Assuming the article's thesis is correct, I think that where the article says "The TV apps economy will be a $14bn business," you could just as well change it to say, "Apple is going to create a new $14bn P&L in the next few years." Here's why:
Microsoft, intel, Sky(in the UK) and Google have
been trying to promote this since the late 90's
and they've failed.
...
They[sic] interfaces suck balls (I'm looking at
you samsung with voice activations)
Apple didn't invent the smartphone, or the tablet, but they made them good. (I had a smartphone in 2002 and a tablet PC in 2003, and they were terrible! And they continued to be terrible until Apple came in and redefined the markets.)
If anyone is going to win the 'smart TV' space and make second screen apps generally palatable to a broad base of consumers, it'll be Apple.
One thing that's interesting to consider is that Apple can't be making much, if any, money on the Apple TV. They also can't be making a ton of money on iTunes-sold content, although they finally did admit recently that the iTunes Store is no longer a break-even business that exists solely to sell hardware. And Apple, traditionally, has loved having fat margins. So, where are they going to make money in this?
Apple or somebody capable of channeling Steve Jobs. Yes. Exactly.
My Samsung "Smart" TV and AT&T Uverse (cable) are terrible at everything other than playing video once I've finally found it. Not because the hardware and data are crap - but because the software is a UX nightmare.
That's a solvable problem. One which Samsung and AT&T are clearly not capable of solving, but solvable nonetheless.
I never understood why those hardware companies like Samsung won't bring in some talented or established external design team to work on the UI and general behavior of their software. I mean those guys have to realize that while software can be THE selling point of their devices, it will always fall short as long as it's just an afterthought.
Bolting on an external design team almost never solves the problem. They don't know how to navigate the company, the engineers don't trust them, and the execs rabidly defend their territory, which they see the acquisition encroaching on.
The external team sticks around for 2 years (or whatever) until they've completed their earn-out, and then they bolt.
Think about it like this: it takes the design team six months to figure out who to talk to. By then, the product team is locking down the next version of the product. The design team spends the next year prototyping beautiful features for v.Next. v.Next rolls around, compromises are made, the design team is inevitably broken up in a re-org, and, by the time they're ready to actually contribute, their two years are up, and they split.
Because they are designing by committee. Samsung surely already has World-class designers on their team. However those designers don't have dictatorial power to make hard decisions and tell entire divisions of the company that they are SOL. But that is what would be required for them to put out something great.
That is why it is so much easier for startups to innovate than big companies.
Well, I see that point, however it's just hard for me to grasp - clearly Samsung (like many other hardware manufacturers) have to acknowledge that their bottleneck often is design and UX. Yet they have all the resources to change that readily available.
On the other hand, the longer I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that pleasing and intuitive design just isn't a major focus for those brands, and maybe not even for their customers: After all it's not something you can put as a bullet point or spec on the back of the packaging.
Not saying that it is not solvable, but the damned IR remote is a limitation. A big one (no "pointing" whatsoever and huge input latency).
Maybe a first step towards an acceptable UX could be using a new communications standard for remotes. Something like copying the current generation gaming consoles' controllers. :)
If anyone is going to win the 'smart TV' space and make second screen apps generally palatable to a broad base of consumers, it'll be Apple.
One thing that's interesting to consider is that Apple can't be making much, if any, money on the Apple TV. They also can't be making a ton of money on iTunes-sold content, although they finally did admit recently that the iTunes Store is no longer a break-even business that exists solely to sell hardware. And Apple, traditionally, has loved having fat margins. So, where are they going to make money in this?