collection of channels. Since Roku is all about providing an internet TV box at least at the moment (expect social games in near future though), this allows them to do the job very well. They arguably have more content partnerships than any other box out there. The UI is decent but not special.

Boxee. Boxee comes as a software for your PC or Mac, and also as a Boxee Box. It is one of the prettiest user interfaces amongst the competition. However, it isn’t as usable as it might seem. I would consider Apple TV for example more usable (note that pretty looking interface does not necessarily mean that it is also very good at usability). It is a very good media server and can retrieve, aggregate, and play media stored on your hard drive pretty well. The box itself is expensive ($299), so for now I only use its Mac application.

Despite its coolness factor and open philosophy (or perhaps because of it), it doesn’t have the best content partnerships, especially when compared against Roku. Since anyone can write an app for it, it isn’t guaranteed that the app is legit or high quality. While I will continue to monitor Boxee, I do not consider it a viable solution at the moment.

(For my earlier coverage on Boxee, read 3 reasons TV’s about to get a facelift)

TiVo: TiVo has one of the sleekest interfaces. TiVo is a lot more than just an internet TV set-top box however; it doubles as a DVR, has a sophisticated recommendation engine, and can search across internet and cable channels (which by the way is Google TV’s promise that yet has to be fulfilled). TiVo comes with a monthly service however, and is best used to augment and not replace cable service.

Google TV: Google TV despite its promise and hype has a clunky interface, questionable value proposition at least at the moment, and comes with a high price tag (when compared to RoKu or Apple TV for example). Given Google’s marketing muscle, this might change in future, but until it does I will hold off buying it (unless you were buying a Sony blu-ray player and wanted to get Google TV built into it for an extra $100).

(For a comparison between Apple TV and Google TV, read Should you buy Google TV or wait for the new Apple TV to launch?)

There are obviously several other set-top boxes with different price ranges and features, and I do not intend to list each of them. Moreover, set-top boxes on their own of course will not be enough; you need content and other services to go with them. Let’s take a look at some of the services.

Netflix is definitely a must-have. If nothing else, get the basic instant-only service. The collection is limited but you can watch unlimited number movies from the collection. In order to augment the collection, you can either upgrade Netflix for mail-in DVD service, or if you really want to do away with DVD’s, you can buy Amazon movies on demand (and free prime instant movies as well). If your box allows you to stream media from your laptop/PC, or if you have Apple TV, iTunes can also be used to purchase or rent movies. Hulu Plus is also an option for some who would like to see more recent TV shows. Between these four services, you will have a very large collection of movies and TV shows.

(For a comparison between Amazon VOD and Netflix, read Would Amazon’s rumored Netflix-like streaming best Netflix?)

What you won’t get with the above services is live sports or TV shows that are currently playing for example. They, however, can be bought with individual season passes.

Lastly, do buy an HDTV antenna to catch local channels for free. HD content on these channels is actually superior to the one on cable, since content over the air is not compressed and therefore delivered in higher quality.

There is one more service that I’d recommend: VUDU. VUDU’s website is amazingly unimpressive, but their streaming quality is better than anything else out there. However, in order to enjoy the high quality, you need to have an HDTV that supports 1080p and a home theater system. Also, VUDU is available on a very few set-top boxes, so getting VUDU might limit your set-top box choices.

I currently have Samsung Internet@TV, Apple TV, Sony BRAVIA, and Roku. Amongst the most well known content services, I have Netflix, Amazon, VUDU, and iTunes/Apple TV.  You obviously should buy just one of the set-top boxes with one or more content services.  For the set-top box, I’d recommend Roku, which is not the best quality but is very cheap and comes with a bunch of channels and services.

To be honest, cutting the cord does make the experience a bit “bumpy”. I will try it out for a few months, and might add the cable service again if I am not too happy with the experience. Internet TV, while zillions of steps ahead than it was a few years ago, just doesn’t cut it yet. Until there is a strong business model for studios, internet TV will be best used to augment and not replace cable TV.

You might also like the following articles on digital media:

1. Would Amazon’s rumored Netflix-like streaming best Netflix?
2. iTunes turned the music market on its head. Could iTunes TV do the same for TV?
3. 3 reasons TV’s about to get a facelift
4. Should you buy Google TV or wait for the new Apple TV to launch?
5. What to expect from Apple’s event tomorrow?
6. roku, boxee box, or?

On the surface, Google’s +1 seems like a smart move: While it is not meant to counter Facebook or Twitter the way Buzz was supposed to, it is clearly a direct response to Facebook’s Likes, which, in addition to Facebook itself, can be found on several third party sites. Google’s +1 also has an added advantage of showing up in Google ads thus potentially further strengthening its advertising ecosystem.

While Facebook would soon counter that move with its launch of Facebook ads network (very similar in nature to Google’s), which would inherent Facebook Likes and thus compete with Google’s +1 head to head, it will be a while before Facebook can launch a competing search engine to Google’s. But wait — Facebook already has a search engine in shape of Facebook-Bing partnership.

This is exactly why I conducted a few searches via Bing and Google to compare the results. While my sample is not big enough to conclusively take a side, I am a bit baffled why Bing/Facebook social search is not showing me Facebook Likes in the results. Isn’t this what Bing’s social search was supposed to do after all?

Apart from the fact that Bing’s indexing is generally lackluster when compared to Google’s, it isn’t showing me social results. On the other hand, Google, which arguably does not have the kind of access to Facebook that Bing does, shows me better social results, partly owing to its access to several other networks such as Twitter and soon to be partners Quora and Flickr.

I don’t see Amazon blossoming in the tablets war, whether in the lower or middle tier of the market. Amazon, therefore, will not build a general purpose tablet.

Amazon does not build great hardware. While the strategy behind Kindle is brilliant, the Kindle is not special because of revolutionary hardware. Amazon’s primary purpose behind selling the Kindle is to strengthen its foothold in a fast growing e-books market. Since most publishers sell books via Amazon, a leading books selling portal, they are also inclined to produce Kindle versions of the books. This has helped Amazon take a substantial lead in the e-books collection over competing e-book readers such as Nook and Sony’s E Reader.

Amazon’s primary benefit in dabbling in hardware is not direct profit. Amazon’s true motive is to strengthen its position as a content seller , and while it won’t hurt to sell more hardware, that is not Amazon’s focus at least in the short term. Kindle hardware constitutes a mere 1-2% of Amazon’s stock value so unlike Apple, who is infamous for making the bulk of its money off its hardware (iPods, iPhone, iPad), Amazon thrives on content.

However, Amazon may very well launch a special-purpose tablet. What could Amazon gain by launching it and what would the tablet do?

When it comes to content, Amazon is the king. It’s MP3 store, while hugely undershadowed by Apple’s iTunes, comes as the default player/store on several Android devices, which are fast growing in popularity. With the launch of Amazon Cloud, Amazon has taken a step further, ahead of Apple’s or Google’s rumored cloud based music services.

Not only does Amazon want to lead in selling digital content, it has also shown that it will leverage its dominance in the e-books market to further its lead. While most Kindle content is available via several platforms such as Mac and iPhone – Kindle Singles, short e-books, are only available on Kindle hardware. By tightly controlling the content in the beginning, Amazon is determined to popularize Amazon Singles, and will thus dominate a new niche in the market.

Just like Kindle Singles, Amazon Studios is another service launched quietly by Amazon. The purpose is to encourage producers to make movies exclusively for Amazon. While it’s nowhere close to taking off, Amazon does want to be a content creator in that space, and when that happens, that would be yet another reason for Amazon to closely manage its content.

Amazon Instant Video is yet another example of Amazon’s ambitions in dominating digital content and its distribution. While it is not creating content at the moment, I bet it will follow Netflix’s lead in licensing original content via its Amazon Studios or else.

And now with the launch of Amazon Appstore and Amazon Cloud, Amazon is even more likely to launch a device that will make it easier for users to access their Amazon’s digital library, whether e-books, videos, MP3 songs, or otherwise. While this hypothetical device will be no competition to Apple’s iPad, it doesn’t need to be. It will be a product that is clearly differentiated from Android tablets as well. Amazon’s biggest challenge will be to build a decent device at an attractive price point.

Amazon’s existing user base, especially those who consume its digital content, will be the primary audience of this tablet. Moreover, by creating custom content such as Singles, Amazon will be able to attract new users who will not be able to find the content anywhere else. Increasing stickiness with existing users and attracting new users will further incentivize content creators to distribute content via Amazon, thus not only increasing Amazon’s dominance in the content distribution but also increasing sales of Amazon hardware.

This is a war Amazon can win.